Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 18:17:56 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#120
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 30 Dec 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 120
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Schools and SSN
Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
SSN and new baby
Radar Detector Prohib
Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares)
Re: UPS Digital Clipboards
Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Zip+4 Problems?
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:54:57 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
>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.
I'll bet anyone a dollar that the school merely writes down the alleged
SSN provided for each kid without any verification. A kidnapper (or more
likely a parent fleeing an abusive spouse) with the brains of a chipmunk
would give a fake SSN.
As has often been noted before, one of the reasons that the SSN is a poor
choice of ID is that it is so easy to make one up. Practically any nine
digit string starting with 0 through 5 is a valid SSN.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
------------------------------
From: Phil Karn <karn@qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 10:35:04 GMT
These "radar detector detectors" probably operate by looking for
spurious microwave local oscillator radiation from the detectors. Any
superhet or synchrodyne detector is going to have a local oscillator,
and shielding it sufficiently is probably too expensive. Too much
leaks back through the mixer to the antenna.
An alternative would be to spread the local oscillator and then
despread it at the first IF. Hopefully the spurious radiation would
then be too far below the noise floor of the detector detector.
Phil
------------------------------
Subject: SSN and new baby
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:19:31 -0500
From: "David I. Dalva" <dave@tis.com>
What experience have people in this group had in keeping the SSN of a newborn
private? I have heard that some hospitals insist on submitting the paperwork
to the Social Security Administration to obtain the number.
Dave
------------------------------
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:02 GMT
Date Entered: 12-28-92 13:58
John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> writes:
in Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.118.4@pica.army.mil>
JD> No, not at all. The states base their law on their right to
regulate
JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle. Virginia got burned early on by
JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
JD> the vehicle. Thus the use of radar detector detectors.
JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
JD> flashing light bans. Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court
JD> test is anyone's guess.
Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US. In Canada
the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them
illegal. No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge...
just plain made them illegal...
Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it
possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course,
for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would
love it, wouldn't they? Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this
way. US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.
Bob
---
RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
------------------------------
From: John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com>
Subject: Posting Email (was Re: Final Answer to Tavares)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 09:43:29 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>[Email posted without my permission is deleted, as such an act is
> totally unacceptable to me. I have stated before that I consider
> such an act a gross breach of net.ethics.]
>{Since Tavares is willing to stoop to the posting of email without
> permission or even notification, the followup is set to a group
> where he will feel much more at home}
This thread originated in talk.politics.guns but it has wider implications
so this is cross-posted appropriately.
I received this month's "Folio" magazine, a trade publication of the
publishing industry. In the "Briefings" column (current events) is
a note that is relevant to people posting private email.
"Harpers" magazine has just been ordered to pay "controversal writing
professor" (Folio's words) Gordon Lish $2000 in a violation of the fair use
provision of the Copyright act. A federal judge found that Harpers violated
fair use by publishing about half of a letter Lish sends to prospective
students. Harpers published the letter to "illustrate Lish's writing
style." While the judge threw out Lish's claims of libel, intentional
infliction of emotional distress and false representation, he did order
"Harpers" to pay at the rate of $1.67 per word (!) Gee, wish I could
get that word rate for articles I write!
Assuming this case withstands Harpers stated intent to appeal, it sets
the groundwork for a similar suit against those who publish Email
wtihout permission. I suspect that a suit against some Usenetter
who publishes email with the intent to embarrass or cause intentional
harm is only matter of time.
(Before anyone asks, No I have no further details. If you're interested
in details, look it up on Westlaw or something.)
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: Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Subject: Re: UPS Digital Clipboards
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:41:10 GMT
allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>I usually get a brick, wrap it in brown paper, and glue the envelope I get
>from other groups on top of the brick, writing on the envelope 'Delivery
>Refused'. Since the sending company must then pay the extra postage on the
>brick, I seldom get a followup from a company, although one company was stupid
>enough to send me two more notices, so on the third (total) notice from them,
>I wrapped up about four bricks in a small box and glued the envelope on the
>top of this box. I never got another notice from this company!
What you describe above *is* annoying the companies it gets done to.
So annoying that they got it made *illegal* as "misuse of return postage"
or some such. I don't recall the exact details, but if I were you, I'd
be expecting to get a visit from a postal inspector some fine day...
--
Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO: 1:105/51 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
------------------------------
From: "T. Archer" <ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Organization: University of Tennessee
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:42:05 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.116.6@pica.army.mil> Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com> writes:
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!computer-privacy-request
>Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:27:23 GMT
>From: Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
>Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
>Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
>Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
>Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.116.6@pica.army.mil>
>Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
>Sender: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
>Approved: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
>X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
>X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
>X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 6 of 11
>Lines: 27
>KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil writes:
>
>>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.
>
>800 numbers are a special case. They are being made "portable" so that you
>can change long distance companies without the penalty of having to get all
>your business cards, ads, etc reprinted.
>
>800 numbers are just a translation table lookup anyway. They merely "map"
>to a specific "normal number".
>
>Regular phone numbers are most *definitely* owned by the phone company.
>Ask the folks who have had their number changed when the phone company
>put in a new exchange here!
>
Or ask any BBS operator who has moved across town.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: Dewey Coffman <ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey@ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com>
Subject: Zip+4 Problems?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 16:04:14 CUT
I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
"extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
other than "where to send the mail"?
--
Dewey Coffman ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA (512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
Social Security Earnings Report 1-800-772-1213, "Lead or Leave" 800-99-CHANGE
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #120
******************************