Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:29:11 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#114
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 17 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 114
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
More on SSNs as used by VA DMV
Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Re: User-transparent encryption?
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
UPS Digital Clipboards
Computers and detective work
Re: Radar Detectors
Re: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
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
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:47:26 -0500
From: David C Lawrence <tale@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: More on SSNs as used by VA DMV
I just got back from a pretty lousy experience with the Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles during which I managed to retain a
remarkable amount of composure while feeling pretty well pissed off
about the whole thing. Most of the experience has little to do with
this forum, except the issue of Social Security Number use came back
up. After the next five paragraphs of whining, I will ask for input
from people who have dealt with the VA DMV on this issue before. The
last 60 lines is a transcript from a DMV form.
What basically happened was the when I asked not to have my SSN be my
driver's license number (DL#) I was told that it must be. The person
I was dealing with did not seem to have much of a clue about workings
at the DMV in general, but did know enough to immediately offer me the
piece of paper which she claimed mandated it. It is relatively short,
so I will type it in at the end of this note. No where does it give
the lawful _basis_ for their insistance that the SSN be the DL#.
I eventually relented just because I've had a lot of hassles about a
lot of stupid things just to get to this point. I was willing to take
my license with the SSN emblazoned on it, with the thought in the back
of my head that I could get it changed when I came armed with more
information.
It is with somewhat mixed emotions that I report that my SSN is not
now on my driver's license. That's because I still don't have my VA
license, due to a continuing comedy of errors that has not been
particularly funny.
The short form: they told me I could get my motorcycle only license
here by taking the vision test, the motorcycle written test and then
the motorcycle road test --- this all because my NY DL just expired on
my birthday Saturday. So I took them all today, the examiner approved
me for my VA motorcycle only license, I was in the payment line, they
punched it up, told me how much to pay, I wrote the cheque ... and the
computer won't take it because I didn't take the auto written test.
Now I have to go back for that. (Stupid questions that don't have
anything directly to do with driving. "The penalty for a first offense
conviction of drunken driving is ..." I don't even drink booze!)
I'll get back to the relevant bits. I expect to be going back
tomorrow to take the auto written and road tests, providing I can find
someone with a car that will go. Presuming that all goes through, and
that NJ DMV finally tells the National Driver's Registry (or whatever)
that our little disagreement about something that happened in 1988 is
_finally_ cleared up, then I am once again to be faced with actually
getting that little piece of laminated cardboard and having some sort
of number printed on it as my primary form of ID.
What I would really like to know is the magic words to make them not
use my SSN as my DL#. I am certain I have seen it published here that
some Virginians have accomplished this feat even without having lack
of an SSN as an excuse (which is what Tyson's Corner DMV is telling me
is their exception). In fact, I thought it was a couple of people
providing first hand accounts of how they accomplished it. A pointer
to archives of this digest would be a good start (feel free to insert
one here, Dennis), but it would be even better if I could hear from
the other people who have conquered this.
[Moderator's Note: Location of the archives is put as part of the
banner of the digest. Thanks for reminding me that USENET folks don't get
the digest. Here's the banner:
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
[129.139.160.133].
._dennis ]
You know you have a sad life when you have the telephone numbers for
three states' DMVs memorised.
David Lawrence
Here is the text of slip of a paper that they gave me.
One side:
Commonwealth of Virginia
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
The Requirement for Disclosure of Social Security Number
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE/DRIVER'S LICENSE
It is mandatory that all persons who have been assigned a social
security number and who apply for a Virginia Certificate of Title or
Driver's License must furnish their social security number on the
application in accordance with Sections 46.1-52 (Titles) and 46.1-368
(Driver's Licenses) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Otherwise the Certificate of Title or Driver's License will be denied.
If you have never been issued a social security number, you will not
be required to obtain one, but must so indicate on the application.
In such instances, DMV will supply a control number as the Driver's
License number.
The Division of Motor Vehicles uses the social security number as the
licensee's Driver's License number for record keeping purposes only.
This information is furnished to you in compliance with Section 7 of
Public Law 93-579 (Federal Privacy Act of 1974).
The other side:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICHLES
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION
VEHICLE TITLE AND/OR REGISTRATION AND DRIVER'S LICENSE
The information requested on an application for a certificate of title
and/or registration or driver's license in accordance with Section
46.1-52 (Titles and Registrations) and Section 46.1-368 (Driver's
License), of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, is subject to
dissemination to authorized agencies or individuals.
Any person who refuses to supply the required information will be
denied a certificate of title and/or registration or driver's license.
All registration and title records in the office of the Division of
Motor Vehicles are public records subject to such regulations as the
Commissioner may adopt.
Copies of administrative rules and regulations are available from the
Division of Motor Vehicles, 2220 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia.
This information is furnished to you in compliance with Title 2.1,
Chapter 26, Section 2.1-382, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
(Virginia Privacy Protection Act of 1976)
MOA-50
------------------------------
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Subject: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:58:00
I don't know if this applies to private residence numbers, but recently, MCI
has been advertising in California that if you want lower rates on your
800-number charges, you can transfer from Pacific Telephone and TAKE YOUR
800-NUMBER WITH YOU. This kind of implies that the number belongs to you,
not to the telco.
Rick Kitchen
kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
------------------------------
From: Don Watrous <watrous@athos.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: User-transparent encryption?
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:43:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
>The only answer is to be on a single-user machine -- not allow any other
>logins (or any remote access via RPC) while you're logged in. Once you've
>done that, PEM can take care of mail privacy and DES can handle file
>privacy.
And boot it from your own disk or a Trojan could get you.
Don
--
{backbone}!cs.rutgers.edu!watrous watrous@cs.rutgers.edu
------------------------------
From: Brad Whitlock <bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:56:10 CST
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
In <comp-privacy1.112.4@pica.army.mil> Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> writes:
>I am real sorry guys. If the idea is use my DL number, not my SSN, so I
>can evade my obligations, I am against it. There is enough evasion of
>obligations already.
The point is, there is nothing legal you can use the SSN for that DL
can't provide. Just how do you use my SSN, hmmm? I've never gotten
a good answer to that question before; presumably you can fill me in?
And by the way, do you demand to see the original SSA-issue SSN card?
No? How do you know the person is giving you their real SSN, and not
someone else's?
> If not, prepare to cough up everything if you want $$$ from me.
Fine. There's probably someone else who *does* want my business.
Brad Whitlock bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com
------------------------------
From: StarOwl <StarOwl@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:06:52 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.112.5@pica.army.mil>, Charles Scripter
<cescript@phy.mtu.edu> writes:
>>In <comp-privacy1.107.7@pica.army.mil> dileo@brl.mil (John DiLeo, CSB) writes:
>> > Actually, I'm not so sure about DC. However, radar detectors are
>> > illegal in Connecticut, and the presence of one in the passenger
>> > compartment of a vehicle (including under the seat, unplugged) can
>> > (or at least once did) carry a pretty hefty penalty. If one was
>> > permanently installed in another state (the variety where the
>> > transceiver is behind the grill, and the control unit is in the
>> > dash) you could only be ticketed if they believed it was operating.
>Isn't use of electronic surveillance devices illegal under federal
>law? (from the days of Watergate). Wouldn't that make the use of
>police radar illegal, without a warrant?...
Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's,
which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere
in the electromagnetic spectrum.
--
Michael Adams | Science without religion is lame;
Actuarial Science Program @ UIUC | religion without science is blind.
StarOwl@uiuc.edu (NeXTmail OK) | -- Thomas Edison
an692@anon.penet.fi (anonymously) | NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv
------------------------------
From: Joe Kennedy <jk@flamingo.esd.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Date: 15 Dec 1992 03:36:51 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA
It is my understanding, at least in Campbell, CA., that the photo radar
equipment is not sold to the police, but is leased. The manufacturer of
the equipment, somewhere in Texas, collects royalties from each ticket
collected. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, how widespread
is this ( vile ) practice ?
It seems to me that of someone were to get a couple of 12 volt very high
intensity lamps, such as aircraft wing lights, and use them to
illuminate the liscense plate, the liscense plate image in the photo
should be completely washed out. Certainly, there is no way the same
film frame could properly record a highly illuminated plate AND a
normally illuminated driver's face.
jk
------------------------------
From: Ed Ravin <eravin@panix.com>
Subject: UPS Digital Clipboards
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:10:38 GMT
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face
In article <comp-privacy1.111.8@pica.army.mil> roy@cybrspc.uucp (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:
>As you might expect, UPS has conveniently forgotten that they demanded
>I _sign_ the pad. I print, he accepts it and we go on about our work.
>So far, nobody's clipboard has been hijacked and I haven't seen my
>purloined siggie attached to any incriminating faxes. Perhaps the risks
>were overstated in the beginning.
Do what many of us techno-troublemakers are already doing with junk mail
lists -- sign an extra middle initial or two, or otherwise alter your
moniker so that you can identify "the signature I use on UPS clipboards".
I do this for most new groups that I join, just to see how far and wide
they will scatter my name. For example, the amount of mail I receive
from other groups when I joined the Sierra Club is frightening -- fortunately,
the stream of mail withered away when I renewed and scribbled "STOP SHARING
MY NAME WITH OTHER MAILERS" on the renewal form.
>But UPS hasn't started dumping the clipboards' contents by radio, yet.
>Wonder if they're familiar with the terms 'encryption' and 'scanner'?
Don't worry, be happy, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it
illegal for anyone to "listen" to the stuff :-) :-)
--
Ed Ravin | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology
eravin@panix.com | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature
philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
+1 914 993 4737 | and all watched over by machines of loving grace
------------------------------
From: Mark Gellis <f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Subject: Computers and detective work
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:18:56 GMT
I've become interested in the use of computers for detective and police
work. (Mostly, if you must know, because I write and I want the informa-
tion for background material.) Unfortunately, there do not seem to be
many good books on the subject--on the actual nuts-and-bolts, how-they-
do-it stuff. Does anyone have any information on this subject, either
sources you would recommend, or any interesting stories/folklore/etc.
detailing procedures?
Thanks in advance.
Mark
f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
------------------------------
From: Matthew B Cravit <cravitma@student.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:16:56 EST
In comp.privacy.digest #112, Paul Olson <olson@dst186.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:
> Yea, it is possible to detect radar detectors. Apparently, some detectors giv
e
> off a small amount of microwave activity themselves. The VSP have a box to
> detect changes in the level of ambient microwaves, and can tell if you're
In fact, I was in Radio Shack recently, and they had two radar detectors
sitting on the counter and beeping away periodically. I asked the manager what
they were detecting, and he replied "each other."
An interesting tidbit - I am from Canada, and where I lived, if the police
found a radar detector in your car, they could confiscate it, fine you, and
potentially charge you with obstruction of justice. And this applied even if
the detector was turned off, unplugged and in a glove compartment. Of course,
who knows how they could find it in that case, but if it is plugged in, and
visible, it is illegal even if it is turned off AND if you are not speeding.
I've also heard rumours that the police periodically auction off these
confiscated detectors. Hmm... the cops giveth and the cops taketh away... :->
/Matthew
cravitma@student.msu.edu
------------------------------
From: John Nagle <nagle@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:30:03 GMT
"Len E. Elam" <lelam%kuwait@sun.com> writes:
>I spotted this in the Monday, December 7, 1992 morning edition of the
>{Fort Worth Star-Telegram} on Section A, Page 10:
>From Wire Reports
> HOUSTON -- The U.S. Department of Energy has won approval of
>procedures that allow the agency to spy on citizens, a newspaper
>reported yesterday in a copyright story.
Interesting. DOE mostly uses Wackenhut Corporation for security,
and Wackenhut has a reputation for doing more than just providing guards.
(See recent article in "Spy" magazine). Perhaps this is a ploy to get
Wackenhut more authority. Watch and see where Barr ends up after Clinton
replaces him. Wackenhut's board already has had a former FBI director,
a former DIA director, a former Secret Service Director, a former NSA
director, a former Defense secretary, a former NORAD commander,
and two former CIA deputy directors. Will they complete their collection
with a former AG?
I recommend the Spy article, in the September 1992 issue, for
a lurid account of Wackenhut's involvement with DoE, Iran/Contra,
El Salvador, Iraq, Libya, weapons deals, etc. Names, dates, and places
are given. Wackenhut even admits some of these involvements. They
don't think of themselves as the bad guys, just the guys who do the
Government's dirty work.
John Nagle
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #114
******************************