Date:       Wed, 19 May 93 16:29:20 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#044

Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 19 May 93              Volume 2 : Issue: 044

Today's Topics:				Moderator: Dennis G. Rears

         posting here results in junk (snail) mail solicitation
             Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN)
             Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN)
                              Re: DMV rcds
                      Re: Something other than PGP
               Re: privacy vs banks (was: Re: I won one!)
   Re: Redistribution of E-Mail attained via research Right or Wrong?

   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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@graphics.cornell.edu>
Subject: posting here results in junk (snail) mail solicitation
Date: 7 May 1993 15:16:23 -0400
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics

It appears my suspicion about the source of the junk mail solicitation
from Robert Ellis Smith's "Privacy Journal" was correct.  After posting
here (and here only) that I believed that I had landed on their junk
mail list solely due to the fact that I had posted here a few times in
the past, I received via snail mail a few days ago an envelope
containing two small pieces of paper.  One, with the "Privacy Journal"'s
letterhead contains the following:

	"We have removed your name from our mailing list.

	Lee Shoreham"

The other seems to be a printout of a bounced e-mail message attempted
to be sent from Robert Ellis Smith to me.  Evidently Mr. Smith is on MCI
Mail and is not quite clear on how to send mail to the Internet.

"	Date:     Tue Apr 27, 1993  9:56 am  EST
	From:     POSTMASTER

	TO:     * Robert Ellis Smith / MCI ID: 510-1719
	Subject:  Non-delivery Notification

	Your message 93930427145639/0005101719NA2EM of Tue Apr 27,
	1993  2:56 pm  GMT
	could not be delivered to:

	TO: Mitch Collinsworth
	   EMS: INTERNET
	   MBX: graphics.cornell.edu

	as the receiving mail system rejected the delivery for the
	following reason:

	(USER) Unknown user name in "graphics.cornell.edu"  "

If my understanding of how to send e-mail from internet to MCI mail is
correct, Mr. Smith should be reachable as "5101719@mcimail.com".  If you
have an opinion on the appropriateness of adding people to junk mail
lists because they posted to Usenet, I suggest you address them to Mr.
Smith.  Perhaps he would be kind enough to summarize and post!

(Mr. Smith, if you don't have posting privileges, I will be happy to
forward your summary if you e-mail it to me.)

-Mitch Collinsworth
 mitch@graphics.cornell.edu

------------------------------

From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN)
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 16:45:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM.

In article <comp-privacy2.40.3@pica.army.mil>, Jonathan Thornburg <jonathan@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu> writes:
|> I was under the impression that few of these "negatives" were
|> constitutional grounds for disqualifying prospective jurors.  Let's
|> see... perhaps we should only allow prison inmates to serve as jurors,
|> since that way we could really cut the rate of no-shows?

Not funny. Try again.

|> Other than
|> not being a US citizen, it seems to me that *none* of the other
|> "negatives" you mention are relevant -- not being poor, not being less
|> educated, not not speaking English, and not being unenthusiastic.
|> Indeed, in order for a jury system to be in any sense fair, it *must*
|> include a representative fraction of people who *are* poor, less
|> educated, don't speak English, etc.

Oh, it must?

Jurors are supposed to be good citizens with enough brain-power
to make a CORRECT (and HONEST)  decision,  given  the  evidence
presented and surrounded with all the BS from both sides.

Note, that there's no way to determine  the honesty of a person
(especially regarding a particular case -  one may be perfectly
honest in lots ofthings, but jus this one he has his bias)...
So it's reasonable to try to limit potential bias of jurors and
hope they're what they say they are.

The language of this country just happens to be English.
To have a juror who doesn't speak the language, which is
used in the trial is stupid.

Education is an indication (to a certain extent, granted)
of brain capabilities of a person. Yeah, I've seen enough
fools with degrees,  but there are more fools without it.
Thus,  the CHANCES, that educated juror is more likely to
comprehend the facts  and cut through the lawyer newspeak
are [relatively] higher, than for an uneducted one.

"Poor" - it's very relative. In ancient times it was believed,
that a judge must be wealthy -  and therefore  independent in
his decisions (not so easy to be bought or otherwise biased).
In todays' society, where rich and poor exporess equal desire
and ability to grab,especailly something which doesn't belong
to them - it isn't clear who to choose.  Still, I'd rather be
tried by independent self-supporting (maybe even wealthy? :-)
people, than by filled with revenge ghetto inhabitants.
--
Regards,
Uri. 	  (don't bother to respond)
 ------------
<Disclaimer>

------------------------------

From: news@cbnewsh.att.com
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 00:32:06 GMT
Subject: Re: driver's license for jurors (was: Re: SSN)
Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society

In article <comp-privacy2.42.5@pica.army.mil> Charles Mattair <mattair@synercom.hounix.org> writes:
   My only desire is, should the situation arise, to be judged by a competent
   jury which takes its job seriously, is relatively unbiased toward either
   party and is capable of understanding the issues at hand; in other words,
   how the system is supposed to work.

In civil cases, that's a good thing.  
In criminal cases, there's *supposed* to be a strong bias, presuming the
innocence of the accused party and willing to challenge the government's
interpretation of the law and the law itself if necessary.
--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
#	              No, I'm *from* New Jersey, I only *work* in cyberspace....
# White House Comment Line 1-202-456-1111  fax 1-202-456-2461

------------------------------

From: Executive Protection Assoc <cntrspy@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: DMV rcds
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 21:17:17 GMT


Any P.I., insurance company, attorney, or business with a "legitimate" 
interest can apply for the permit from the CA DMV to receive records.  The
fee is $250 and you must keep records or designate a "service provider" to
obtain the records from DMV.  It is really quite simple, even if you declare
you record "confidential" I could obtain it since I am licensed, all I have
to do is tie it into an active case, OR have a written request from a client
attorney to justify it.

Something to think about folks... thats why I like "Contract Mail Receiving
 Services", ie: Mail Drops

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
A
A
A

Jim Warren (jwarren@autodesk.com) wrote:
: Hi,

: Just noticed your post in Computer Privacy Digest V2 #040.

: > I know that California makes it illegal to have such records.

: Absolutely not so.  Any private investigator can get them (but has to keep
: records of why they are requesting them, and those records are audited).  Also
: any organization with a "legitimate business intereste" (I think that's how
: the statute is phrased) can get 'em.  All for a fee, of course -- this is a
: significant profit center, uh, "revenue" center for the State DMV.

: --jim

-- 
                                             

Chris Hall
Director of Marketing
Executive Protection Associates, Inc.
cntrspy@netcom.com

------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,comp.society.privacy
From: Scott Bennett <bennett@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Subject: Re: Something other than PGP
Followup-To: comp.society.privacy
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 23:29:06 GMT

In article <SPIKE.93May18155350@world.std.com> spike@world.std.com (Joe Ilacqua) writes:
>
>	The lettering on the strip is only visible in transmitted
>light, that is you have to hold it up to the light to see it.  Hard to
>duplicate, but not very effective against counterfeiters, since they
>didn't take the old bills with out the strip out of circulation.
>
     ...yet.  However, once enough of this new "money" is in circulation,
the federal government may well recall all the old currency.  The typical
method used in such recalls is to give only a very short period of time
in which the old currency can be exchanged at banks for new currency,
after which the old currency is declared to be no longer legal tender.
The exchange procedure the banks may be told to observe can include such
nice touches as requiring identification of all persons exchanging more
currency than some specified threshhold amount, with the identification
being recorded ("Yes, sir, we need you to fill out this simple form to
'validate' transactions of over $200.")  Or, possibly, identification of
all persons would be required, but the forms filled out for amounts less
than the threshhold would be discarded at the end of each day.  After
the exchange period expires, the data would be turned over to the Treasury
Dept., which could then dish it out to the FBI, the U.S. Customs "Service",
et al.
     The scenario described above might seem overly paranoid if it weren't
for the fact that so many similar currency recalls have been conducted by
governments all over the world over many centuries' time.  Almost exactly
the scenario above has already been done at least once by the U.S. govern-
ment.  Long ago, all U.S. currency consisted of Gold Certificates and
Silver Certificates and maybe a few U.S. Treasury Notes.  After the
Federal Reserve system was created, it, like the Treasury, was allowed to
issue unbacked currency (Federal Reserve Notes.)  Later, when the dicta-
tor Franklin D. Roosevelt confiscated gold, he also outlawed gold certi-
ficates after a very short recall exchange period.  Persons exchanging
large quantities of Gold Certificates for other currencies provided easy
targets for governmental searches and seizures of actual gold holdings.
Except for gold coins and Gold Certificates that were exempted for being
items in numismatic collections, possession of gold bullion or coins or
Gold Certificates became a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or
imprisonment.
     All of this has little directly to bear upon PGP, so followups
are directed to comp.society.privacy.  (I realize there may be a more
appropriate alt.* or talk.* group for this thread, but we don't get
a full feed here, so I can only post to the groups we get.)

[Moderator's Note:  I used to collect coins and currency and was under
the impression that any coin or currency the US Goverment makes has, is,
and will always be legal tender.  In countries like Germany there is a
phase out of coin/currency where after a particular time it is no longer
legal tender but it has been never illegal to possess it after it loses
it legal tender status. ._dennis ]

                                  Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG
                                  Systems Programming
                                  Computer Center
                                  Northern Illinois University
                                  DeKalb, Illinois 60115
**********************************************************************
* Internet:       bennett@cs.niu.edu    bennett@netmgr.cso.niu.edu   *
* BITNET:         A01SJB1@NIU                                        *
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags don't wave in   *
* a vacuum."  --Arthur C. Clark                                      *
**********************************************************************

------------------------------

From: news@cbnewsh.att.com
Date: Wed, 19 May 93 00:34:47 GMT
Subject: Re: privacy vs banks (was: Re: I won one!)
Organization: Electronic Birdwatching Society

In article <comp-privacy2.42.1@pica.army.mil> Brian Gordon <Brian.Gordon@eng.sun.com> writes:
   >If I agree to pay the maximum marginal tax rate, the IRS should be satisfied
   >that _at least_ the proper amount of tax is being paid, without requiring
   >my SSN.  I know my previous bank had indicated that I did _not_ have to
   >provide a SSN for my (existing) interest-bearing checking account, but if
   >I declined they would withhold taxes on my interest.

   Am I missing something, or is not your IRS "Taxpayer ID" _identical_ with your
   SSN?  To protect itself, the bank would have to take out and send to the IRS
   the 33% or whatever you agree to -- for which they would _need_ your SSN,
   right?

You can have separate taxpayer ID numbers for businesses.

--
#				Pray for peace;      Bill
# Bill Stewart 1-908-949-0705 wcs@anchor.att.com AT&T Bell Labs 4M312 Holmdel NJ
#	              No, I'm *from* New Jersey, I only *work* in cyberspace....
# White House Comment Line 1-202-456-1111  fax 1-202-456-2461

------------------------------

From: Richard Roda <roda@canton.cs.unca.edu>
Subject: Re: Redistribution of E-Mail attained via research Right or Wrong?
Date: 19 May 1993 03:08:07 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

hauben@cs.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) writes:
: In conducting research on the Net, I have often gotten requests
: from people who would like me to forward to them the private
: e-mail responses I have gotten via e-mail. What do people think
: about this? I usually have waited until I have finished the paper
[remainder deleted]

I will not foward an E-mail message from another person.  However, if part
of an Email message is a copy of a public file/document (such as a friend
sending me a game he found via anonymous ftp), I will resend the part
that is public, since the fact that such information is public is not
changed by the form that I recieved it in.
--
   Richard E. Roda, Computer Science at UNCA.
   The opinions expressed above are mine alone.
   PGP v2.2 public key available by E-Mail or finger ivy.cs.unca.ed

------------------------------


End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #044
******************************