Date: Tue, 09 Nov 93 11:10:58 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#071
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 09 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 071
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
FTPs on Privacy Research ?
Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Re: Finding someone
Re: Finding someone
Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
Re: isn't one's diary con
Invasion of Privacy
Banning out of state drivers
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: Douglas Zongker <dead!zongker@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: SSN required to renew Cal. DL
Date: 7 Nov 1993 19:12:10 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Michigan State University
In article <comp-privacy3.70.5@pica.army.mil> "Paul J. Bell" <pjb@23kgroup.com> writes:
>|>
[stuff deleted]
>|> 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.
>
>new york does not require ssn's for drivers licenses.
>they ask for it but if you say no, they use some other number.
>
>cheers,
> paul
>
Kansas began using the SSN two or three years ago, but they will
give you another "SSN-like" number if you ask.
doug
--
douglas zongker; michigan state university; zongker@cps.msu.edu
"it doesn't have to make sense. just manipulate it as if it made sense."
-- anonymous mth 254h prof
------------------------------
From: Vaclav Matyas <matyas@scs.carleton.ca>
Subject: FTPs on Privacy Research ?
Organization: School of Computer Scince, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 18:56:43 GMT
I have to do a project on current issues in research in Privacy - mostly
related to Computer Science, but keeping social or legal point of view
and I wonder if there are any good up-to-date sources on that.
Any hint highly appreciated.
^ / | ~/-\/-\ | /
\ / _/ __ | _ | | | _ X- _/ |_/
\ / [ | | | [ | \ / | | | [ | | \ /[ | |_
V L_L |__ L L_L V | | | L_L L V L_L __|
/
Vaclav Matyas, Jr.
School of Computer Science E-mail : matyas@scs.carleton.ca
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ont.
K1S 5B6 ___________________________________________________
CANADA Without a courageous step, we will not move forward.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbsmith@world.std.com>
Subject: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1993 15:10:10 GMT
I didn't see an FAQ posted, so here goes.
Does anybody know an effective method of stopping junk phone calls from
automatic computer equipment? Here are six things which do NOT work:
1) Writing (three times) to the DMA's Phone Preference service.
2) Having New England Telephone place me on their "exclusion list." This is
supposed to stop calls that originate in Massachusetts, and perhaps it
does, but if so it just proves that the percentage of calls originating
in Massachusetts is small. (A lot of the volume is pitches for time-share
condos in Rhode Island and New Hampshire). (Some are from siding and
gutter companies that say they will be "in your area" but presumably
they're placing the calls from somewhere else).
3) Having the call traced. Does NO good because they won't do anything,
NOT EVEN TELL YOU THE SOURCE OF THE CALL, unless you get TWO calls from
the same place within thirty days. What's really frustrating is that
I have two telephones and phone numbers and it is very common for me
to actually GET two calls a few hours apart, but that is apparently not
good enough.
4) Calling and writing the FCC. Although I have the impression that
Congress passed a law requiring the FCC to protect us against automatically
dialled calls, I have been unable to find the right FCC office or what
the correct procedure is for getting placed on the list or getting
enforcement. Many of these calls do NOT clear the line until the
message is finished -- hang up, wait fifteen seconds, pick up again,
and they're still at it -- which I think is a violation of FCC
regulations.
5) Leaving my name and number and trying to get information or place
a stop request when they call me back to let me know which of the
four prizes I have definitely won. I've gotten some interesting
responses, such as claims that they DON'T KNOW the name of the telemarketing
company involved ("Oh, I just work for a temp agency... _Their_
address? Oh, I don't think I can give that out...")
6) Joining "Private Citizen." Hasn't done any HARM that I've noticed
(I was afraid it might get me on a "privacy-nut" mailing list), but
no GOOD either.
Anybody know anything that WORKS?
--Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.society.privacy,misc.legal
From: Brian Leibowitz <bml@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Finding someone
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1993 17:41:18 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.68.3@pica.army.mil> Larry Kolodney <lkk@panix.com> writes:
>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.
>
Not the LOCAL census data. Shortly after the state census I started
getting lots of local junk mail. My roommate who did not use our
apartment adress for anything started getting junk mail. I called
some advertisers and eventually found out that they had bought copies
of the census from the city. The city clerk told me that the state and
city census information is public record and that many companies bought copies.
(this was in Massachusetts)
I recently found out that in California, your voter registration is public
information (do not give your phone number when you register to vote-
you can omit it) The thing that bothered me is that anyone can check if
you have voted yet at any time during election day. My precinct had
the voter rolls posted (including addresses and phone numbers) on the
door with lines through the names of people who had voted already. Every
hour, they updated the marks indicating who had voted.
The clerk said that lots of people had copies of the list. Also, during
the day, many of these people would come by to check their lists against
the list of who had voted. (mostly poll takers and campainers
wanting to know who to call.)
bml
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 08:49:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Finding someone
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
(In reference to sending someone a letter by mailing it to
Social Security where all you have is the person's SSA and
no address), Phil Smith <smith@ncoast.org>, writes:
> 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".
>
> [deleted]
>
> Wouldn't the "last known address" be that which was supplied
> by whomever paid to SSA your FICA?
An employer makes quarterly payments to Social Security but no
identification of who those payments are for is made until the information
is sent out at tax time. Since employers of under 50 people are not
required to do magtape/diskette filing, all SSA gets is paper Form W2
reports once a year. And while it is common place to print the employee's
name and address on the W2 for the year, it is not mandatory.
Assuming SSA wants to even bother keeping this information, that's another
issue altogether. Perhaps the IRS would be a better place to look,
considering how hungry they are for informatiom.
---
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>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 14:55:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary considered "private" ??
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
-----
In a private message, I was responded:
> } 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.
>
> I think the answer should be self-evident: because it doesn't
> work. It is this type of reasoning that ought to get you to
> be a bit suspect about the actual solidness of your thesis.
>
> } .. (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.)
>
> This isn't true, and I suspect can land you in jail. You only have
> a privilege not to testify truly _against_yourself_. You cannot
> just casually invoke the privilege whenever you don't feel like
> talking about something. If _you_ are not on trial [as you would
> not be in the case of a reporter being asked to provide evidence in
> a third-party's trial], you'll be expected to testify.
Try again. Do you remember Ollie North invoking the 5th Amendment in his
testimoy to Congress? That was not an evidentiary trial and he was still
allowed to invoke the 5th Amendment; Congress had to grant him immunity
to require him to speak.
If the information which would be given by someone could be used to
incriminate them, they have the right to invoke the 5th Amendment. Do you
remember the House Unamerican Activities Committee during the 1950s where
it asked people the infamous question, "Are you now or have you ever been
a member of the Communist Party," and people invoked the 5th Amendment.
One has the right to invoke this amendment unless granted immunity if one
is subpoenaed to be a witness or is otherwise forced to come forward.
> } 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.
>
> I don't know either. How did you search for something like
> this [I can't even *begin* to figure out how one would do
> such a thing]. As I say, it strikes me as unlikely that this
> matter has never come up, so I would assume/hope that there is
> some concrete info on it.
Because it is unlikely that there was ever a non-criminal challenge for
production of records where the records were protected by a code;
usually the cases involve something like raiding a bookie and getting
his code books; but once he _is_ a criminal suspect and being tried,
he has full 5th Amendment rights.
I don't know how accurate this is, but I'll offer it as an example. In an
episode of Dragnet, a police officer was accused of paying off a bookie.
The police captured the bookie's record book (log). I believe the bookie
invoked the 5th amendment to refuse to tell them how to decode his book
(because the records within it could be used to incriminate him.) The two
police officers were able to decipher his code enough to figure out that
the conditions were exactly what the police officer said: he had paid off
a loan from the bookie, not knowing about his criminal record. The code
showed a record in his log book which said "RPD LN" when decoded, e.g.
Repaid Loan.
The point being that it seemed to be clear that code keys represent
material that is of a private nature and the person has the right to
invoke the 5th Amendment on them.
If you wanted to search, try the U.S. Code Annotated, check the volume on
the Constitution, and check 5th Amendment; it will show cases and
summaries related to various issues. This might help, but it will only
show appealed cases.
---
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>
------------------------------
From: jayhawk@holonet.net
Subject: Re: isn't one's diary con
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access System: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 03:44:04 GMT
-=> Quoting Steve@owlnet.rice.edu to Comp.society.privacy <=-
St> This is not entirely true either. For instance, reporters have gone
St> to jail for not revealing a source. In this case, data in the
St> reporter's head is legally compelled to be given.
That's not really a good analogy. In these cases, the reporters were not
the one's who are accused of wrong doing. Therefore the 5th amendment
does not apply. The 5th only protects one against SELF-incrimination.
Bryan Kennedy Reed
jayhawk@holonet.net
bkreed@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
---
~ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 ~
------------------------------
From: eng@ecf.toronto.edu (ENG BRIAN)
Subject: Invasion of Privacy
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 03:43:40 GMT
It has come to my attention that the system administrator at the
University of Toronto Scarborough campus has been infringing on the
right to privacy. I have evidence to support my claims.
Electronic mails and private files were accessed periodically by
the system administrator withour permission or consent from the
student user. I intend to file an complaint to the university
ombusperson and organizations outside the university in order to
exsert pressure to the faculty to remedy the situation.
However, I would like to know what protections are present for users
on a computer users linked to the rest of the world through the Internet.
What actions can I take to put a stop to this invasion of privacy? I
very much appreciate your help and assistance.
STOP INVASION OF PRIVACY.
Tom Peng
please forward your emails to: pengt@generic.uucp
(I do not wish my mail to be read on campus)
(by the sys-admin)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1993 09:01:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Banning out of state drivers
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
> P.S. I heard a rumor that California was banning operation of
> out-of-state vehicles that had no auto insurance even if they were
> driven by genuine tourists. People from Wisconsin, say. Anyone know if
> this is true.
I don't think so. California tried something like this back during the
Great Depression when they attempted to exclude cars from poor states. The
U.S. Supreme Court ruled this was illegal.
I don't think they could, anyway. If you are driving from, say,
Wisconsin, chances are unless you want to visit Las Vegas, you're probably
going to go through Arizona. And Arizona does the Agricultural checks for
California, anyway. (If you drive from Nevada to California, you get
stopped for Agricultural Inspection at the California State Line. If you
go from Arizona to California you are not re-inspected because you already
went through one.
The other question is what grounds do they have to request proof of
insurance?
Since there is no other inspection, there is no grounds to check. And I
suspect that an attempt to stop Interstate immigration (a tourist is a
temporary immigrant) would be unconstitutional.
---
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>
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #071
******************************