Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 16:51:19 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 V3#045
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 23 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 045
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Directory of Scholarly Electronic Conferences, 7th Revision Relea
SSNs over Police Radio
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
Privacy When Shopping (Was Re: ANI)
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#040
Privacy Ammendment to Constitution
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: Sun, 19 Sep 93 22:28:45 EST
From: Diane Kovacs <DKOVACS@kentvm.kent.edu>
Subject: Directory of Scholarly Electronic Conferences, 7th Revision Relea
The 7th Revision of the _Directory of Scholarly Electronic
Conferences_ is now available on the LISTSERV@KENTVM or
LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU and via anonymous
FTP to ksuvxa.kent.edu in the library directory.
This announcement is extracted from the ACADLIST README file
*****************
This directory contains descriptions of electronic
conferences (e-conferences) on topics of interest to
scholars. E-conference is the umbrella term that includes
Bitnet and Internet discussion lists, Internet interest
groups, Usenet newsgroups, distributions for e-journals, e-
newsletters, electronic fora, etc. We have used our own
judgment in deciding what is of scholarly interest, and will
consider any advice or critique about our decisions.
********
The Files Available
********
ACADLIST README (explanatory notes for the Directory)
ACADSTAC HQX (binhexed, self-decompressing, HYPERCARD
version of the Directory - Keyword
searchable) 498
ACADSMAL HQX (the above only smaller for small screen
Macs)
ACADLIST FILE1 (Anthropology- Education) 85 k
ACADLIST FILE2 (Geography-Library and Information Science)
115k
ACADLIST FILE3 (Linguistics-Political Science) 64k
ACADLIST FILE4 (Psychology-Writing) 68k
ACADLIST FILE5 (Biological Sciences) 55k
ACADLIST FILE6 (Physical Sciences) 51k
ACADLIST FILE7 (Business, Academia, News) 31k
ACADLIST FILE8 (Computer Science; Social, Cultural, and
Political Aspects of Computing; and
Academic Computing Support) 139k
ACADLIST CHANGES (Listing of all deleted e-conferences
deleted because they no longer function)
***********
How to retrieve files from the LISTSERV@KENTVM or
LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU
***********
1. Send an e-mail message addressed to LISTSERV@KENTVM or
LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU.
2. Leave the subject and other info lines blank.
3. The message must read:
GET Filename Filetype f=mail
(e.g., ACADLIST FILE1 or ACADSTAC HQX or whatever)
4. If you need assistance receiving, etc. contact your local
Computer Services people
***********
How to retreive files via anonymous FTP to KSUVXA.KENT.EDU
***********
1. type: ftp KSUVXA.KENT.EDU at your dollar sign prompt
(VAX) your shell prompt (Unix) or ready screen (IBM VM). If
you are on another kind of system consult with your computer
services people to find out the proper procedure.
2. when prompted for 'USERID,' type ANONYMOUS.
3. Your password will be your actual userid on your local
machine.
4. Type: cd library
5. Type: get Filename.Filetype
(e.g., ACADLIST FILE1 or ACADSTAC HQX or whatever)
6. The files will be transferred directly into the directory
you ftp'ed from.
********
The Directory Team:
********
Diane Kovacs-Editor-in-Chief (Bitnet) dkovacs@kentvm
(Internet) dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
Laura Bartolo (Bitnet) lbartolo@kentvm (Internet)
lbartolo@kentvm.kent.edu
Gladys Bell (Bitnet) gbell@kentvm (Internet)
gbell@kentvm.kent.edu
Paul Fehrmann (Bitnet) pfehrman@kentvm (Internet)
pfehrman@kentvm.kent.edu
Michael Kovacs (Internet) mkovacs@mcs.kent.edu
Leslie Haas (Bitnet) lhaas@kentvm (Internet)
lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu
Jeannie Langendorfer (Bitnet) jlangend@kentvm (Internet)
jlangend@kentvm.kent.edu
Amey Park (Bitnet) apark@kentvm (Internet)
apark@kentvm.kent.edu
Kara Robinson (Bitnet) krobinso@kentvm (Internet)
krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu
------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty,comp.society.privacy
From: Mark Malson <kgw2!markm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: SSNs over Police Radio
Followup-To: comp.society.privacy
Organization: Xetron Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 21:30:21 GMT
I was listening to a police radio and heard SSNs being read over the air!
Ohio requires you to give an SSN (verified by a valid SS CARD) in order to
get a Driver's License. So since the DMV has it, they give it to the Police
Dept, who figure they can read it over the radio as part of the rest of
the Driver's License data. I must have heard 3 or 4 SSNs in the course
of a couple hours.
Anybody in Ohio had any experience with getting their SSN out of their
DMV records?
- Mark Malson
markm@xetron.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 00:10 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: ANI
Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com> writes:
> All the verbage aside, the idea that you might have to pay for an
> anonymous caller seems to bother you a great deal. Tell me, why is
> it that you seem to feel it so threatened that an entity that calls
> you knows your business (the business, not you personally) while
> remaining personally anonymous to you?
Speaking of verbage, you know nothing about how I use an 800 number.
You know nothing about the nature of my business, how ANI is helpful to
me, what I do with the ANI, how it helps me to provide a better product
to my customers, or any details whatsoever. Yet, you have gone on at
length talking about how it is unnecessary for me to have it, have
given completely irrelevant examples of how you suppose it might be
used (I do not sell groceries, FYI), and have not addressed one single
one of my concerns. How could you? You have no idea of what they might
be. You make much about how the person paying for the call has no right
to know who is calling. I personally do not have an opinion on that
matter because it has nothing to do with my situation. And if you knew
anything about my business and its product, it would be immediately
obvious why anonymity of the caller is counter-productive. But I guess
ignorance of relevant information is not an impediment to your
pontification.
> Seems to me like you could eliminate your problem by simply not having
> an 800 number. Why won't this work for you? Perhaps you've _chosen_
> to structure your business upon an accident of technology (ANI), and
> you are simply loath to see such a fundamental (to you, anyway) business
> assumption challenged? If so, well, that's just too bad for you.
What?? Why should I do without an 800 number? Because you say so?
Indeed I have structured this part of my business around the
availability of ANI. Why not? It is widely available, perfectly legal,
and very useful. Your blatherings do not challenge my business or my
business practices in any way. As we speak, my ANI capturing system is
working perfectly. I am not threatened at all. You say "too bad for
you." Really? Right now the technology, the laws, the regulations, and
the courts are on my side. Wanna change it? Good luck. Take your best
shot. In the meantime, it seems as though you are the one with the
problem.
> There are dozens of 800 number providers who
> Businesses find their underlying assumptions challenged all the time,
> and have to adapt or perish.
It is very much going my way. My 800 number works perfectly. Tell me:
what is it that I need to adapt to?
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
------------------------------
From: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: ANI
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 14:23:17 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.44.2@pica.army.mil> Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com> writes:
| >These are personal questions that I am asking here. I would appreciate
| >it that if you decide to answer that you not bring up irrelevancies
| >such as "the public" or anyone else. We are just talking between the
| >two of us. I am interested in YOUR reasons for having an abhorrance for
| >letting a business that YOU elect to contact know anything at all about
| >the person doing the contacting.
|
| I see no need for them to know a thing about me. I walk in, pick up
| what I want, and pay cash. What more can they expect?
---
Actually, *I* would be quite happy if vendors with 800 numbers would be
more blatant about using ANI. I would *prefer* it if when I called, say,
L.L.Bean they would say "Good morning, Mr. Preece, did the briefcase you
order last month work out for you? And what can we do for you today?"
than go through the charade of having me give them, again, all the
information they already have in their database. [Disclaimer - some
places don't prompt for data after you've identified yourself with a
customer number; I'd just as soon they linked the phone number to the
customer number and skipped that step, though some negotiation is
obviously necessary when, for instance, I call in an order from
somewhere else...].
I have no objection to you having your anonymity, if you like, but I
would much prefer that merchants optimize their services for my
convenience (even if it makes your anonymity less convenient). I think
most of us would prefer the convenience over the anonymity.
It wouldn't upset me if the only way to call anonymously was to call
through an intermediary service (so that the call appeared, to the
eventual recipient, to come from that service).
---
| >The custom and usage of caller anonymity, a legacy of the limited
| >technology of the past, will die hard. As the knee-jerk reactions to
| >anything that threatens the status quo subside, we may all eventually
| >look back on this era with great amusement.
|
| When do you think the custom of anonymous grocery buying, a "legacy of
| the limited technology" of the present, will die out? Should it? Why?
---
Actually, through essentially all of human history (which is to say,
until some time in the current century), grocery buying, like virtually
all other commercial transactions, was not anonymous, but was performed
in little shops run by the owner, who typically knew rather a lot about
you, both from watching your buying habits and from gossiping about you
with other customers and merchants. It's still that way in a lot of
places.
---
|
| All the verbage aside, the idea that you might have to pay for an
| anonymous caller seems to bother you a great deal. Tell me, why is
| it that you seem to feel it so threatened that an entity that calls
| you knows your business (the business, not you personally) while
| remaining personally anonymous to you?
---
The 800 number allows him to provide better service, the ANI service
allows him both to provide better service and to reduce risk. Why
should he give it up so that a (I believe) relatively small number of
people can choose to be anonymous?
scott
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 08:55:10 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma x7702 <jongsma@swdev.si.com>
Reply-To: jongsma@swdev.si.com
Subject: Privacy When Shopping (Was Re: ANI)
------------------------------
Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com> writes...
>No, I don't feel threatened. On the other hand, the business typically
>has no need to know who I am, and I'm not inclined to tell them, either.
>
>Who pays for the facilities is irrelevant; when I walk into a store, the
>owner certainly is paying for the facilities, but that in no way gives
>him (or his staff) a right to know who I am. They _invite_ the public
>(me) into their premises by the very act of opening for business and
>advertising. As such, it is axiomatic that I know who the business
>is, though in all but rare cases I haven't a clue as to the personal
>identities of the owner or the staff. Conversely, the business has
>no need to know my personal identity; certainly not just for product
>inquiries. I suppose a business _could_ legally condition entry to
>their premises by asking for ID, but I doubt they'd find that an
>effective way to stay in business.
>... The mere fact that the
>business pays for it gives it no special right to know who calls the
>800 number anymore than owning the store gives it the right to know
>who walks in the door.
>
>Yes, I quite routinely transact business in an anonymous fashion
>(at least, as much as I can - some transactions such as real estate
>simply aren't easily done anonymously).
>
>I see no need for them to know a thing about me. I walk in, pick up
>what I want, and pay cash. What more can they expect?
>
>Of _course_ businesses like to know more about their customers; that's
>the basis for a lot of consumer surveys, and all that. And I turn
>them down, too.
>
>When do you think the custom of anonymous grocery buying, a "legacy of
>the limited technology" of the present, will die out? Should it? Why?
>
>(Perhaps you routinely present ID whenever you walk into a store?
>You don't?!? I'm shocked!! After all, they are paying for the
>facilities, you know...)
Conrad brings up some interesting points. I happen to agree with most
of them, but he obviously hasn't been in one of the latest trends in
retailing today: The "Warehouse Club."
All of them require some sort of "membership card" to enter and to
checkout, even when paying cash. The salesdroids dutifully enter
your membership number into the POS machine and record your every
purchase down to the UPC number.
Someone in misc.consumers recently mentioned that they had received
a letter from one of these clubs noting the amount of purchases made
and solliciting the member to buy a card entitling them to a discount
(actually a waiver of surcharge) on future purchases. So, the
information is being reviewed and used.
A traditional practice in the business to business market and fairly
innocuous, but it has been one of the reasons that I don't do much
shopping at these places.
Ken
--
Kenneth R Jongsma jongsma@swdev.si.com
Smiths Industries 73115.1041@compuserve.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan +1 616 241 7702
------------------------------
Posted-Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:50:32 GMT
From: Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#040
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:50:32 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.42.6@pica.army.mil> Bryon Propst <bryon@boa.meaddata.com> writes:
>
>Is the U.S. Government really going to become this irrational in its
>phobia that the common citizen may actually obtain true privacy in
>their communications? What has happened to our government over the
>last 200 years? We once believed that what the private citizen did was
>his own business until there was physical evidence that they were
>harming another's Constitutional rights. Now, you believe that you
>have the right to "take a preventative stance toward crime and
>corruption...". Sounds good, but where does that lead us? To invading
>ALL areas of our citizens lives that were once deemed private, in the
>hope that you may find a potential infraction?!?
>
It's because our citizens are DEMANDING that the government take away their
rights, because they think will be safer from the TERRORISTS(tm), DRUG
DEALERS(tm), and CONSPIRICIES(tm). (Kind of reminds me of "Lions and Tigers
and Bears -- Oh my!" from the Wizard of Oz).
When (if) the public wakes up, perhaps things will change. Unfortunataly,
that does not seem likely.
>Our forefathers are doing backflips.
As one person on the net said, we could probably solve our electrical
problems by hooking up a generator to Jefferson's grave; He's probably doing
30,000 RPM by now.
[Deleted]
--
Richard E. Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu> | PGP 2.3 Public key by Email
X-disclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarily any one else's.
X-metadisclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
------------------------------
From: David Heck <O1DSH@vm1.cc.uakron.edu>
Subject: Privacy Ammendment to Constitution
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 13:52:26 GMT
It seems to me, with the dozens of legislative attempts to secure privacy
for citizens, instead of dealing with the symptoms, why not go the source
of the problem and provide a constitutional guarantee as a Privacy Amendment
to the Constitution?
It sure as heck would have an uphill battle in both houses, but with citizens
clamoring loudly to all congressional representatives on a variety of issues
the risks of not responding to critical constituent concerns seem to outweigh
individual congressmen's concerns with their party leadership and campaign
financing.
What about establishing an ad hoc citizens committee to produce a draft copy
then initiate national petition drive in all 50 states then force congress
to act....any comments? Has anything like this been proposed/attempted in
the past? Privacy is not currently guarateed in our constitution, why not
guaratee it?
David
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #045
******************************