Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:24:37 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#102
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 20 Nov 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 102
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Administrivia
Re: Technical addiction
Re: Technical addiction
Passport Records
Re: Recording Phone Conversation
Re: Posting grades by SSN
Unfair Trade Practices
Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
Technophiliacs - cont.
Re: Alleged Rights
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 9:19:05 EST
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Administrivia
I thought I would take a second and share some random thoughts
with you:
o A few months ago I stopped the automatic reciept daemon for
submissions due to problems with endless mail loops with some improperly
configured mailer. I hope to try it again soon.
o As part of the above I do not acknowledge submissions. I
have acknowledged some submissions I have not published but normally do
not acknowledge rejected submissions. If you suspect you have mailer
problems and *REALLY* want an acknowledgement, I will give you one if you
request it.
o I will be closing out the threads on Social Security Numbers on
driver licenses and SSNs when posting grades.
o There has been an interesting thread in sci.crypt on
registering crypto keys. You all might want to read some of it.
o I am looking for someone to compile a FAQ for this group.
There are a couple of topics that really should be there. Any one
interested should contact me.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis G. Rears
Moderator: Computer Privacy Digest
comp.society.privacy
MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
Phone(home): 201.927.8757 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Rod Keller <rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Subject: Re: Technical addiction
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:42:01 GMT
Is any type of rambling on and on communication?
Do unconnected thoughts listed one after another constitute conversation?
Whoever 'he' is should be asked these questions as well.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Technical addiction
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@cybrspc.uucp>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:48:17 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Michael Gersten <michael@stb.info.com> writes:
> Is this a strawman, or what? This is an extreme view, with many logical
> fallocies.
Personally, I think it's either a prank or an exercise in hyperbole. I
found it rather amusing, but mostly because I have a friend who likes to
chide me with the same arguments. (BTW, he never turns off his
electricity, and the TV is _always_ running) This same friend, though,
doesn't seem to mind when I can answer his computer questions without
researching for weeks.
As, I imagine, many (most?) of this digest's readers, I make my living
through the exercise of technology. I know a lot of "computer geeks",
and nearly all the good ones agree that your edge is proportionate to
your level of immersion. And I, personally, have never experienced a
difficulty I could attribute to ignorance of the moon's current phase.
> Where do you draw the line? If I understand you correctly, you are
> advocating a technology level that cannot support more than a few hundred
> thousand people, which means that about 1 in a million will survive, and the
> other (million - 1) people will die. Thats extreme. But yes, it will solve al
> overpopulation produced problems.
Perhaps this is the vanguard of the New Luddites. There was a thread of
that subject recently in alt.cyberpunk.
I think this may be leaving the realm of privacy, though... until those
Neo-Ludds decide I'm too immersed for my own good. (0.25 smiley)
--
Roy M. Silvernail -- roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu - OR- cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu
#! /usr/bin/perl
open(I,"$0");@a=(<I>);close(I);$x = shift(@a) until $x =~ /^#!/;
unshift(@a,$x);open(O,">>$ENV{'HOME'}/.signature");print O @a;__END__
<perl signature virus - do 'perl -x articlename'>
------------------------------
From: Stewart Rowe <bg055@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Passport Records
Date: 18 Nov 1992 00:22:25 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
This morning, the New York Times said (approximately)
"In the '50s and '60s the State Department Passport Office
investigated the political views of many people."
My question is, does anyone know what they are doing NOW, and
what kinds of records they keep?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:34:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Conversation
In Computer Privacy Digest Volume 1 : Issue: 101
ELTQC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes:
>Can anybody tell me if it's legal to record phone conversation in Tri-state
>(NY, NJ, CT) area if only one party of that conversation knows it?
>
>Thanks
>Thomas
>
>[Moderator's Note: In New Jersey, you need permission of all parties,
>notification to all parties, *OR* a beep tone deive be used. ._dennis ]
In New York, one side's permission is needed. This was explained to me
by a cop (scarry, huh).
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
From: Chris Nelson <nelsonc@cobb.cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Posting grades by SSN
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:33:44 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@cis.ohio-state.edu
In article <comp-privacy1.100.1@pica.army.mil> Dorothy Klein <dak@gandalf.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> ...stuff deleted...
> The university droids still demand SSNs from everyone at the
>drop of a hat, and get really nasty when you refuse.
>
>
Ah, happiness is made of small victories. The other day I had
occasion to go to the RPI bursar's office to find out the status of a
refund I was expecting. They way the inquiry screens were
(dis)organized, the clerk helping me needed my student ID three times.
The first two times, she asked for my "sosh"[sic] and I replied, "My
student ID number is ....". The third time she actually asked for my
student ID! Of course, I'm sure she asked the next person she helped
for his or her "sosh".<sigh>
Chris
--
------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Chris Nelson | Rens-se-LEER is a county.
Internet: nelsonc@cs.rpi.edu | RENS-se-ler is a city.
CompuServe: 70441,3321 | R-P-I is a school in Troy!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:33:58 EST
From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" <rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu>
Subject: Unfair Trade Practices
In the November 2, 1992 issue of InfoWorld, a front-page article
appeared about an FTC investigation into unfair trade practices by
Microsoft. The investigation centers aroung MSoft's dealings with
vendors who market Windows applications that compete with
applications published by Microsoft.
Many of the details of the allegations originally made by these
competitors are typical software-related gripes: competing vendors
were not given equal access to innards of the product, MSoft had a
monoply, Msoft abused privileged information, blah, blah...
However, the first allegation enumerated in the article states that
Microsoft withheld lists of registered Windows users from competitors.
Competitors allege that Msoft did not share the list involved in a
large 1990 mailing, and that "followup" mailings (Microsoft
eventuially DID release the list) are not as effective.
Originally, I thought the issue was only marginally related to
technology issues (and hence, inappropriate for the group), and that
it was an old-fashioned flame-instigator (who owns the information?
what *real* privacy is there in ownership of the product, etc.) but it
occurs to me that if this particular charge sticks as unfair trade
practice, it is probably strictly due to the nature of the technology
involved: no dressmaker can demand competitors' mailing lists, for
example. Nothing in the article states that the mailings went out on
behalf of the Msoft products in direct competiton with others' apps.
So, is this good news or bad? Will businesses lay off mailing lists
and junk mail, since all efforts and time developing databases just
means a resource they have to share? (Yay!) Will businesses deny such
entities exist, hiding errata in a dark cellar to fester? (Boo!) Will
a technology-challenged business practice government agency be fooled
into making everyone share so much data that the economic value will
depart from this insane data collection craze? (Yay!) Can I write a
"Hello World" app, call myself a MSWindows developer, and get my hands
on the mailing list? (?)
Other issues? Comments?
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Rzepela
<rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu>
------------------------------
From: Esther Lumsdon <esther@verdix.com>
Subject: Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
Organization: Verdix Corp
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:49:18 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-society-privacy
"Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> writes:
>: wrote:
>: >3. Why in the world did our government accept the
>: >sniveling and pass the Electronic Communications
>: >Privacy act...most agencies of the government understand
>: >the problem...many of them have implemented digital
>: >scrambling.
>Well, a US Senator's aide somehow came into posession of a tape of the
>Governor of Senator's state talking to someone and basically bad mouthing
>the Senator. This tape, or a least parts of it got into the papers and
>caused quite a political stir. That tape was of a cellular phone conversation
>that the Gov. was having in his car. Legislation was introduced to make
>listening to cellular frequencies illegal a short time later. . .
Senator Robb is up for re-election in 1994. Look for even more widespread
misinformation about cellular phones from both parties then, in Virginia,
a state known for mudslinging campaigns. Ah, the risks of political
staff exploring technology when their bosses have had a longstanding
political feud!
--
-- Esther Lumsdon, not speaking for Verdix. esther%verdix.com@uunet.uu.net
Q: How many user support people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We have an exact copy of the light bulb here and it seems to be
working fine. Can you tell me what kind of system you have?
------------------------------
From: DRWIER@SCSMTA.SWITCH.CH (DRWIER)
Subject: Technophiliacs - cont.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:39:00 GMT
No, technophiliacs is not a joke. It is an attempt to become
aware of the "hidden side effects" of all technology on both
a personal as well as social level. I'm not anti-technology.
But it seems to me that the technology rush has had some
disastrous side-effects. I think good engineering requires
anticipating side-effects, especially the hidden dangerous ones.
I think we are all technophiliacs, hooked on it, real bad.
And I am not anti-technology!
Here are two additional ways to recognize if you are a
technophiliac:
1. You are in a rush. You are stressed because you are trying
to keep up with a machine (of some sort). More and better
technology seems to be the answer to solving stress.
2. You are focused on details to the exclusion of really feeling
what is happening.
"We have decided to cut your head off with an ax."
The technophiliac answers:
"What kind of an axe? Single or double blade? And
by the way, axe is spelled 'a-x-e'."
And another technophiliac replies:
"Actually, it depends on where you are from..."
And another says:
"No, actually, the more primative type of "axe" originally
came from Northern Germany in the early 12th century..."
And another says:
"But wouldn't lethal injection be more humane?"
and so on. It's humorous. Maybe absurd. Bizarre. But the
bottom line is that it is an escape.
The intense focusing on technical DETAILS for extended periods of
time for a technophiliac becomes an escape from life and helps
to ruin personal relationships. It is also BAD engineering.
IMHO we have to SLOW down A LOT, and get away from the details,
and get away from the technology we create to get a more global
and balanced and more humane perspective.
Or are there other ways?
------------------------------
From: Jacob DeGlopper <deglop@donald.eeap.cwru.edu>
Subject: Re: Alleged Rights
Date: 20 Nov 1992 04:03:08 GMT
Organization: EEAP, CWRU, Cleveland
In article <comp-privacy1.101.9@pica.army.mil> TDARCOS@mcimail.com writes:
>Would someone have believed 50 years ago that the government
>would confiscate property from people who had not committed
>a crime or been arrested or accused of any crime, yet when the
>property was siezed, the person whose property was confiscated
>would have to prove - and have to pay the costs of the trial
I expect someone 50 years ago would believe that exactly such
a thing could happen. 50 years ago was November 1942.
Just one year earlier, the US Government had not only confiscated billions
of dollars in property from some 80,000 American citizens (who had no hope
of getting it back) but also had imprisoned these same people without
giving them a chance to defend themselves. These people had not been
arrested, commmited a crime, or been accused of any crimes.
--
Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton (MD) Volunteer Rescue Squad
-- CWRU Biomedical Engineering - jrd5@po.cwru.edu --
"Well as through this life I've rambled I've seen lots of funny men
Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen." -- Woody Guthrie
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #102
******************************