Date: Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:44:12 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#053
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 18 Jun 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 053
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Administrivia
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V2#051
ssn and life insurance ??
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: Fri, 18 Jun 93 15:41:06 EDT
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Administrivia
Hi. There will be a small slowdown in publishing the digest until 5
July. I will be out of touch with my email accounts for most of the next
two week. I should still be able to send out a couple of digest.
dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis G. Rears
Moderator: Computer Privacy Digest
comp.society.privacy
MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
Phone(home): 201.927.8757 USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V2#051
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 93 10:40:41 EDT
From: L Jean Camp <ljcamp@sei.cmu.edu>
I found a statement on technology and privacy I thought applied very well
here. The quotes that follow deal with maintaining privacy with an eye to the
new technologies of photography and listening devices. The arguments put forth
resonate in today's debate as well.
However, before I post it I would like to respond to:
George Talbot wrote:
>There is a large amount of truth in the notion that the government in the past
>80 years has drifted from the idea of service of the individual to service of
>only the large power blocs among the individuals.
This statement would be difficult if not impossible to support. I doubt
that there is a single woman, man of color or labor advocate in this
country who agrees with you. 80 years ago the discussion of
contraceptives was criminal under obscenity laws, lynching was
widespread and domestic violence was considered humerous. The courts,
the National Guard and the states violently repressed organized
labor. 80 years ago I was prohibited from attending the school I
attend, holding the summer position I hold, and would probably be the
victim of violence for walking down the street in the perfectly
reasonable clothes I am wearing. ~80 years ago a publisher who printed
information about how the entry to WWI would help arms merchants was
imprisioned for teason. You represent your point badly when you
favorably compare the state of civil liberties 80 years ago. Truly that
was a "wild" statement. As the quotes below illustrate, this is a
battle that has been fought time and time again, and ignorance of the
past will not assist in bringing this eposode to an end.
from Justice Murphey's (unfortunately) dissenting opinion on the use of audio
surviellence techniques (1942) and Warren and Brandies (1890):
selections from
Warren and Brandeis The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review
That the individual should have full protection in person and in
property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found
necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature of such
protection. Political, social and economic changes entail the
recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth,
grows to meet the demands of society.
The common law secures to individuals the right of determining to what
extent their thoughts, sentiments and emotions shall be communicated to
others.
selections from
Justice Murphy, dissenting in Goldman vs United States
One of the great boons secured to the inhabitants of this country by
the Bill of Rights is the right of personal privacy guaranteed by the
Fourth Amendment. Suffice it to say that the spiritual freedom of the
individual depends in no small measure of the preservation of that
right. Insistence on its retention does not mean that a person has
anything to conceal, but means rather that the choice should be his as
to what he wishes to reveal, saving only to the Government the right to
to seek out crime under a procedure with suitable safeguards for the
protection of individual rights.
It will be conceded that if the language of the Amendment were given
only a literal construction, it might not fit the case now presented
for review. The petitioners were not physically searched. Their homes
were not entered. ... Their papers were not disturbed. But it has not
been the rule or practice of this Court to permit the scope and
operation of broad principles ordained by the Constitution to be
restricted, by a literal reading of its provisions, to those evils and
phenomena that were contemporary with its framing.
The conditions of modern life have greatly expanded the range and
character of those activities which require protection from intrusive
action by Government officials if men and women are to enjoy the full
benefit of that privacy which the Fourth Amendment was intended to
provide. It is our duty to see that this historic provision receives a
construction sufficiently liberal and elastic to make it serve the
needs and manners of each succeeding generation. Otherwise, it may
become obsolete, incapable of of providing the people of this land
adequate protection. To this end we must give mind not merely to the
exact words of the Amendment, but also to its historic purpose, its
high political character, and its modern social and legal
applications.
The benefits that accrue from this and other articles of the Bill of
Rights are characteristic of democratic rule. They are among the
amenities that distinguish a free society from one in which the rights
and comforts of the individual are wholly subordinated to the interest
of the state. We cherish and uphold them as necessary and salutary
checks on the authority of government. They provide a standard of
official conduct which the courts must enforce. At a time when the
nation is called upon to give freely of life and treasure to defend and
preserve the institutions of democracy and freedom, we should not
permit any of the essentials of freedom to lose vitality through legal
interpretations that are restrictive and inadequate for the period in
which we live.
------
I could not have said it so well myself.
Jean
------------------------------
From: Maurice O'Donnell <mo@world.std.com>
Subject: ssn and life insurance ??
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1993 13:46:30 GMT
netfolk,
I have just applied for whole life insurance for my 2 year old
(he is 2 today, the application went in a couple of weeks ago). the
insurance company is insisting on his ssn (he doesn't have one).
The question. Does anyone know if the insurance company is
REQUIRED by the feds or by the state (mass) to secure this info?
thanks,
mo
--
Maurice O'Donnell +---------^>
| * <
internet---> mo@world.std.com +-.-----. \ 7
uucp-------> uunet!world!mo \_\_/
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #053
******************************