Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 10:53:18 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#081
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 24 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 081
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
BBS Censorship
Re: Privacy of cellular phones [Subject field chosen by MODERATOR]
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
detectives who help abusive husbands track down their wives
Guns Control/Registration/Confiscation
Mass. Driver's License and SSN (GOOD news!)
Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM
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: Sun, 21 Nov 93 14:39 EST
From: WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Subject: BBS Censorship
>One more point. Although I think that a sysop can do whatever she
>wants on her own BBS, I reject all external (official or not) censors
>unconditionally.
I am not yet ready to lump all "external" censorship together. The
Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids state censorship.
The history suggests that this is because the founders saw the state as
coercive and because then recent events around the world suggested that
governments were using censorship to perpetuate their
own power. More recent history provides sufficient instances of such
use to convince most people that this is an intrinsic tendency of
government. Even in the face of the Constitution, the tendency of the
US government to do so is obvious.
There is a similar tendency on the part of the established church. Even
other churches demonstrate a tendency to attempt to coopt the state into
censoring ideas or artistic expression that they find offensive. Still,
all but a few churches eschew violence. If they cannot use the power of
the state, they will limit themselves to ostracism to enforce their
censorship.
However, these two institutions are in a class of their own. Within the
class, the state is more to be feared than the church. I am not yet
ready to lump all other censorship with these two.
For example, more recently, we have seen attempts by colleges and
universities to censor "hate speech." While I find it hard to reconcile
such censorship with the role of a university, I think that a college
ought to be able to censure its own voluntary members for such speech.
If this be censorship, it is very different from state or church
censorship.
William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 93 23:24:43 GMT
From: Brinton Cooper <abc@arl.army.mil>
cc: privacy@vortex.com
Subject: Re: Privacy of cellular phones [Subject field chosen by MODERATOR]
Organization: The US Army Research Laboratory
There have been many remarks in these forums, recently, of this type:
"Too bad the cop had to break the (eavesdropping) law. At least
he caught a crook. The crook had it coming, so what's the harm?"
Here's the harm: You, a law-abiding citizen, are having an innocent
cellular phone conversation with your equally law-abiding spouse when an
officer of the law illegally eavesdrops on your conversation. The
segment of conversation which she hears (perhaps out of context) sounds
to her like a discussion of concurrent legal activity so she determines
your location, then tracks you down and arrests you.
Now you've done nothing wrong. However, YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. So if
your job, as mine, depends upon holding a security clearance, every time
you are asked subsequently, "Have you ever been ARRESTED for a crime?"
you must answer in the affirmative, then go through the whole mess and
explain yourself. You may even have to discuss the content of the phone
conversation. (Well, you may not HAVE to, but, then, "you don't have to
work here, either.")
Further, YOU HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, detained from free exercise of your
liberties. You may be held overnight, perhaps in an urban jail in (name
your least favorite big city) where you may well be harmed or worse
(must I draw you a picture?) by other inmates.
All this happens because it's OK for the cop to break the law if it
results in arresting a "crook."
And who's a "crook," anyway? Are all detainees crooks? Are we guilty
before the law until we prove ourselves innocent, or is it the other
way around?
This is a quiz. You may flunk.
_Brint
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 10:54 EST
From: John R Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Subject: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Organization: I.E.C.C.
>> At long last, federal law now requires telemarketers to remove from
>>their call lists, anyone who requests it.
Here's the Library of Congress' semi-official summary of this law. If you
want the full text, you'll have to go to a library that has copies of the
U.S. code. You'll note that it refers primarily to automated junk phone
calls. It also outlaws junk fax, requires that computer generated faxes be
time-stamped and have the originating phone number, and, at the end, has a
non-germane amendment about AM radio.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
ABSTRACT AS INTRODUCED:
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to restrict the use of telephone
facsimile machines, automatic telephone dialing systems, and other systems
used to transmit artificial or prerecorded voice messages via telephone to
make unsolicited calls or advertisements.
REVISED DIGEST: (AS OF 11/26/91)
Measure passed House, amended
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 - Amends the Communications
Act of 1934 to prohibit any person within the United States from: (1)
using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or
prerecorded voice (APV) to make a call to any emergency telephone line of
a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility,
poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; to
the telphone line of any patient room of a hospital, health care facility,
elderly home, or similar establishment; or to any telephone number
assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized
mobile radio service, or radio common carrier service or any other service
for which the called party is charged for the call; (2) initiating any
call to a residential telephone line using an APV to deliver a message
without the consent of the called party, with specified exceptions; (3)
using any telephone facsimile machine (FAX), computer, or other device to
send an unsolicited advertisement to a FAX machine; or (4) using an ATDS
in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line business
are engaged simultaneously.
Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe
regulations to implement such requirements. Requires the FCC to consider
allowing businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an APV to which
they have not consented. Authorizes the FCC to exempt from such
requirements: (1) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and
(2) categories of calls made for commercial purposes if such calls will
not adversely affect privacy rights or do not include unsolicited
advertisements. Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages
with respect to violations of such requirements.
Directs the FCC to: (1) initiate a rulemaking proceeding concerning
the need to protect residential telephone subscribers' privacy rights to
avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object; and (2)
prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for protecting
such privacy rights without the imposition of any additional charge to
telephone subscribers. States that such regulations may require the
establishment and operation of a single national database to compile a
list of telephone numbers of residential subscribers who object to
receiving such solicitations, or to receiving certain classes or
categories of solicitations, and to make the compiled list available for
purchase. Outlines information to be included in such regulations if the
FCC determines that such a database is required.
Directs the FCC, it if determines that the national database is
required, to: (1) consider the different needs of telemarketers conducting
business on a national, State, or local level; (2) devleop a fee schedule
for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes such difference;
and (3) consider whether the needs of telemarketers operating on a local
basis could be met through special markings of area white pages
directories, and if such directories are needed as an adjunct to database
lists prepared by area code and local exchange prefix.
Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with respect to
violations of such privacy rights.
Makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to: (1)
initiate any communication using a FAX or ATDS that does not comply with
technical and procedural standards or to use such devices in a manner that
does not comply with such standards; or (2) use a computer or other
electronic device to send any message via FAX unless such person clearly
marks on the document the date and time it is sent and identifies the
entity sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine
or entity.
Requires the FCC to revise the regulations setting technical and
procedural standards for FAX machines to require any FAX machine
manufactured one year after the enactment of this Act to clearly mark on a
document the date and time it is sent and identify the entity sending the
message and the telephone number of the sending machine or entity.
Directs the FCC to prescribe technical and procedural standards for
systems transmitting APV messages via telephone that require: (1) the
messages to clearly state the identity and telephone number or address of
the entity initiating the call; and (2) such systems to automatically
release the called party's line within five seconds of the time the party
has hung up.
Provides that if the FCC requires the establishment of a database of
telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone
solicitations, a State or local authority may not require the use of a
database or listing system that excludes the part of the national database
that relates to such State.
Permits States to bring civil actions to enjoin calls to residents in
violation of this Act and to recover monetary damages. Grants U.S.
district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions. Prohibits a
State, whenever the FCC has instituted a civil action for violation of
this Act, from brining an action against any defendant named in the FCC's
complaint.
Declares that it shall be the policy of the FCC to ensure the
placement of a principal community contour signal 24 hours a day for a
licensee of an existing AM daytime-only radio station located in a
community of over 100,000 that: (1) lacks a local full-time station
licensed to the community; (2) is located within a Class I station primary
service area; and (3) notifies the FCC that the licensee seeks to provide
full-time service.
COSPONSOR COSPONSORED ON WITHDRAWN ON
Sen Inouye 07/11/91
Sen Stevens 07/11/91
Sen Bentsen 07/11/91
Sen Simon 09/10/91
------------------------------
From: Monty Solomon <monty%roscom@think.com>
Subject: Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Reply-To: Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>
Organization: Roscom
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 10:48:47 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.79.2@pica.army.mil> pete ritter <cpritter@netcom.com>
writes:
> The law is called "The Telephone Consumer Protection Act". It was passed
> in 1991. Sorry, I know no more than what I've said. Anyone probably can
> obtain a copy of the law from her/his US senator or representative.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 10:54 EST
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
Organization: I.E.C.C.
>> At long last, federal law now requires telemarketers to remove from
>> their call lists, anyone who requests it.
Here's the Library of Congress' semi-official summary of this law. If
you want the full text, you'll have to go to a library that has copies
of the U.S. code. You'll note that it refers primarily to automated
junk phone calls. It also outlaws junk fax, requires that computer
generated faxes be time-stamped and have the originating phone number,
and, at the end, has a non-germane amendment about AM radio.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
ABSTRACT AS INTRODUCED:
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to restrict the use of
telephone facsimile machines, automatic telephone dialing systems, and
other systems used to transmit artificial or prerecorded voice
messages via telephone to make unsolicited calls or advertisements.
REVISED DIGEST: (AS OF 11/26/91)
Measure passed House, amended
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 - Amends the
Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit any person within the United
States from: (1) using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or
an artificial or prerecorded voice (APV) to make a call to any
emergency telephone line of a hospital, medical physician or service
office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire
protection or law enforcement agency; to the telphone line of any
patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or
similar establishment; or to any telephone number assigned to a paging
service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service,
or radio common carrier service or any other service for which the
called party is charged for the call; (2) initiating any call to a
residential telephone line using an APV to deliver a message without
the consent of the called party, with specified exceptions; (3) using
any telephone facsimile machine (FAX), computer, or other device to
send an unsolicited advertisement to a FAX machine; or (4) using an
ATDS in such a way that two or more telephone lines of a multi-line
business are engaged simultaneously.
Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to prescribe
regulations to implement such requirements. Requires the FCC to
consider allowing businesses to avoid receiving calls made using an
APV to which they have not consented. Authorizes the FCC to exempt
from such requirements: (1) calls that are not made for a commercial
purpose; and (2) categories of calls made for commercial purposes if
such calls will not adversely affect privacy rights or do not include
unsolicited advertisements. Authorizes private actions and the
recovery of damages with respect to violations of such requirements.
Directs the FCC to: (1) initiate a rulemaking proceeding
concerning the need to protect residential telephone subscribers'
privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which
they object; and (2) prescribe regulations to implement methods and
procedures for protecting such privacy rights without the imposition
of any additional charge to telephone subscribers. States that such
regulations may require the establishment and operation of a single
national database to compile a list of telephone numbers of
residential subscribers who object to receiving such solicitations, or
to receiving certain classes or categories of solicitations, and to
make the compiled list available for purchase. Outlines information
to be included in such regulations if the FCC determines that such a
database is required.
Directs the FCC, it if determines that the national database is
required, to: (1) consider the different needs of telemarketers
conducting business on a national, State, or local level; (2) devleop
a fee schedule for recouping the cost of such database that recognizes
such difference; and (3) consider whether the needs of telemarketers
operating on a local basis could be met through special markings of
area white pages directories, and if such directories are needed as an
adjunct to database lists prepared by area code and local exchange
prefix.
Authorizes private actions and the recovery of damages with
respect to violations of such privacy rights.
Makes it unlawful for any person within the United States to: (1)
initiate any communication using a FAX or ATDS that does not comply
with technical and procedural standards or to use such devices in a
manner that does not comply with such standards; or (2) use a computer
or other electronic device to send any message via FAX unless such
person clearly marks on the document the date and time it is sent and
identifies the entity sending the message and the telephone number of
the sending machine or entity.
Requires the FCC to revise the regulations setting technical and
procedural standards for FAX machines to require any FAX machine
manufactured one year after the enactment of this Act to clearly mark
on a document the date and time it is sent and identify the entity
sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or
entity.
Directs the FCC to prescribe technical and procedural standards
for systems transmitting APV messages via telephone that require: (1)
the messages to clearly state the identity and telephone number or
address of the entity initiating the call; and (2) such systems to
automatically release the called party's line within five seconds of
the time the party has hung up.
Provides that if the FCC requires the establishment of a database
of telephone numbers of subscribers who object to receiving telephone
solicitations, a State or local authority may not require the use of a
database or listing system that excludes the part of the national
database that relates to such State.
Permits States to bring civil actions to enjoin calls to residents in
violation of this Act and to recover monetary damages. Grants U.S.
district courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions. Prohibits a
State, whenever the FCC has instituted a civil action for violation of
this Act, from brining an action against any defendant named in the FCC's
complaint.
Declares that it shall be the policy of the FCC to ensure the
placement of a principal community contour signal 24 hours a day for a
licensee of an existing AM daytime-only radio station located in a
community of over 100,000 that: (1) lacks a local full-time station
licensed to the community; (2) is located within a Class I station
primary service area; and (3) notifies the FCC that the licensee seeks
to provide full-time service.
COSPONSOR COSPONSORED ON WITHDRAWN ON
Sen Inouye 07/11/91
Sen Stevens 07/11/91
Sen Bentsen 07/11/91
Sen Simon 09/10/91
------------------------------
--
# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405
# monty%roscom@think.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 22:38:58 PST
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: detectives who help abusive husbands track down their wives
Reply-To: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
CBC will be airing a documentary on this topic at 20:00 on Nov 23
as a segment of "Fifth Estate". As usual this will be repeated on the
"Newsworld" satellite channel, including twice on Sunday, Nov 28.
------------------------------
From: Dave Alexander <alex@spiral.org>
Subject: Guns Control/Registration/Confiscation
Date: 23 Nov 1993 20:30:25 GMT
Organization: S.P.I.R.A.L.
I have been taking all of this Brady Bill info in with utter amazement
at the NRA stand, which is that once an instant background check is
available, the waiting period should be phased out. Am I missing
something here? An instant background check sounds to me like a
national identification plan just *waiting* to be implemented. And I
suspect that one addition to the plan will be a "only a certain number
of guns per month/year/whatever" provision, which will limit the
quantity of your gun purchases. That implicitly means a *record* of
your gun purchases, which is gun registration, which is the very thing
I am against. I don't care how long I have to wait (reasonably,
anyway) to buy a gun, but DAMN IT I don't want anyone with a record of
how many guns I have at my house. That alone will make gun
confiscation extremely easy if/when they decide to implement it.
"Please turn in your guns, they are now illegal" is one thing. Then I
can just ignore the bastards. "Please turn in your guns or we will come
and get them" is an *entirely* different matter.
Where is the NRA's head at with this, anyway? This whole "instant,
computerized" nonsense scares me more than any stupid waiting period (which
by the way, we have had here in Minnesota for years).
--
alex@spiral.org
Dave Alexander
Society for the Protection of
Individual Rights and Liberties
Minneapolis Chapter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 17:37:46 EST
From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@think.com>
Subject: Mass. Driver's License and SSN (GOOD news!)
I was pleased to read in the Boston Globe today an editorial praising
the Registry of Motor Vehicles for two procedures it has introduced:
1) All license numbers will be assigned as random 9-digit numbers (no
mention made of what will happen for renewals, although renewals can
already change their license #). Currently, the SSN is the default, but
one can request a different number, which is 8 digits prefixed by "S".
At least in my experience, the Registry hasn't been a problem -- I
wanted mine changed (it was originally my SSN) and the clerk was very
pleasant about it, and I got the S number I wanted. But they never made
it clear in advance that this could be done -- I found out through the
grapevine.
2) The new digitized licenses (I imagine that it's a scanned picture,
with the other information) will not be treated as public records, and
hence will not be readily available (I don't remember the details of
this).
The Registry has improved tremendously over the past 5 years or so. The
few times I've been relatively recently I have found short lines,
helpful clerks, and efficient processing. Now that they're encouraging
people to renew registrations by mail, and have license renewal booths
in shopping malls, much of the routine traffic has dropped off so that
the things that require a trip get high priority. And now it appears
that they're taking privacy issues seriously, to boot.
Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com> OS/IO Software Engineer (617)234-2116
Thinking Machines Corp. 245 First St. Cambridge, MA 02142
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@uunet.uu.net
Tall Clubs International -- tci-request@think.com or 1-800-521-2512
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: Geoff Kuenning <geoff@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 00:11:39 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy3.80.2@pica.army.mil> Donald Burr
<picard@coyote.rain.org> writes:
> That is debatable. Since phone books are PUBLIC material (I.e. I can
> walk into Anytown, USA's phone office and say "Gimme your phone book!",
> or walk up to just about any pay phone (assuming it hasn't been
> vandalized that much) and look at it).
You miss the point. As with many things that have been computerized,
a change in quality of service brings about a fundamental change in
what the service is. It's not practical for me to visit every little
town in the US, looking for my old college roommate. Nor is it
economically feasible for me to pay a private detective $400 or so a
pop to locate a bunch of people. But for an affordable one-time fee
of $85 I can find everybody who was listed a couple of years ago.
That's a whole different ball of wax, especially when you consider
that this is as conveniently available to crazies as to obnoxious
salespeople.
> From what I understand (I didn't really pay very much attention to the
> Marketplace debates, nor did I ever see a copy of Marketplace) it is a
> listing of people's phone numbers and addresses, gleaned from public
> sources such as telephone books.
It was much, much more than that. It included economic data, and was
conveniently accessible by 9-digit zip code. Just the thing for a
burglar trying to find a quiet little neighborhood to hit.
--
Geoff Kuenning geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu geoff@ITcorp.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #081
******************************