Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 01 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 068
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Finding someone
Re: Finding someone
Re: Finding someone
Re: Finding someone
Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Clinton's Health Measure Avilable On Line
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
From: Phil Smith <smith@ncoast.org>
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 1993 14:40:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.privacy
As quoted from <comp-privacy3.62.3@pica.army.mil> by Dark
<unicorn@access.digex.net>:
+---------------
| 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..
| >
Wouldn't the "last known address" be that which was supplied
by whomever paid to SSA your FICA?
--
"If you had left when these credits began you would be home be now."
*** [Speed enforced by] RADAR for your protection ***
------------------------------
From: Carl Oppedahl <oppedahl@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Date: 30 Oct 1993 18:35:34 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
In <comp-privacy3.67.1@pica.army.mil> Josh Rubin <jnr@panix.com> writes:
>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.
Except for the cost. $75?
--
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (patent lawyer)
1992 Commerce Street #309
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598-4412
voice 212-777-1330
------------------------------
From: Larry Kolodney <lkk@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Date: 30 Oct 1993 19:47:56 -0400
Organization: The Devil's Advocate
In <comp-privacy3.67.1@pica.army.mil> Josh Rubin <jnr@panix.com> writes:
>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 $75. You can search by name,
>date of birth, location, phone number, etc. It's excellent.
I kind of doubt that. Census data is supposed to be strictly
confidential, and not used for any other purpose. I believe the
Commerce Department is prohibited by law from releasing it even to
other govt. agencies.
What Finder might contain is one of the many private data bases which
contain similar types of information, gleaned from warranty cards,
change-of-address orders, magazine subscriptions, and the like.
--
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com):
&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)
Coming to you from Brooklyn, NY, where the weak are killed and eaten.
------------------------------
From: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor@garnet.msen.com>
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Followup-To: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
Date: 31 Oct 1993 15:53:53 GMT
Organization: Detroit Free Press
Josh Rubin (jnr@panix.com) wrote:
: 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.
Census data on individual households is confidential. What this service
probably does is list public-records information about the household along
with data about the census tract in which the household is located.
--
Dan Gillmor Internet: dgillmor@det-freepress.com
Detroit Free Press CompuServe: 73240,334
306 S. Washington 313-691-2400 Voice
Royal Oak, MI 48067 313-691-2420 Fax
(Standard disclaimer: Neither the Free Press nor I speaks for the other.)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 15:28:33 -0800
From: "Glenn S. Tenney" <tenney@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
At 3:48 PM 10/30/93 -0500, "Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@netcom.com> wrote:
>As of January 1, 1993 the State of California requires a social security
>number in order to renew a drivers license.
> ... 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?
This change was because of Becky Morgan (as I recall) who authored a state
bill to use SSN's for tracking "dead-beat-dads" (parents who owe child
support payments). The drivers' license info is then shared (SSN) with
other state and federal agencies to find out who owes back child support,
and where they are.
Many of us think that this stinks beyond all belief, but it has not yet
been challenged (to the best of my knowledge). The Feds changed the
privacy act to specifically allow SSNs for drivers licenses -- actually,
the Feds now require SSNs for commercial drivers licenses, I'm told.
If anyone knows a state that positively does NOT require SSN, I'd like to
know... I hacked the 1 January 1993 changeover by renewing my license two
years early, so I have until 1996 to find a way around this.
---
Glenn Tenney
tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER
Voice: (415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 19:04:01 EDT
From: Dave Niebuhr <dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
In a recent issue "Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@netcom.com>
writes:
>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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And this is exactly one reason why more and more states are going this
way. A driver's liscense is one sure way to catch these bums. I speak
from personal experience with an ex- of one of my daughters.
> 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?
>
No. It is not a a case of presumed guilty of a future crime. It's so
the states can catch deadbeats. People need driver's liscenses in this
day and age and having a SSN on a driver's liscense is one such way to
do this.
I do not like the fact that I have to give my SSN to every Tom, Dick
and Harry, but there has to be a way to catch the deadbeat dads and
this is one way to do it.
A deadbeat could get a job off the books and what is the only way to
catch them? An SSN on a driver's liscense.
Sure, it sounds like I am on both sides of the street. In my daughter's
case, yes; otherwise, no.
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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 93 18:01 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
"Thomas J. Merritt" <tjm@netcom.com> writes:
> 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?
Welcome to big government. All government agencies, from the IRS on
down to the smallest rural municipality, consider you guilty until
proven innocent. The primary reason the government collects any
information is to facillitate tax collection and law enforcement. It
really does simplify everything if there can be one grand number to key
on for both purposes, don't you think?
These days, your SSN is practially plastered on billboards anyway, so
who cares if the DMV has it or uses it? The politicians learned that
there was this big, untapped pool of money in the highway fund so they
are now raiding it for other "socially wonderful" purposes. It was
inevitable that the bureaucrats would discover the data treasure trove
that existed in the DMV as well. This is the reason that in this day
and age, if you do not drive, you are a non-person.
The really annoying part of the DMV SSN requirement is the proof you
have to bring along to the renewal office. I had lost my SSN card in
another era so the whole licensing procedure ground to a halt. I had to
run over to the Social Security office and request a duplicate, then
take that receipt back to the DMV for final processing of my renewal.
Hell of a way to kill an afternoon.
--
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
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: James Cook <jcook@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 17:04:49 GMT
Thomas J. Merritt spaketh thusly unto the world:
: As of January 1, 1993 the State of California requires a social security
: number in order to renew a drivers license. The privacy disclosure
(Stuff deleted)
: 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?
I suspect a major factor is that if aids the child support enforcement
powers of the government. When child support isn't paid, the government
often has to fund problems that arise as a result. Given the large portion
of the deficit (relatively speaking) represented by unpaid child support,
gov. is looking for lotsa ways to enforce payment more easily. One suggest
program is denying "privileges" to citizens who fail to pay, such as
denial of a drivers license as I recall. Also collecting it from tax
refunds is an option under discussion or now in place. So . . giving the
SSN to the DMV helps on both counts. Checking DMV records is such a snap
and early step when looking for "lost persons" like Dad's who don't pay
child support.
Dad's who don't pay are apparently looked at as "material contributors to
the national and state deficits" or some such thing.
J.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
James Cook Internet: jcook@netcom.com
San Francisco Bay, Calififornia Compuserve: 76520,2727
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1993 21:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Clinton's Health Measure Avilable On Line
-----Forwarded Message----
Date: Thu Oct 28, 1993 5:00 pm EST
From: net happenings
EMS: INTERNET / MCI ID: 376-5414
MBX: net-happenings@is.internic.net
TO: * Tansin A. Darcos & Company / MCI ID: 506-6432
Subject: National Health Security Act on SunSITE (yup all of it) (fwd)
Forwarded by Gleason Sackman, InterNIC net-happenings moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
---------- Text of forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 93 13:37:32 PDT
Sender: Judy Hallman <hallman@gibbs.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: National Health Security Act on SunSITE (yup all of it) (fwd)
Forwarded with Paul Jones' permission.
Judy Hallman
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 11:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Jones <pjones@mento.oit.unc.edu>
To: support@unc.edu, oit@unc.edu
Cc: simon spero <simon_spero@unc.edu>
Subject: National Health Security Act on SunSITE (yup all of it)
The full formatted text of the National Health Security Act as presented
to Congress yesterday is now available on Sunsite via ftp and gopher. The
following related texts are available as well:
Letter to Tom Foley and George Mitchell, Oct 27th 1993
The President's report on health care
Address to joint house of congress - As Delivered
The President's speech-Prepared Remarks to Congress
The Need For Reform
Executive Summary
National Health Security Plan - Summary
Just point your gopher to gopher.unc.edu and select:
13. National Health Security Plan
The National Health Security Plan can also be found in the US and World
Politics area of sunsite. There you may search the White House speeches
and press releases for other related materials.
For anonymous ftp:
ftp sunsite.unc.edu
login: anonymous
password: your id
cd pub/academic/political-science/Health-Security-Act
==============================================
Paul Jones
Office FOR Information Technology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Paul_Jones@unc.edu
Visualize Whirled Peas!
---
Note: All mail is read/responded every day. If a message is sent to this
account, and you expect a reply, if one is not received within 24 hours,
resend your message; some systems do not send mail to MCI Mail correctly.
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and, whatever you hit,
call it the target.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #068
******************************