Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 31 Aug 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 019
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI
Mortgage Application Woes
Re:human factors of coins
Computer Privacy Digest V3#008
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, 24 Aug 1993 01:20:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Does the "Stopper" 1-800 number use Caller ID or ANI
> I believe that I found 1-800-235-1414 posted in this group a
> while back and gave it a try to see if the free per call
> caller ID blocking that BC Tel is required to provide was
> working.
> A third call to the number above gave a different message, and
> mentioned 1-800-852-9932 as a new number to call "for a caller
> ID demonstration". When I called it my number was read to me
> again.
> Am I justified in pursuing this with BC Tel and the Canadian
> Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission as a
> failure to comply with the CRTC decision that Canadian phone
> companies must provide free Caller ID blocking or is STOPPER
> faking Caller ID with ANI?
Most people know the return of the calling telephone number
under the name of "Caller ID". 800 numbers have never had
Caller-ID. They have always (and only) had ANI. And the
ANI is what the system is reading to you.
ANI *cannot* be blocked by dialing *67.
There would probably be another issue involved since the only
way they could keep from delivering your number would be to
disable ANI on calls; assuming this was even possible, it
would trigger faults and other problems associated with ANI
failure. And if the ANI is part of the tariff for 1-800 calls,
then it would require rewriting the tariff to change it.
Now there really is very little the CRTC can do anyway, if the
1-800 number is within the U.S., even assuming that this
capability is illegal, since the U.S. company is doing nothing
illegal under U.S. law, any more than the TV station in Canada
that broadcasts into the U.S. is not violating Canadian law even
though it is not licensed to broadcast on that station in the U.S.
---
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
The chicken that clucks the loudest is the one most likely to show up
at the steam fitters picnic.
------------------------------
From: Cristy <cristy@eplrx7.es.dupont.com>
Subject: Mortgage Application Woes
Organization: DuPont Central Research & Development
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1993 16:46:57 GMT
My spouse recently applied for a mortgage with Arbor National
Mortgage. The loan officer encouraged her to sign my name to all the
application documents. It came to my attention when I received a copy
of my employment verification with my name forged on it. The written
response was
"In today's busy world it has become harder and harder for a couple to
both be in the same place at the same time, so we occasionally
make exceptions in cases like yours and allow one borrower to
initiate the mortgage process for the other."
The State bank commissioner claimed she had never heard of this
happening before. She said she disagreed with the practice but could
not do anything about it because it was not a regulatory matter. It
was a contract dispute.
Does anyone have any suggestions on whom I can contact to ensure the
practice of encouraging a spouse to sign the other spouses name to
mortgage application documents does not become prevalent?
---
For those that may not understand the privacy implications of such a
practice, one document gives the mortgage company the right to obtain
all credit information on me including a credit report, bank balances,
salary history, etc. And as discussed above this information was
obtained *without* my knowledge or signature.
---
--
cristy@dupont.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 93 18:54:39 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Re:human factors of coins
In a previous article, leapman@austin.ibm.com (Scott Leapman) says:
>
>> We have the same system here in the San Francisco Bay area at
>> most grocery stores.
>>
>> I've used it once or twice, but prefer writing a check rather
>> than using the ATM card. I just think it makes keeping the
>> check book balanced a little easier. I get to write little
>> notes in the check register that reminds me what the item was
>> for. This helps alot when keeping the family budget (my family couldn't
>> survive without Quicken).
Why don't you use cash register receipts instead of the check book?
You can use the net total if you want to, or you can break items down.
I've never used one of these machines and don't expect to until they
start putting the same sort of security shields around the PIN entry
keypads that my bank has around the staff ones in it's branches. These
make it impossible for anyone except the person entering the PIN to
seem the number that was being entered. I'm always amazed to see people
holding one of these keypads up in the middle of the air and punching
in their PINs for the whole store to see. Many supermarkets,
drugstores, all night gas stations, and even audio video equipment
stores are now getting ATMs in them. I try to avoid any ATM which is
not installed in a branch of the bank I deal with. I'm really not
convinced that someone isn't recording a hell of a lot of data. Wasn't
there a case of an ATM installed in a supermarket without an encrpytion
chip being used to record card data and PINs a while back?
Why other people can't use cash has always puzzled me. I've never even
applied for a credit card, despite getting repeated solicitations over
the decades. ATMs can now be used to pay most utility bills, and
mortgages and other payments can be pre-authorized, so my wife and I
rarely write more than 1 or 2 checks a month, sometimes none!
Vancouver police recently arrested a gang who were getting into peoples
accounts by watching over their shoulders as they entered their PINs
and then grabbing the transaction reports slips that most people
foolishly throw into the wastepaper containers beside the ATMs. The
card number and all the information needed to encode a duplicate card
are usually printed on the slip.
>
>My local supermarket uses the debit card approach. It's a card that you slide
>through a machine at the checkout line, then enter your PIN. It electronically
>withdraws money from your checking account, and even has the same float time.
>You can get up to $50 cash while your at it too (if your account has that much.)
> I used to use the ATM for lunch money (cash withdrawals), but now I just get
>some cash while doing my weekly grocery shopping. There is no extra fee for
>using this, I get extra discounts at the supermarket, and can get cash back.
>Best of all, the money isn't instantly gone, it has the same delay as writing a
>paper check. I usually bring my checkbook with me anyway, so I don't forget to
>record the transaction in my register. Anyway, it's a lot faster and more
>convenient for me. I wouldn't mind if this were the norm for all stores. Just
>slide your card through a reader rahter than writing a paper check!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 93 15:50 EDT
From: "Joseph.Straubhaar" <20783JOE@msu.edu>
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#008
I teach a large course on the information society and would like to use the
much discussed "First Person" video in class. Does anyone have a copy that
they would be willing to lend or copy so that I may use it in class? Please
respond to 20783Joe@MSU.EDU. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 93 17:32:53 EDT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Sub-Organization: National Computer Systems Laboratory
From: "Dennis D. Steinauer" <dds@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov>
Stephen Block asks:
>> 1) Who is allowed to demand my Social Security number, and for what
>> purposes? I'm curious about both governmental and non-governmental
>> organizations.
The Department of Justice has an excellent (if you're a lawyer) reference:
"Freedom of Information Act Guide and Privacy Act Overview", Septermber
1992. Sold by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov't Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402. It's really quite good. It states the following (p
415):
Briefly, the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security
Number)) says: "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local
government agency to deny any individual right, benefit, or privilege
provide by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his
social security account number: Sec. 7(a)(1).
However, this does NOT apply to "(1) any disclosure which is required
by federal statute; or (2) any disclosure of a ssn to any Federal, state,
or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and
operating before 1 Jan 1975, if such disclosure was required under
statute....
Also, the Tax Reform Act of 1976 ... expressley exempted state agencies
from this restriction for "administration of any tax, general public
assistance, driver's license, ...
>> 2) Is there any penalty for violation of this law, i.e. for
>> withholding benefits, memberships, etc. on sole grounds of refusal
>> to give a Social Security number?
There are civil remedies (read "sue 'em") and $5,000 criminal penalties for
violations of the Privacy Act. You'd better check with your friendly attorn
ey as to whether denial of benefits come under this provision.
>> 3) Is there a government publication stating this?
Yep, the Privacy act itself plus the (much better) item I cited above.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #019
******************************