Date: Tue, 02 Nov 93 10:16:45 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#069
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 02 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 069
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: California Driver License and SSN
Re: California Driver License and SSN
Re: California Driver License and SSN
Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Re: Senator Proxmire
CLI News from Spain - Nov. 1, '93
Privacy Advocate
Electronic Checks
Re: Driver Licence Info
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: Sat, 30 Oct 93 14:18:01 PDT
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cmsa.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN
The CA driver's license has been repeatedly held by the courts as a
privledge, NOT A RIGHT. So to grant this privledge, the state could
require you to do anything it wishes with an appropriate state purpose.
Collecting child support from delinquent fathers is a legitimate state
purpose (otherwise welfare must pick up the tab). So CA has a right to
insist you identify yourself in a way that allows it to determine that
you are not on any bad guys lists (which themselves are indexed by SSN).
So you can give your SSN or you can refuse to avail yourself of the
privledge of driving. Dave
Dave Gomberg, role model for those who don't ask much in their fantasy lives.
GOMBERG@UCSFVM Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU fax-> (415)731-7797
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 93 04:28:18 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN
Dave Gomberg writes:
>A driver's license has been repeatedly held by the courts as a
>privledge, NOT A RIGHT. So to grant this privledge, the state could
>require you to do anything it wishes with an appropriate state purpose.
>Collecting child support from delinquent fathers is a legitimate state
>purpose (otherwise welfare must pick up the tab). So CA has a right to
>insist you identify yourself in a way that allows it to determine that
>you are not on any bad guys lists (which themselves are indexed by SSN).
>So you can give your SSN or you can refuse to avail yourself of the
>privledge of driving.
It appears that you agree with this decision. Dave Niebuhr writes:
>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.
So catching a few deadbeat dads is worth requiring SSN on licenses?
The purpose of driver licenses is to assure minimal compentency of the
driver. Don't link it with everything else, it is yet another step to
Big Brother. It's like New York bring revenue officers to New Jersey's
reduced sales tax zones to take photographs of cars with New York
plates on them so as to "remind" them they have to pay New York sales
tax. Is it legal, yes? Is the collection of the tax worth the big
brother aspect? I think not.
Would the Daves agree that in order to get a driver's license the
driver must present the following:
o complete medical records
o tax returns for the last 5 years
o statement of family history/sexual orientation
Why not? After all a license is privledge? The state has a right to
demand this for granting a privledge. The state has a compelling need.
dennis
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 09:12:43 PST
From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@ide.com>
Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN
>As of January 1, 1993 the State of California requires a social security
>number in order to renew a drivers license.
The main reason stated is so they can trace deadbeat dads (that is
in the enabling statute). The SSN is also required to buy a car from
a dealer. At the Department of Motor Vehicles they have a sign that
says you have to have an original SSN card to show them, not a paycheck
stub or other secondary evidence. It turns out however that they will
accept a document from the nearby SSA office that attests to your
social security number. This document is handwritten on a Xeroxed
form with an SSA rubber stamp for authenticity.
I read the statutes and found no exceptions. However, when I bought
a car the dealer told me that she had had to go through some sort
of procedure to sell a car to a foreign national who had no SSN.
I recall that she got a letter from his embassy or something like that.
One last note on California DMV. They require a thumbprint for the
driver license. Before about 1980 it was optional and I had declined.
It later emerged in news reports that the names of everybody who had
declined had been supplied to, I believe, the FBI. That was in the
late 60's so there was some paranoia about. The thumbprint system
now in use has each applicant place his/her thumb on an electronic
screen which produces an EXCELLENT image of the thumb on the clerk's
monitor. If you push too hard or otherwise mess it up she can see
that the image is a poor one and ask you to adjust your thumb. The
system is inkless and the thumbprint and photo are stored digitally.
Mark Bell
Applications Engineer, IDE bell@ide.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1993 00:43:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com>, writes:
> 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.
I don't think so. If your records were in written down using a code or
cypher and you were subpoenaed, the court can order you jailed for not
producing the written records, but if you did produce records, encrypted
or encoded, and then invoked the right not to incriminate oneself in
releasing the code, I don't know if there has ever been case law requiring
you to speak the code. To do _that_ would essentially eviscerate the 5th
Amendment.
Secondary to that is that if you are found in contempt for invoking a
right under the constitution, an Appeals court will often stay the
contempt citation to allow the issue to be examined, especially in the
case of a reporter.
What strikes me as odd is why reporters don't do something like this:
write something on the material which is incriminating ("I ran a red light
on April 14 at 2:31 pm") and encode everything in their notes. Then,
invoke the *5th* amendment - not the first - to refuse to decode the
information. (Even if it is only information of running a red light,
where traffic offenses are not administrative matters (which is only the
District of Columbia; in all other places traffic offenses are criminal
acts) the information about a 'crime' entitles one not to incriminate
oneself.)
It would be interesting to see whether one can be compelled to state the
decoding key of a piece of material which could, based on the information
which was compelled to be released by them, then be used to incriminate
the person; no American court has ever done such a thing that I know of.
---
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:
Lewis's Law of Travel:
The first piece of luggage out of the chute doesn't belong to
anyone, ever.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: Senator Proxmire
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 11:18:55 -0600 (CST)
Phones: (414) 229-5170 office; 962-4719 home; 229-6958 fax
J. Philip Miller <phil@wubios.wustl.edu> said:
>
>[...]
>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.
>
Senator Proxmire from Wisconsin, now retired, was the Senator who
gave the Golden Fleece awards. No scandal was noted for him. Senator
Packwood from Oregon is the man who...
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu |
| Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
------------------------------
Organization: ATI (Asociacion de Tecnicos de Informatica)
From: Rafael Fernandez Calvo <rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 13:42:27 -0100
Subject: CLI News from Spain - Nov. 1, '93
Please, post at your fora the news below. Thanks in advance,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Fernandez-Calvo | rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es
Member of the Presidential Board of |
CLI (Comision de Libertades e Informatica) | (34+1) 402 9391 CLI Phone
(Commission for Liberties and Informatics)| (34+1) 309 3685 CLI Fax
Padilla 66, 3 dcha., E28006 Madrid Espana |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCCCC LL II
CC LL II
CC LL II -- N E W S FROM S P A I N --- Nov. 1, 1993
CCCCC LLLLLL II
COMMISSION for LIBERTIES
and INFORMATICS (*)
DIRECTOR OF DATA PROTECTION AGENCY APPOINTED BY THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Spain has appointed the first Director of the recently
created Data Protection Agency, according to the Data Protection Law
in force since January.
Juan-Jose Martin-Casallo, a longtime Prosecutor, is his name.
Although he has no special background in the computers, freedom and
privacy area, his record in the field of defense of civil liberties
is outstanding.
In his new post he will watch over the implementation of the Data
Protection Law along with the Consultative Council of the Data Protection
Agency, a body consisting of nine people representing different entities
(Congress, Senate, Central Administration, Regional Governments,
Municipalities, Council of Consumers, Royal Academy of History, Council
of Universities and Chambers of Commerce). Two of the members of the
Consultative Council belong to CLI (Ms. Elena Gomez-Pozuelo and Mr.
Adolfo Varela, representing the Spanish Association of Direct Marketing
Companies and United Consumers of Spain, respectively).
CLI, which has been largely consulted by the new Minister of Justice
during the process of creation of the new body, has personally expressed
Mr. Martin-Casallo his willingness to cooperate with the new Agency
in order to improve the chaotic situation existing today in Spain
with regard to the use of computerized personal data by both
Government bodies and private companies.
* SOME WORDS ABOUT CLI
The --Commission for Liberties and Informatics, CLI-- is an independent
and pluralistic organization that was officially constituted in April
'91.
Its mission is to "promote the development and protection of
citizens' rights, specially privacy, against misuse of Information
Technologies".
As of November '93, CLI is composed by nine organizations, with
a joint membership of about 3,000,000 people. They cover a very
wide spectrum of social interest groups: associations of computer
professionals, judges, civil rights leagues, trade unions, consumers
groups, direct marketing industry, etc.
CLI is confederated with similar bodies created in some other Spanish
Regions such as Valencia, Basque Country and Catalonia, and has fluid
working relationships with many public and private Data Protection bodies
and entities all over the world, including France's CNIL, USA's CPSR and
Privacy International.
CLI has its headquarters in:
Padilla 66, 3 dcha.
E-28006 Madrid, Spain
Phone: (34-1) 402 9391
Fax: (34-1) 309 3685
E-mail: rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Subject: Privacy Advocate
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 14:56:25 -0600 (CST)
Phones: (414) 229-5170 office; 962-4719 home; 229-6958 fax
The state of Wisconsin recently appointed a Privacy Advocate.
Carol M. Doeppers, the wife of a UW Geology Professor begins in this
new post 12/1/93 according to an article by Steven Walters in the
October 27th Milwaukee Sentinel. The job pays $33,000/year and should
be compared to $100,000/year paid to the state person who tracks
Railroad legislation.
Even with this interesting disparity Wisconsin is the first state in
the union to have such an advocate. Canada has had one for some time.
Doeppers is not sure just what the job entails, according to the
Sentinel, but intends to be "... keenly concerned" with "the pretty
rampant collection of identifiable information, much of which is not
relevant."
I am sure there will be more news to come on this.
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu |
| Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
------------------------------
From: Amit Zavery <az24+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Electronic Checks
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 15:19:23 -0500
Organization: Masters student, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Hi,
Does anyone know about any banks providing facilities for electronic
checks? I remember watching something on CNN which mentioned this. But I
did not get to watch the whole show.
I am trying to find out about the type of security they use and how good it is.
I would also like to know what features they have available.
Thanks in advance
--amit
------------------------------
From: Mark Malson <kgw2!markm@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Driver Licence Info
Organization: Xetron Corporation
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1993 19:00:55 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.67.5@pica.army.mil>, Jon Luckey
<luckey@rtfm.mlb.fl.us> wrote:
> I heard a rumor that you can trace licence plates from any
> state using a service on the internet or compuserve.
>
> Is this true?
You can trace any Florida plate by doing a GO FCA on CompuServe.
But first, you have to send a deposit to the Florida DMV in
Tallahassee and wait for a user ID in the mail - it doesn't
take long.
BTW, when I lived in Florida (Melbourne, actually), the group
Operation Rescue was severely disparaged in local news reports
for tracing abortion customers through their license plates
using this service. Not that I endorse their tactics, but this
information is a matter of public record. I suppose if one wants
to keep this information private, one need not use publicly funded
roadways (therefore not register their vehicle).
- Mark Malson
markm@xetron.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #069
******************************