Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:07:16 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#103
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 23 Nov 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 103
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Passport Records
(none)
Re: Technophiliacs - cont.
Re: Technophiliacs - cont.
Electronic devices
Small town versus computer privacy
Comp Priv Digest
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Harry Erwin <erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Passport Records
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:33:47 GMT
Stewart Rowe <bg055@cleveland.freenet.edu> writes:
>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?
These were the notorious "alpha files," which were maintained by the
Passport Office in cooperation with the FBI's spying under Hoover. Most
(almost all?) were discarded in the aftermath of the discoveries about
Hoover. The folks in the Passport Office were digging through Clinton's
records in the hope that his files were still extant. Apparently they
weren't to be found, although it is likely they existed at one time. Those
people spied on _everyone_.
Cheers,
--
Harry Erwin
Internet: erwin@trwacs.fp.trw.com
------------------------------
From: elee@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
Subject: (none)
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:14:46 GMT
MMDF-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at AED.PICA.ARMY.MIL
To: comp.society.privacy
From: Eric J. Lee
11-19-92
This is part of the ICS 131 bboard posting requirement.
In following the discussion by Tom Wicklund on this bboard, I
read his comments on the advantages and disadvantages of using the
magnetic strip on driver's license cards as identification.
True, this will make it very convenient for grocery market
clerks to validate personal checks, and they may indeed become careless
about it. However, I believe that it is still a good idea. There must be
some level of responsibility placed on workers, and a level of responsibility
placed on citizens. If someone loses his or her card, he or she should
be responsible for (as with credit cards) cancelling it immediately. This
way, cards can be assumed valid, and check-outs at markets can be sped up.
Competent users (those who don't lose their cards) shouldn't have to wait
up for services to insure less competent users' security.
The other interesting point being discussed on the bboard was that of
exactly what information is stored on the magnetic stripe that isn't
visibly printed on the card. I would sure like to know, and who exactly
is capable of reading and using this information. Could the strip contain
information such as a person's credit record? If so, a person with bad
credit could conceivably be denied access to certain privileges that he
would not have been had the magnetic stripe not been issued. In this case,
I believe that authorities that can read the stripe should not make any
disqualifications based on it, because this would give anyone who has an
older license that doesn't have the stripe on it an advantage. Another
possibility would be to ensure that everyone has the new driver's license
or I.D. card with stripe; though this could take years to implement.
Eric J. Lee
John Tillquist's section, M 9:00 - 9:50
------------------------------
From: Steve Johnson <johnson@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Technophiliacs - cont.
Organization: TRW Systems Division, Fairfax VA
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:46:56 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
DRWIER@SCSMTA.SWITCH.CH (DRWIER) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>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?
Perhaps longer vacations (i.e., more than two crummy weeks a year),
long service leave (i.e., a PAID sabatical). Oops, almost forgot;
we have to stay competitive so make sure you get in those 50 plus
hours a week. But I digress....
--
------- Any views expressed are those of myself and not my employer. --------
Steven C. Johnson, WB3IRU / VK2GDS |
TRW | johnson@trwacs.fp.trw.com
FP1 / 3133 | [129.193.172.90]
------------------------------
From: The Wolfe of the Den <news@wolves.durham.nc.us>
Subject: Re: Technophiliacs - cont.
Reply-To: news@wolves.durham.nc.us
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:07:06 GMT
In <comp-privacy1.102.9@pica.army.mil> DRWIER@SCSMTA.SWITCH.CH (DRWIER) writes:
>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.
I can see that you consider this a serious condition, but I was
one of the ones to ask if this was serious, since the way it was written
and some of the item you mentioned as examples have a style and effect
very similar to some fairly classic satire of technology articles that
have been seen by quite a number of folks who watch this sort of
question as an avocation or profession.
Allow me to say that I have my doubts about your NOT being
"anti-technology". The whole concept throws such a view on technology
that it really can't be seen as anything but anti-technology by some
points of view.
>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?
It is my opinion that there are folks who react to technology
the way that you are outlining, but that is certainly not the only way
that folks react to technology. There are folks who use the technology
with a great deal of fear or distrust, and some who won't use the
technology at all if it can be avoided. And then there are those who
seem to take all the technology in stride. I have seen some folks who
will react to a new piece of technology with an "interesting" reaction -
they look at the new technique or tool, evaluate it very quickly, and
decide whether or not it is immediately applicable to the stuff they are
doing currently. If it is, they start using it, if it isn't they note
the fact that they've seen this technique for possible future reference.
Toeffler's "Future Shock" has, IMO, turned out to be rather an
overrated malady. Certainly, some folks show all the classic symptoms,
and the culture is suffering an effect, but it is not nearly as
pronounced as was once feared. But I don't recall if it was predicted
that some folks would find a way to deal with the phenomenon. I think
that some folks have found a way to function fully and balancedly to
technology, but they aren't being noticed and the techniques they use to
cope aren't being studied or taught to enough other folk.
To tie this into computer/social privacy: One of the main
(negative) impacts on privacy is the inclusion of personal data into
computer systems, without adequate means of checking the accuracy or for
correcting errors in that data. Folks have proposed some sort of
legislative remedy for this situation, but they haven't come up with any
really workable plan that isn't more obnoxious that the current
situation.
Perhaps some of these meta-stable individuals could be convinced
to serve as arbitrators/ombudsmen for auditing/correcting data in all
the various databases out there?
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
news@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wolves@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:32:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Joseph Demasi <jd4o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Electronic devices
I wonder if anyone out there can tell me where I can find files on how
to make electronic bugging devices, for phones mainly. Ill be happy
with any files that deals with construction of such devices. Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's 104 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses. Hit it.
-The Blues Brothers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph DeMasi
jd4o@andrew.cmu.edu
------------------------------
From: Robert Grumbine <rmg3@grebyn.com>
Subject: Small town versus computer privacy
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:54:26 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-society-privacy
In this group, posters have suggested that in times before major
urbanization people lived mostly in small towns where the grapevine
effectively meant that everything was known about everyone. This is
mentioned in connection with the present developments with computers
and privacy issues they may raise, where even with large populations
it becomes again possible for everything to be known. The people who
put this forward tend to believe that the proper conclusion is that since
it was once (stipulated to be) true in small towns with people as the
medium, that there is nothing to be concerned about with it (again
stipulated) true for large groups with computers as the medium. I've
thought about this for some time now, and have refined my thoughts a
bit.
The important differences between the old time (postulated) small
town (lack of) privacy and the computer age counterpart lie in scope
(both space and time), and reciprocity. Consider the small town situation.
Everybody (all several hundred) in the town knew what books you were
checking out of the library, how much alcohol you were drinking, how
often you went to church, and so forth. Anything you did that seemed
worth talking about, was, and to anyone in the town. (I question whether
this was ever really the case, and I've lived in small towns, but we'll
take this picture as given.)
But, the scope in space was limited. Although everybody _in_ the town
knew that you read questionable books (Marx, say), nobody _outside_ the
town knew. The spatial scope was limited. The temporal scope was also
limited in that only things which seemed worth talking about _at the
time_ were propagated into the grapevine. So if everybody in town is
reading Marx, then the fact that you did too was not passed along especially.
If, ten years after the fact, it becomes undesirable to have read Marx,
everyone can individually deny it since it was never worth remarking on.
The memories are limited. There was also the element of reciprocity.
Even though everybody knew that you read Marx, say, you knew that Fritz
was fooling around, Enid was stringing along several guys, and the like.
You knew who knew your failings, and you knew theirs. A balance could
then be struck (and usually was, I submit). If someone decided to vandalize
your house because you were X, you knew most likely who had done it and
could respond one way or another.
If the balancing methods failed, you could leave town. In the 'old'
days, this represented a fresh start (and accounted for no trivial part
of the westward migration in the US) as nobody in the new town knew you.
The computerized lack of privacy presently developing in the US is
missing the balances that were available in the old small towns. The
spatial scale is unlimited. There's no place to go where people can not
look up your 'misdeed'. The temporal scale is also unbounded. Your
actions, regardless of their present triviality, can be recorded and
used ex post facto at some time when the activity is deemed improper.
There is no reciprocity either. You do not know specifically who has
electronically investigated you, nor do you know anything about them.
Should someone vandalize your house because of information from the
electronic files, you have no means of specific response. (Theoretically
you still have the usual recourse to the police, but they have no way to
follow up as there is no way for them to narrow the search either.)
The simplistic response is to say that everyone should simply live
their lives so that they are always above reproach. This, even for
saints, is impossible. If nothing else, the range of feelings on the
part of the people passing judgement ensures that there will be situations
in which you are certain to have transgressed (in somone's judgement)
the realm of acceptable behavior. With respect to the war in Vietnam,
it is obvious that the (now) proper thing to have done is to neither
have registered or avoided registration, and to neither have fought
in the war, nor avoided fighting in the war, nor to have protested the
war. Every US man who was draft age during the war has therefore done
the wrong thing. Nor are the things which may excite hostility
necessarily things you have control over. In Nazi Germany, it was
fatal to be Jewish or have Jewish relatives.
Back to the obvious difference between the small town and the
electronic domain. Scale. The small town contained only a few
hundred people. Extremists of a type that represent only, say,
one in a thousand of the population (say 250,000 people in the US)
would likely not be present in the town. If they were in your town,
then you could either leave the town, or rely on the fact that there
was only one of them in the town (and therefore they would be less
active). Either way, scope combined with scale to limit the effective-
ness of the extremist. In the electronic domain, your 'village'
contains millions of people. Chances are that there are hundreds
of one in a thousand extremists who can know about you. Further,
the extremists are linked by the electronic network so that they
are no longer being dissipated by the community.
A brief argument might be raised that this also links the would be
targets. In practice, I doubt it is effective. This becomes a case
where the defense against extremists is something that should be done
by everyone, and could be done by anyone. In those situations, it is
generally done by noone. (A mundane example is cleaning the office coffee pot,
check the frequency with which this is done in decentralized situations
versus the number of people involved. It drops the more people there are.)
This is offered as a problem statement. I don't have the solutions.
The things that leap to mind, informing people who requested what
information about them (at the expense of the requestor), imposing a
statute of limitations on databases, and such, I don't see any good
way of implementing. In the case of the databases, I'm skeptical that
it is even possible. Organizations which have payed to collect data
are unlikely to be inclined to destroy it just because somebody else
thinks it is too old. Enforcement also seems difficult to impossible.
Your thoughts?
Bob Grumbine
rmg3@grebyn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:28 GMT
From: Robert Ellis Smith <0005101719@mcimail.com>
Subject: Comp Priv Digest
Date: Nov. 23, 1992
FROM: Robert Ellis Smith
On 11 Nov 92, Chris Nelson and the moderator asked for
a source for the different privacy laws on the books
in each state. PRIVACY JOURNAL, PO Box 28577, Providence,
RI 02908, has published COMPILATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL
PRIVACY LAWS since 1974. The 1992 edition costs $29.
The book includes 600 laws, on Social Security numbers,
electronic surveillance, credit records, health, financial,
schools, Caller ID, personnel, criminal records, and much
more. There's a state-by-state chart on each
category.
Our monthly newsletter, PRIVACY JOURNAL, answers
virtually every question that comes up on the
Computer Privacy Digest. It's available for a
special rate of $65 a year for Digest participants
-- from PRIVACY JOURNAL, 401/274-7861.
Reach the publisher via MCI mail at rsmith,
510-1719.
The newsletter is also available on NEWSNET
(800/345-1301 for an hourly fee.
Call or write for a sample and a list of
available books and special reports.
Robert Ellis Smith
[Moderator's Note: Thanks. When I get around to it, I will
order it. If no one beats me to it, I will publish a review of it.
._dennis ]
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #103
******************************