Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 15:48:30 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#067
Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 30 Oct 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 067
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Finding someone
Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
requesting info on the effects of technology on privacy
Driver Licence Info
SSN required to renew Cal. DL
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: Josh Rubin <jnr@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Date: 30 Oct 1993 13:14:18 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
The LEXIS service has a new library called "Finder" that has census data
on, I believe, 111 million US households, including all household
members. I think that a search costs $75. You can search by name,
date of birth, location, phone number, etc. It's excellent.
------------------------------
From: Richard Hughey <rph@cse.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Date: 29 Oct 1993 18:36:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards)
In article <comp-privacy3.66.2@pica.army.mil> "J. Philip Miller" <phil@wubios.wustl.edu> writes:
>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
There may be another issue here as well (though this perhaps applied
more before today's reports that the Ethics Committee may be pursing
criminal issues in addition to ethics issues), in that it is the
Congress, not the courts, who are doing the subpeona-ing. He is not
(and never will be) on trial by Congress -- he is being reviewed for
disciplinary action. I got the impression that Congress' right to
subpeona is somewhat different than the courts -- for example we found
out with the Iran-Contra trial that Congress can force testimony if it
grants immunity. It may turn out that Congress has to grant him
immunity from information turned up in congress wrt the diary if
indeed diaries are difficult to subpoena for criminal trials,
though apparently he burned that bridge when he brought up the issue
of the diary himself.
Richard
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 13:43:47 PDT
From: Dean Ridgway <ridgwad@csos.orst.edu>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
In article <comp-privacy3.66.4@pica.army.mil> you write:
>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.
Disclaimer: I am not, nor will I ever be, a lawyer.
It would be my opinion that if the courts required you to bring in certain
documents, and you encrypt them after the fact, you SHOULD be held in comtempt.
This would be like shreading documents AFTER the subpoena arrived.
On the other hand, if police seize computer equipment and demand that you
decrypt things, then you should be under no obligation to do so, and the 5th
should protect you. Unfortunatly this is doubtless not how things would work
and you would probably get jailed for contempt.
The key question here would be WHEN the documents became encrypted.
My opinion.
[Moderator's Note: On misc.legal the issue if a person could be required
to reveal was discussed. I seem to remember that the consensus was a
person could be required to becuase the key in itself was not incriminating.
._dennis ]
Dean Ridgway | FidoNet 1:357/1.103 | InterNet ridgwad@kira.csos.orst.edu
| CIS 73225,512 | ridgwad@csos.orst.edu
------------------------------
From: alizade@ecf.toronto.edu (ALIZADEH ALI)
Subject: requesting info on the effects of technology on privacy
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 19:07:04 GMT
we are doing a seminar on the effects of technology on privacy
and the sociological impacts thereof.
please mail any info you might have or if this is a frequently
asked question, we would appreciate if we are directed to the
site where we can obtain it
thanks
ali
------------------------------
From: Jon Luckey <luckey@rtfm.mlb.fl.us>
Subject: Driver Licence Info
Organization: We don't need no stinkin' batches!
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:28:52 GMT
I heard a rumor that you can trace licence plates from any
state using a service on the internet or compuserve.
Is this true?
------------------------------
From: "Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@netcom.com>
Subject: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Organization: Code Generation Technology
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 21:50:59 GMT
I'm sure this is a frequently asked question but could not find it answered
in any of the FAQs. (If it's not a frequently asked question then it should
be!)
As of January 1, 1993 the State of California requires a social security
number in order to renew a drivers license. The privacy disclosure
pursuant to the Privacy act of 1974 states:
Your social security number will be collected pursuant to 42 U.S.C 405
and California Vehicle Code Sec. 1653.5, Sec. 4150, Sec. 4150.2, and
Sec. 12800. It is used in the administration of driver license and
motor vhicle registration laws and to respond to requests for information
from an agency operating pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The social
security number is used to maintain a numerical identification system
to determine eligibility for issuance and renewal of a driver license,
identification card, and vehicle registration and title documents; to aid
in the collection of monies owed in connection with failure to pay a
fine or failure to appear in court by an applicant; and to aid in
colection of monies owed by an applicant in connection with Aid to
Families with Dependent Children, Child Support and Establishment of
Paternity and Federal Payments for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
program.
Collection of your social security number is mandatory. Failure to
furnish the information requested will result in denial of an
application for issuance or renewal of a driver license, identification
card, or vehicle registration or title document.
My questions. What requirements do other states have for providing SSN?
Why did Maryland recently change their SSN requirement from mandatory
to voluntary? Has anyone yet challenged the legality of California
collecting this information? It seem that the Privacy Act of 1974 was meant
to discourage goverment agencies from using SSNs in record keeping
systems. Why does California now see a need, nearly 20 years after the
passage of the Privacy Act, to start collecting SSNs? Is the primary
use of the SSN n Cal. drivers license records for law enforcement? If
so is this a case of being presumed guilty of a future crime?
TJ Merritt
tjm@netcom.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #067
******************************