Date:       Fri, 29 Oct 93 12:57:36 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#066

Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 29 Oct 93              Volume 3 : Issue: 066

Today's Topics:				Moderator: Dennis G. Rears

             Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
             Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
             Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
             Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
             Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
                          Re: Finding someone
                          Re: Finding someone
                      Re: Clinton Health Care Plan
               HELP: Info about software Security Systems

   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: John Hughes <jhughes@techbook.com>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT)


In article <comp-privacy3.61.7@pica.army.mil> David Jones <djones@cim.mcgill.ca> writes:
>In the (US) news recently are two cases involving personal diary
>entries being used (or subpoenaed) as evidence.
>
>I am surprised that this evidence is admissible, or at least that
>no one has even tried to argue that it should be private.
>
>(1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had
>    his personal diary subpoenaed.  Why is he not protected by
>    the right not to give self-incriminating testimony?
>
 
In the Senator's (Bob Packwood, R. Oregon) case, it was Packwood
who originally introduced the diary as evidence for his defense.
The problem is that he only wants parts of it used.
 
Consider:
 
    Committee Staffer: 'Miss X says you did A on July 1, 1977."
 
    Packwood : 'Look at my diary entry for that day and you'll
                see I wasn't in town.'
 
    Staffer: 'May we see your diary entry for July 2, Senator?'
 
    Packwood: 'July 2 is not relevant to the committee's
               investigation.'
 

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ?? 
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 17:20:51 -0500 (CDT)

Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com> writes:
> In article <comp-privacy3.61.7@pica.army.mil>, David Jones writes:
> 
> } In the (US) news recently are two cases involving personal diary
> } entries being used (or subpoenaed) as evidence.
> } 
> } I am surprised that this evidence is admissible, or at least that
> } no one has even tried to argue that it should be private.
> 
> You have to make clear on what basis such an item *should* be kept
> private.
> 
> 
> } (1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had
> }     his personal diary subpoenaed.  Why is he not protected by
> }     the right not to give self-incriminating testimony?
> 
> No.  This is clearly a misunderstanding of the law on your part.  The
> fifth amendment only protects *testimony* not presenting *evidence*.
> The SC has [quite rightly, I'd say] interpreted that to mean _only_
> that you are allowed to refuse to make *verbal* statements.  In essence,
> it says that for anything that is locked in your brain, you have the
> right to *keep* it so locked.
> 
It was explained to me that there is considerable case law here and a diary is
a little different than other records.  Generally it is not subpoenable, but
if the author utilizes the diary in order to defend themselves, then the other
side is entitled to examine the document.  The legal proceedings in the case
of Sen. Proxmeyer relates to how much of the diary should be entered, not as
to whether the diary can be subpoenaed or not.

-phil

-- 
     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
	 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
	  phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - (314) 362-3617 [362-2693(FAX)]

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

From: Barry Margolin <barmar@think.com>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Date: 27 Oct 1993 21:15:42 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA

In article <comp-privacy3.61.7@pica.army.mil> David Jones <djones@cim.mcgill.ca> writes:
>(1) Some Senator accused of some sort of sexual harrassment has had
>    his personal diary subpoenaed.  Why is he not protected by
>    the right not to give self-incriminating testimony?

It's not testimony, it's physical evidence.  The fact that it's the words
of the accused doesn't make it testimony.  It's more analogous to a tape of
a telephone conversation.

>(2) Some girl (a minor I think) apparently wrote in her diary that
>    she regrets killing her younger sister.  I think her mother
>    found the diary and went to the police.  Again, isn't a diary
>    to be considered private?

While it's considered *rude* to read someone else's diary, that hardly
makes it inadmissable as evidence.  It's also rude to go through someone
else's personal property, but if the mother found the murder weapon in the
girl's room I think she would have the right to tell the police about it.


Basically, as soon as you write something down it goes from being personal
thoughts to being tangible evidence.  The police would need a search
warrant to go through the girl's property to find the diary, but a private
citizen is under no such constraints.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

From: Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 02:40:17 GMT

In article <comp-privacy3.62.5@pica.army.mil>, "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" writes:

} What it apparently means is that if you have written records, you can be
} required to present them; you are under no requirement to explain what
} they mean.  So the answer is to encrypt them and give those who want them
} the printed listing of the encrypted file and stand on one's 5th Amendment
} right not to give out the key.  This is what the file looks like on the
} computer; this is a verbatim printout of the file, which is garbage. 

Nice try but I suspect it won't fly.  What I think it probably WILL do is land
you in jail for contempt of court, although I don't think this has actually
be tested yet.

You could try arguing that "I forgot the key, sorry", but it is hard to
believe that just stonewalling the key will not be construed as obstruction
and earn you a contempt citation...

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                               cosell@world.std.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358

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

From: Steven Minor McClure <steve@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 18:47:00 GMT

In article <comp-privacy3.62.4@pica.army.mil> Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com> writes:
>...
>No.  This is clearly a misunderstanding of the law on your part.  The
>fifth amendment only protects *testimony* not presenting *evidence*.
>The SC has [quite rightly, I'd say] interpreted that to mean _only_
>that you are allowed to refuse to make *verbal* statements.  In essence,
>it says that for anything that is locked in your brain, you have the
>right to *keep* it so locked.
>
>On the other hand, *everything* else about you _is_ subject to subpeona
>and introduction as evidence.  Letters, financial records, diaries,
>*anything* [reread the fourth: it specifically says that our "papers and
>effects" *ARE* subject to search and seizure under appropriate
>circumstances.".  so there's just *no* case for not complying with
>such a subpoena.
>
>The moral is simple: if you want to keep it private, keep it inside
>your skull.
>...

This is not entirely true either.  For instance, reporters have gone
to jail for not revealing a source.  In this case, data in the reporter's
head is legally compelled to be given.

Supposed Packwood had encrypted his diary.  Would senate ethics comm.
or anyone else (like a court) be able to force him to reveal the password
under threat of jail?  What if we had used an ordinary lock instead?
What if he had just written down a few mnemonics? ("One man's code is
another man's mnemonics"---unknown)

Let's face it: diaries, computer records, etc. are in many ways just an
extension of the human brain.  Why *should* a diary be more accesable by
the courts than a brain?

I guess the implicit reasoning is that the dividing line is where the 
flesh starts the law stops, but this isn't really the case either, as
with genetic testing in paternity cases etc.

If we allow probes of brains in cases of revealing sources, and complete
DNA scans in the case of paternity or whatever, what's to keep some
future US court from deciding to probe someone's brain with some sort
or Mind Scanner to reveal the sought information?  Would a brain become
subpoenable evidence?  I'd like to see the issue settled *before*
someone invents one of these. (100-200 years I would guess)



Steve

P.S. The more general question is: what exactly *is* the difference between
'hardware' and 'information'? (or in this case 'evidence' and 'testimony')
The line is more blurred every day.

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

Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
From: David Garrod <garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 16:35:31 GMT

In article <comp-privacy3.62.3@pica.army.mil> Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net> writes:
>In article <comp-privacy3.61.4@pica.army.mil>,
>Bob Sherman  <bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> wrote:
>>
>>This is easier said than done. Yes, the SSA will do as you described, but
>>the key here is your "last known address". In reality, The average person
>>never contacts the SSA from the time they first get the card, until it is
>>time to collect some sort of benifit. That can be anywhere from 45-63
>>years. A last known address that is 40 years or more old does not really
>>offer much help.. 
>>
>>There are much faster, and easier ways to locate a person with the
>>information you have at hand..
>
>These being...?
>
>Let's assume I'd like to contact a delinquant dad and let him know that
>I (Son) will waive all he owes.  How might one go about finding dear ole
>dad if he doesn't want to be found?
>
>Whatever the hypo, what's the solution to the non-compliant/willing
>search (aside from expensive detectives et al.)
>
If you have a name and approximate birth-date and know at least one
state where the person lived, a relatively cheap way to locate is
via a licensing agency.
e.g. most states will send you the last known address for a driving
license for a $3 fee.  In the event the person has moved out of
the state, you get the last known address in that state plus a
statement of to which state the license was changed to.
This also works for other professional licenses.
Processing time is typically 3-4 weeks from the central license agengy.
i.e. in Indiana I would write Bureau of Motor Driving licenses in
Indianapolis.

Most states will also give employer`s address for state income tax
received from an employee if you know the SS# for the employee.
So, if you strike out on the person`s address, you may be able to
find his employer`s address.  Said addresses are updated in Indiana
on a quarterly basis, and I assume that is typical.

There are books available at you local bookstore for about $18, which
describe about a 100 different ways to track someone down.
If you can`t afford $18, go visit your local library!




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

From: Tom Gillman <syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 17:34:41 -0500 (EDT)
Organization: Georgia State University

Dark <unicorn@access.digex.net> writes:

>In article <comp-privacy3.61.4@pica.army.mil>,
>Bob Sherman  <bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> wrote:
>>
>>This is easier said than done. Yes, the SSA will do as you described, but
>>the key here is your "last known address". In reality, The average person
>>never contacts the SSA from the time they first get the card, until it is
>>time to collect some sort of benifit. That can be anywhere from 45-63
>>years. A last known address that is 40 years or more old does not really
>>offer much help.. 
>>
>>There are much faster, and easier ways to locate a person with the
>>information you have at hand..

>These being...?

>Let's assume I'd like to contact a delinquant dad and let him know that
>I (Son) will waive all he owes.  How might one go about finding dear ole
>dad if he doesn't want to be found?

>Whatever the hypo, what's the solution to the non-compliant/willing
>search (aside from expensive detectives et al.)


EASY....

1) Find Last Known Address.
2) Contact that State's Unemployment Agency. Tell them you're looking for
   so-and-so, SSN # ###-##-####, this usually costs about $10. If the guy
   has worked in that state in the last five years, they'll have a record 
   of where, and can give a current address.
3) People always go home....find out where they came from originally, and do 
   the same thing there.


It's really not that hard to find people, even those who don't want to be 
found.

-- 
 Tom Gillman, Systems Programmer       |"I think you crossed that fine line
 Wells Computer Center-Ga. State Univ. | between polite lying and outright
 (404) 651-4503 syshtg@gsusgi2.gsu.edu | sarcasm" -- Dilbert
 My opinions, not GSU's...             | 


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

From: miller@cs.rochester.edu
Subject: Re: Clinton Health Care Plan
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Dept
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 18:18:53 -0400


Let's also remember that there is some subtle twisting of language going
on here: people who show up at the social services window, and
ultimately the health care window ARE NOT the clients. They have become
the raw materials. The clients (i.e. those who are actually paying the
bills) are the taxpayers. So health care will no longer be what is in
the individual's best interest, but the Taxpayer's best interest.
Typically, that will be minimizing cost.

This has always been true of social services, despite what certain
neoliberals would have us beleive; they just enjoy the aristocratic
advantage of being able to regulate the amounts of such services (e.g.
to purchase votes). Extending the system to cover all Americans is a
very bad idea: our very health will be put under the thumb of those
currently in power, who may decide to deny us services on the basis of
how we vote, speak, or pray. 

I don't want either the conservatives, authoritarians, liberals or
libertariens (as if they wanted to) to control access to my health
records, or be in a position to decide what health care I receive. That
is veterinary medicine at it's worst. The FDA was already one major
wrong step in that direction (by taking away my right to self-perscribe,
and even my doctors ability to perscribe). Health insurance in general
is a big step in the wrong direction, as it allows the insurance company
to decide what health care I need and will get.

We just don't need to continue to travel in the wrong direction.

Regards,
Brad Miller





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

From: "Francisco INOSTROZA M." <finostro@mozart.die.udec.cl>
Subject: HELP: Info about software Security Systems
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 04:32:05 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion - Chile


Hi!

Im looking on information about software security in PC.
May be security by software or/and hardware.

If you known any references or if you have any information,
please e-mail me.

Thanks!!

--
 ----------------------------------------------------------
   Francisco Inostroza M.   |                             |
   Dpto.  Ing. Electrica    | "Quando il corpus morietur  |
 Universidad de Concepcion  |  fac ut anime donetur       |
           CHILE            |  paradisi gloria..."        |
finostro@renoir.die.udec.cl |                             |
 ----------------------------------------------------------

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


End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #066
******************************