Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 11:12:03 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#118
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 24 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 118
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
RSA Algorithm
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Re: Comm Week article omits PGP
SSN Update - Va.,Mass. and DC
Re: Schools and SSN
SSN's discontinued by MA Registry of MV
CA Privacy Hotline
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: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:38:34 -0500 (EST)
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@cmu.edu>
Subject: RSA Algorithm
Could someone please explain the RSA algorithm to me - the part that REALLY
confuses me is how one key can remain public but not be useable to decrypt.
Thanks!
David
------------------------------
From: Paul Olson <olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:35 EST
In article <comp-privacy1.116.1@pica.army.mil>, rj@cadre.com writes...
>
>While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
>is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
>how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
>
>The problem I have with this is that a radar detector prohibition
>assumes that a crime has or will be commited even though there
>may be no proof of the crime. The counter argument is that a radar
>detector is good for only one thing: to facilitate the violation
>of speed limits. This is not good enough. The law is clear.
>Receivers are always legal unless used to commit a crime. If
>there is no proof of a crime, there is no crime.
I own a detector and use it for its intended purpose: detecting microwave
emissions!
If the state governments wanted to be serious about curbing the use of radar
detectors (as well as the lack of seat belt use), they could allow the
insurance companies to increase the premium of a driver ticketed for speeding
while using a radar detector. Hitting people in the wallet is the best way to
modify their behaviour.
>
>--
>The software engineer's credo: Eschew Obfuscation
>
>Rob deFriesse Mail: rj@ri.cadre.com
>Cadre Technologies Inc. Phone: (401) 351-5950
>222 Richmond St. Fax: (401) 351-7380
>Providence, RI 02903
>
>I don't speak for my employer.
__ Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict
C= /// Voice - 301/286-4246, 301725-5501
__ /// DECnet- DSTL86::OLSON
\\\/// Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov
\XX/ Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.
AMIGA "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation
of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt
------------------------------
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@graphics.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:36:22 -0500
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics
In <comp-privacy1.116.1@pica.army.mil> rj@cadre.com (Rob deFriesse) writes:
>While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
>is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
>how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
>The problem I have with this is that a radar detector prohibition
>assumes that a crime has or will be commited even though there
>may be no proof of the crime. The counter argument is that a radar
>detector is good for only one thing: to facilitate the violation
>of speed limits. This is not good enough. The law is clear.
>Receivers are always legal unless used to commit a crime.
OK, I'm with you this far, but then you add:
>If
>there is no proof of a crime, there is no crime.
Oops, now you've gone too far. If I murder your sister and you have no
proof, I've still committed a crime. Not getting caught doesn't make me
innocent.
-Mitch Collinsworth
mitch@graphics.cornell.edu
------------------------------
From: John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 22:56:56 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
rj@cadre.com (Rob deFriesse) writes:
>: Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
>: detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
>While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
>is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
>how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to regulate
what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by
confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors.
This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court
test is anyone's guess.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
jgd@dixie.com | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
------------------------------
From: Sharon Fisher <slf@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Comm Week article omits PGP
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:12:49 GMT
Sharon Fisher <slf@netcom.com> writes:
>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:
>>An article in the December 14, 1992 Communications Week describes
>>an encryption arrangement said to be used by "many users", namely
>>using a public-key method to encrypt a DES key which is then used
>>to encrypt the message.
>>The article goes on at length but somehow manages to miss PGP, which
>>I suspect is the most widely used software that does this.
>The article I turned in included a reference to PGP; it was cut out in
>the editing process, of which I am not a part.
Shoulda checked before I typed. PGP was indeed cut for length, but I
did it myself.
------------------------------
From: David Banisar <Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: SSN Update - Va.,Mass. and DC
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:59:37 GMT
3 updates on the SSN front:
The Virginia General Assembly's ad hoc committee on SSN's will be
having another meeting on Jan. 11, 1993 in Richmond. At that point,
a draft bill on removing SSNs off of driver's licenses. They may
also vote to form a permanent committee on privacy issues and
discuss a privacy commissioner bill that the CPSR, Washington Office
helped draft.
In Mass, CPSR members have been working with the legislature on
S.1036, which will remove SSNs off of Mass. Licenses. A electronic
copy of that bill will be available as soon as it is complete (about
a week of so).
In Washington, DC, the DC Govt. removed the requirement that all DC
lawyers disclose their SSNs, citing the Privacy Act, after requested
by the ACLU and CPSR.
------------------------------
From: Alan Heckman <oracle!us.oracle.com!aheckman@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
Organization: Oracle Corp
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:24:21 GMT
Apparently-To: uunet!comp-society-privacy
I think the reason for kids needing SSN to enter school and kids having
them by the time is so that the Feds can better track abducted kids.
--
Alan J. Heckman My opinions...
Oracle Corporation
HP Products Division
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:25:48 PST
From: Dave Crimmin DTN 226-5857 23-Dec-1992 1021 <crimmin@delni.enet.dec.com>
Subject: SSN's discontinued by MA Registry of MV
The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles announced yesterday that they
will no longer use SSN's on licenses. The brief report on the radio this
morning did not go into detail on how/if present license numbers (which for
most people are the SSN) would be converted. The privacy issue was cited as
the driving force behind the policy change.
------------------------------
From: Dewey Coffman <ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey@ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com>
Subject: CA Privacy Hotline
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:41:25 CUT
This was forwarded to me by someone who's name has been lost.
California consumers who feel their privacy has been invaded now have a
hotline to call to report their problem and receive helpful
information. The California Privacy Rights Clearinghouse went on line
this week at 1-800-773-7748. Gabriela Castelan reports...
Telemarketing calls, junk mail, eavesdroppers on cellular and cordless
phones and problems with credit reporting agencies top the list of
privacy concerns being reported to the new privacy hotline. Beth
Givens is the project director of the hotline which is being operated
by the University of San Diego's Center for Public Interest Law.
"I think most of us hold our privacy pretty dear and with the great
sophistication of computers and telecommunications and I must say the
growing sophistication of them, I think more and more people are
feeling that their losing control of their personal information. And
what we want to do is be able to tell people how they can exert some
influence about how information about them is used, and to some extent
try to control how it's used."
The privacy hotline will compile caller complaints and report them to
state lawmakers. This is Gabriela Castelan.
Additional quote from Beth Givens (11/11/92)... "What we're going to
do with all this information is at the end of the year analize the
types of questions that we've gotten and the types of concerns that
Californians are addressing to us and we will be looking at the
existing laws and public utility commission regulations and we will be
writing a policy report making recommendations about ways that people's
privacy can be further protected through laws and regulations. And we
will be addressing that report to the legislature and to the public
utilities commission."
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #118
******************************