Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 16:34:08 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#047
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 24 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 047
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
SSNs published in the newspaper
Re: Health card
Re: Health card
ANI on 800 Numbers
Thalidomide
Re: ANI
Right to Privacy vs. Employer's Right to find out what is happening in
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: Janet Prichard <prichard@cs.uri.edu>
Subject: SSNs published in the newspaper
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Rhode Island
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1993 19:49:32 GMT
Here in the state of Rhode Island we have had court documents for
our governor and chief justice of the RI supreme court published in one
of the major newspapers of the state (the governor was charged with
shooting some raccoons, the chief justice with misappropriation of funds).
Not only did the documents disclose name, address, charges, etc., but
their SSNs as well!
Do they have any legal recourse? I know this probably gets back into
the issue of whether or not the police need your SSN...
Janet
------------------------------
From: bearpaw <bearpaw@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Health card
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 14:47:33 GMT
Carl A Slenk <slenk@hal.emba.uvm.edu> writes:
>On the news last night H. Clinton mentioned a " National
>Health Security Card". Anyone have any details?
Um, that was "W." Clinton. "H." was there, but just listening in the
studio audience.
In my understanding -
There are a number of different proposals (and propably a couple of
companies working on demos in the hope of getting mucho-lucrative
contracts). The basic idea is to have everybody carry a card that is
the health-care equivalent of an ATM card. Just the basic info so
the health-care providers know that you are you and can (someday)
access your records via phone/data lines. Alternate versions are
"smart cards" and would hold relevant medical data in a chip embedded
in the card.
As far as I know, the specific card that Pres. Bill waved around was
a mock-up.
Other people more clued-in than I are welcome to add their clues.
There are some people concerned (me among them) that this could be Step
One on the path to a National Id Card. Not a pretty thought.
bearpaw
==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas==
| "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
| I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
| I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
| and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X
======================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Winston B. Edmond" <wbe@northshore.ecosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Health card
Organization: Independent Consultant
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 16:34:55 GMT
Carl A Slenk <slenk@hal.emba.uvm.edu> writes:
On the news last night H. Clinton mentioned a " National
Health Security Card". Anyone have any details?
It'd be nice if its use as a national unique identifier were as least as
protected from abuse as the SSN.
-WBE
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 17:16 GMT
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: ANI on 800 Numbers
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
---
Craig.Wagner@his.com, writes:
> Perhaps it's poorly stated, but the above is not true. I believe
> the author meant to say that the recipient of an 800 number call
> has the ability, if they acquire the necessary technology and
> understanding of it, to know the number fromwhich every such call
> is made? But I know people (my parents) who have an 800 number,
> and have no idea who's calling them when the phone rings.
Err, there are *two* flavors of ANI reception. The expensive one is
*inband* ANI, where - when the call comes in - you get the caller's
phone number in real time.
Then there is *delayed* ANI. At billing you get the time, date, and
number of every caller.
I have had two 800 numbers. One from Mid Atlantic Telecom of Washington,
DC, sent me, along with the billing page, a list of the time, date and
telephone number, and length, for every call made to that number.
Cost? $8 a month plus about 16c per minute for calls in the local area,
with the rate going up depending on how far away it was, with calls from
California or Alaska being about 31c/minute.
The second was from AT&T. No ANI listing, just a bill of how many minutes
of usage I had received. Price was $29 a month.
It depends on the carrier. Some will deliver ANI inband, some will deliver
it as an outband listing (if you don't pay as much) and some don't deliver
it at all.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 17:30 GMT
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Thalidomide
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring MD USA
---
Conrad Kimball <cek@sdc.boeing.com>, writes:
> Well known examples include: the FDA procedures instituted
> after the thalidomide fiasco
The thalidomide incidents only occurred in Europe; the U.S., because it
has extremely strict drug controls, has never allowed Thalidomide to be
used in this country. Any additional "procedures" instituted after the
incident involving thalidomide were a mere power grab by the FDA to get
even more control and power.
One small indicent is prevented because of bureaucratic red tape and
delay; it will never be known how many people *die* because FDA keeps
some drugs off the market that could be helpful to some people, or
because no drug company can make a profit by monopolizing the supply
(which is why people with Glaucoma have no opportunity to obtain
Marijuana - which they could essentially grow in small quantities in
their back yard for free - without being branded criminals. If this
particular drug is available to anyone for free, who needs to pay for
expensive glaucoma treatments? And, anti-nausea capability for
chemotherapy treatments.
Also, there is reasonable evidence that Thalidomide may be useful for
other medical applications, but it's been given a bad name by the
incidents involving pregnant women.
Let me give you an example of another drug that has a bad reputation.
A recent science special told about a man with a special disease that
was allowed to be treated with a drug that is not normally permitted
to be used in this country. He had excellent results. But only because
he was being treated at NIH in Bethesda, MD, a government hospital.
The company that invented this drug found it had other uses, too. In
fact, right now the drug that was used on that man has been tainted
because it is used for a different purpose that some people don't like.
But this different purpose is what people think of the drug that the
man was treated with. Also, it's been noted that this particular common
usage for that drug is not a large enough market to pay for the cost of
developing it; other uses have to be found for it.
I've teased the readers of this list long enough. What is that drug
that was tested on that male patient at NIH, and has a purpose some
people don't like? The manufacturer gave it the name "mifepristone",
but most people know it by the code name it was given during its
development: RU-486.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 93 19:02:54 EDT
From: Dave Niebuhr <dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: ANI
In Computer Privacy Digest V3 #045 "Scott E. Preece"
<preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
>
>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...].
>
Actually, American Express did just that several years ago and a
big stink was raised by cardholders who were greeted by name when
they called about their accounts.
The clamor was so great that AMEX stopped giving out the cardholder's
name at all. It's still there and tied to their database.
All the companies are doing is just complying with the general
unknowing public's desire to have "supposed" privacy.
Going into my pro-ANI mode:
Try the phone company. Even though it doesn't reveal the caller's
name to them when they call from home, it is there nontheless.
I agree strongly with John Higdon. If he's paying the bill
for my phone call to him on any of his advertised numbers (700 and
800), I expect him to know where I'm calling from and the type
of service that I have be it residential, business, coin phone,
what-not. Anyone who calls 700/800/900 numbers should be ready
and willing to surrender a small bit of privacy since something
is wanted in return.
If I want information something really has to be given in return.
In this case, it is a phone number.
If someone doesn't want that information given out, then simply
don't call the number at all.
Leaving pro-ANI mode:
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (preferred)
niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Senior Technical Specialist, Scientific Computing Facility
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: Lyle Lexier <lexier@sfu.ca>
Subject: Right to Privacy vs. Employer's Right to find out what is happening in
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1993 23:16:20 GMT
Hello everyone,
What do you think of the Right to Privacy versus the employer's right
to find out what is happening in their company?
Mr. Spock
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Lyle Lexier | There should be no discrimination against any person |
|lexier@fraser.sfu.ca | for his/her race, sex, or sexual orientation. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #047
******************************