Date: Mon, 29 Mar 93 15:56:10 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 V2#029
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 29 Mar 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 029
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Virginia voters & Social Security Numbers
Rights of non-citizens
Controlled Items
law on ss.no (Privicy Act)
Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
Re: police asking arrestees for SSN
Court Bans SSN Disclosure
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: Thu, 25 Mar 93 10:49:49 EST
From: Jeremy Epstein <epstein@trwacs.fp.trw.com>
Subject: Virginia voters & Social Security Numbers
In a copyrighted story, the March 24 Washington Post includes an article
describing a ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that Virginia's
law requiring a SSN to register to vote is unconstitutional.
The decision is being hailed by civil rights groups as a victory
for the 4 million Virginians who are registered to vote. Because
voter roles are public information, registering to vote is equivalent
to publishing your SSN. The judges wrote "The harm that can be
inflicted from the disclosure of a Social Security Number to an
unscrupulous individual is alarming and potentially ruinous....
The statute at issue compels a would-be voter in Virginia to consent
to the possibility of a profound invation of privacy."
A spokesperson for the Virginia Attorney General's office said they
have not decided whether to appeal the ruling.
The case was brought by Marc Alan Greidinger, a 29-year-old Fredricksburg
lawyer (who represented himself) after he was denied the right to register
to vote because he refused to reveal his SSN. Greidinger said that
during the lawsuit he gave his SSN who was able to get his current balance
on two loans, last payment dates, and university transcripts.
It is not believed that the ruling will affect other state agencies
(such as motor vehicles) which require SSNs, because those are not
considered public records.
The article mentions help from the Public Citizen Litigation Group
(one of the Ralph Nader organizations), and quotes the legal director
for the ACLU, which was not involved in the case.
---
I guess the "good guys" won one!
------------------------------
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Subject: Rights of non-citizens
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 10:25:00
Susanna Elaine Johnson <sej3e@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu> writes:
>Being a Canadian citizen I don't have an SSN. So I know what
>happens if the local gestapo asks for one and you don't have it.
>
>You go to jail for a minimum of three days while they
>"investigate" you. Note that this isn't an arrest - you haven't
>been charged, merely "detained".
>
>Of course, if they are able to show that you are NOT a US citizen
>then the above mentioned three day limit does not apply for the
>following reasons:
>
> (1) Not being a US citizen you have no civil rights, so
> the police can do anything they want to you with
> impunity.
This isn't true. Just because you aren't a US citizen, this in no way
precludes you from having the same rights as a citizen as far as the way the
police are supposed to treat you. If they told you this, they were lying.
If they just treated you differently, they were not following the US
Constitution. You might have grounds for a lawsuit . . . (I am not an
attorney.)
> (2) They can, if sufficiently annoyed, turn you over to Immigration.
> You can rot in an INS jail for months while they verify your
> status.
> (3) It can take weeks to do a worldwide make through
> Interpol. Meanwhile you sit in jail. After all,
> you MIGHT be some sort of international terrorist...
Again, this isn't true. If you have an attorney, and the attorney can give
them proof of your status (green card, etc.), then they have no grounds for
turning you over to the INS, nor for holding you just because you don't have
an SSN. If you're legally in the country, they should let you go, unless
they have grounds to hold you for a crime.
> If I sound bitter about your land of liberty it is because I speak
>from experience.
All I can say, Anna, is if this was your treatment, I apologize. This is
*not* the way non-citizens are supposed to be treated.
Rick Kitchen
kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
------------------------------
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Subject: Controlled Items
Organization: Bellcore
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 20:27:05 GMT
Just noticed something today while filling up the ole
commuter car today, a sign was posted on the diesel
pump of the selfserv I use in PA.
"All customers purchasing diesel fuel MUST fill out
a 'receipt' BEFORE fuel will be dispensed".
I went inside and asked about this "receipt" and was
shown a form, from the Govt, that had Name,address,lic#,
Plate#, gallons, price, phone#. The attendent had no
idea what it was for but said she had to fill it out
using the purchasers license for info. Is this a federal
or state thing, the receipt had no ID as to who it was
from and I looked for a form number all over it. This
receipt is required whether cash or card is used. She
said that she thinks the owners put it in with the state
tax money they submit monthly for fuel taxes. This form
also gets validated on a printer at time of purchase.
Is diesel now a controlled item ?
--
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES
and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH #2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
------------------------------
From: vdifrancis@msuvx2.memst.edu
Subject: law on ss.no (Privicy Act)
Date: 27 Mar 93 22:26:41 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University
It is illegal in the US for a government agency to require a person to
give a ss.no. in order to get a drivers-licence, or any other
privilege,right,or benefit. Thats the law, See 5 USC 552a, Im copying
from public law 93-579-Dec. 31,1974. Sec.7.(a)(1) It shall be
unlawfull for any Federal,State or local government agency to deny to
any individual any right,benefit or privilege provided by law because
of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account
number.
(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not
apply with respect to-
(A) any disclosure required by Federal statute,or (B) the
disclosure of a social security number to any Federal,State, or local
agency maintaining a system of records in existence and opperating
before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute
or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of the
individual.
(b) Any Federal, State,or local government agency which requests an
individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform
that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by
what statutory or other authority sush number is is solicited, and what
uses will be made of it.
From: Dan Hartung <dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us> Subject: Re: Personal
Telephone Numbers Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX Date: Sat,
27 Mar 1993 02:35:12 GMT
chonoles@sde.mdso.vf.ge.com (Chonoles Michael Jesse) writes:
>Many plans for future communications systems have the concept
>of a personal telephone numbers. Some simple versions of these are
>already available , AT&T's 700 service, BellAtlantic ContactLines, etc.
>
>What would the consequencues be of every person having one telephone
>number that would be used for work, home, vacation, etc.
Oy. I can see the simplicity from the caller's end, but can you imagine
the fuss for the callee? Checking in everywhere, and what if you forget --
you might miss an important call! Then there's the problem of getting
junk phone calls no matter where you are -- work, vacation, taking off
from LaGuardia ....
I sure don't like the idea of creditors calling me at work, either.
Or people from work being able to get you at home when you don't want
them to.
For me, I like the idea of being able to initiate contact when I'm on
vacation or weekend -- dial up, get email, etc.; but being skypaged
when I'm halfway up a ski lift is not a pretty picture to me. ;-)
>Some suggestions were that you could have your social security number be your
>telephone number, but any string could be used.
Ewwwwwww. Just give it out to anyone, why not? So what that it doesn't
even have a checksum.
And the SSN mixups that happen al the time today -- no problem, just
say "sorry, wrong SS Number" ....
--
The Presidential Towers complex here | Dan Hartung | Ask me
in Chicago is bounded by four streets: | dhartung@chinet.chi.il.us | about
Jefferson, Adams, Monroe ..... | Birch Grove Software | Rotaract!
and Clinton!
------------------------------
Return-Path: <jcl4@cec1.wustl.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 23:02:59 -0600
From: Jeffrey C Lerman <jcl4@cec1.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Social Security Numbers as ID
In a recent posting, the question was asked:
As a quick question (which has probably already been answered. CA
requires SSN for getting a driver's lisc. now.... Is that legal? (funny word)
Is that in violation of other (national?) laws?
They will refuse to issue the lisc. if you dont provide the information.
Thanks
Jonathan
and you answered:
[Moderator's Note: It is now legal for a state to do this. ._dennis ]
I read in the paper the other day (in the NYT, I beleive, since that is the
only paper I read) that someone just won an appeal in a court case in VA
relating to this. They were suing the state of VA for requiring an SSN on
driver's license appications; they were successful. I no longer remmerb the
gory details; perhaps someone else does?
-Jeff
------------------------------
From: Noel Witt <nwitt@mailer.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: police asking arrestees for SSN
Organization: Florida State University ACNS
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 17:35:57 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@bikini.cis.ufl.edu
Jonathan Thornburg <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu> writes:
> In article <comp-privacy2.25.5@pica.army.mil> Wm Randolph Franklin
> <wrf@ecse.rpi.edu> writes:
> | [...] in some (most?) places, the police want an
> | SSN when they arrest you. There was a local case a few years back,
> | where someone was charged with, approx, obstruction of governmental
> | administration for refusing. He beat that charge, but it probably took
> | some work.
>
> Gee, I wonder what happens if you don't have an SSN? Not everyone
> arrested by American police is an American, certainly most foreign
> tourists won't have SSNs...
>
> Or alternatively, what if you have one but don't know it and don't
> have the card with you?
Have you forgotten your rights as an american citizen ????
When you are arrested you have the right to remain silent !!! What this
means is that you don't have to give your SSN, Name, Address or anything
else requested of you..... Simply demand all your rights as an american
citizen and demand legal councel.... Then hope your legal councel
remembers that you have rights, and defends them!!!
------------------------------
Organization: CPSR Civil Liberties and Computing Project
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 17:21:41 EST
Subject: Court Bans SSN Disclosure
Court Bans SSN Disclosure
PRESS RELEASE
March 26, 1993
"FEDERAL APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS PRIVACY:
USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER LIMITED
- - - -
CPSR Expresses Support for Decision"
A federal court of appeals has ruled that Virginia's
divulgence of the Social Security numbers of registered
voters violates the Constitution. The Court said that
Virginia's registration scheme places an "intolerable
burden" on the right to vote.
The result comes nearly two years after Marc
Greidinger, a resident of Falmouth, Virginia, first
tried to register to vote. Mr. Greidinger said that he
found it nearly impossible to obtain a driver's license,
open accounts with local utilities or even rent a video
without encountering demands for his Social Security
number.
Mr. Greidinger told the New York Times this week
that when the State of Virginia refused to register him
as a voter unless he provided his Social Security number
he decided to take action. He brought suit against the
state, and argued that Virginia should stop publishing
the Social Security numbers of voters.
This week a federal appeals court in Richmond,
Virginia ruled that the state's practice constituted "a
profound invasion of privacy" and emphasized the
"egregiousness of the harm" that could result from
dissemination of an individual's SSN.
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR), a national membership organization of
professionals in the computing field, joined with Mr.
Greidinger in the effort to change the Virginia system.
CPSR, which had testified before the U.S. Congress and
the state legislature in Virginia about growing problems
with the misuse of the SSN, provided both technical and
legal support to Mr. Greidinger. CPSR also worked with
Paul Wolfson of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, who
argued the case for Mr. Greidinger.
In an amicus brief filed with the court, CPSR noted
the long-standing interest of the computing profession
in the design of safe information systems and the
particular concerns about the misuse of the SSN. The
CPSR brief traced the history of the SSN provisions in
the 1974 Privacy Act. The brief also described how the
widespread use of SSNs had led to a proliferation of
banking and credit crime and how SSNs were used to
fraudulently obtain credit records and federal benefits.
CPSR argued that the privacy risk created by
Virginia's collection and disclosure of Social Security
numbers was unnecessary and that other procedures could
address the State's concerns about records management.
This week the court of appeals ruled that the state
of Virginia must discontinue the publication of the
Social Security numbers of registered voters. The
court noted that when Congress passed the
Privacy Act of 1974 to restrict the use of the Social
Security number, the misuse of the SSN was "one of the
most serious manifestations of privacy concerns in the
Nation."
The Court then said that since 1974, concerns
about SSN confidentiality have "become significantly
more compelling. For example, armed with one's SSN, an
unscrupulous individual could obtain a person's welfare
benefits, or Social Security benefits, order new checks
at a new address, obtain credit cards, or even obtain
the person's paycheck."
The Court said that Virginia's voter registration
scheme would "compel a would-be voter in Virginia to
consent to the possibility of a profound invasion of
privacy when exercising the fundamental right to vote."
The Court held that Virginia must either stop
collecting the SSN or stop publicly disclosing it.
Marc Rotenberg, director of the CPSR Washington
office said, "We are extremely pleased with the Court's
decision. It is a remarkable case, and a real tribute
to Marc Greidinger's efforts. Still, there are many
concerns remaining about the misuse of the Social
Security number. We would like to see public and
private organizations find other forms of identification
for their computing systems. As the federal court made
clear, there are real risks in the misuse of the Social
Security number."
Mr. Rotenberg also said that he hoped the White
House task force currently studying plans for a national
health care claims payment system would develop an
identification scheme that did not rely on the Social
Security Number. "The privacy concerns with medical
records are particularly acute. It would be a serious
design error to use the SSN," said Mr. Rotenberg.
Cable News Network (CNN) will run a special segment
on the Social Security number and the significance of
the Greidinger case on Sunday evening, March 28, 1993.
The Court's opinion is available from the CPSR Internet
Library via Gopher/ftp/WAIS. The file name is
"cpsr/ssn/greidinger_opinion.txt". The CPSR amicus
brief is available as "cpsr/ssn/greidinger_brief.txt".
CPSR is a national membership organization, based
in Palo Alto, California. CPSR conducts many activities
to protect privacy and civil liberties. Membership is
open to the public and support is welcome. For more
information about CPSR, please contact, CPSR, P.O. Box
717, Palo Alto, CA 94302, call 415/322-3778 or email
cpsr@csli.stanford.edu.
=========================================
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #029
******************************