Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:32:11 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#067
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 17 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 067
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: UPENN and SSN
Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
Electronic Coupons
Re: IRS "Privacy Principles"
Article 21 of the Japanese Consitution
Telemugging the Constitution
ATI(FOI) Act and CAR in Canada
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@uwm.edu and administrative requests
to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via
anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp"
with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory
"pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Medeiros <71604.710@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 16 May 94 23:46:33 EDT
Subject: Re: UPENN and SSN
michael.feeley@dscmail.com (Michael Feeley) asked: I...received the
Pennflex Confirmation Statement from another PENN employee (a
professor in the medical school). This single sheet includes the
home address, name (with middle initial), DOB, sex, disability
status, and SSN for this man, *AND* the same information for his
wife and his two children (as well as his choices for medical,
dental, and life insurance coverage). I would appreciate posts or
email about said dangers ...
That information is sufficient to successfully masquerade as the
medical school professor. With it you could obtain his credit reports
(available to each of us on ourselves), then you could open new credit
accounts (you have all existing accounts listed on the reports), close
existing accounts, obtain copies of tax returns,and obtain duplicate
driver's license (in those states basing driver's license on social
security numbers)(possibly with your picture). There is a great deal
more possible with some additional information and depending on the
boldness of the individual.
Having said that, I also have received similar, but not as revealing
requests for verification from insurance companies.
------------------------------
From: nzook@fireant.ma.utexas.edu (Nathan Zook)
Date: 17 May 1994 10:51:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
Organization: University Of Texas, Austin
Well, folks, here in not-really-so-terribly-liberal-after-all Austin
;-), we test drove at one dealership & purchased at another w/ no
credit checks. In both cases, a sales rep was with us. Both did want
my d/l #, but neither did anything with it before we drove. (Probably
insurance). As for rich kids buying w/ cash, I'm a graduate student,
my wife a secretary for the univ, and WE bought a new Tracer w/ cash,
so it's not just the rich...
Nathan Zook
UT Austin, Dept of Mathematics
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 16 May 1994 11:13:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Electronic Coupons
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
In the Milwaukee Sentinel's 5/16/94 Monday Business Section is an
article about the introduction of electronic coupons in the local Pick
and Save stores. Mega Mart Incorporated, the owner, will allow
shoppers to wand their VIP Advantage Plus (discount) Cards through a
reader as they enter the store and get a list of coupons printed based
on their buying history. A representative of Mega Marts indicated that
this history would be otherwise used only in a statistical manner and
that the consumer's name would never be divulged to an outsider. The
representative said that "any customer who signs up for VIP signs their
permission to be involved."
Representative Marlin D. Schneider (Democrat from Wisconsin Rapids in
the State Legislature) indicated that the State might be interested in
seeing to it that this privacy becomes a part of state law, rather than
just a good idea on the part of Mega Mart. He indicated that "while
the guarantees are there today, they could be gone tomorrow." The
company could change its policy against selling personal shopping lists
if they were offered enough money, or the systems that the information
was kept on could be broken into. He was looking for a contract
describing this privacy protection.
End of newspaper report.
My personal take on this is that people will become increasingly upset
about their loss of privacy when the system goes into operation. A
discount coupon on a bottle of beer, indicating that this is just for
you, will be an indication that they are being watched. I think they
will know and will care when it hits them.
--
Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Fax 1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201
------------------------------
From: milles@fi.gs.com (Stevens Miller)
Date: 17 May 1994 13:02:21 GMT
Subject: Re: IRS "Privacy Principles"
Organization: Fixed Income Division - Goldman, Sachs & Co.
"Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes: "Employee
guide on protecting taxpayers' privacy planned." The gist of the
story is that the IRS plans to provide formal rules for protecting
personal information about individual taxpayers.
Can one assume that the IRS feels the need to put this in writing
because of serious problems with employees violating taxpayers
privacy and with accepting non-validated information?
One might so assume, but I hope one won't without more evidence,
because to do so would create a reason for all agencies to be reluctant
to codify such things:
"Hey boss, shouldn't we, you know, have some written guidelines or
something about protecting peoples rights and stuff?"
"Good idea, but it'll look like we're admitting something; forget it."
---
Stevens R. Miller |"I think that, as a litigant, I should
(212) 227-1594 | dread the prospect of a lawsuit worse
sharp@echonyc.com | than any other."
New York, New York | - Judge Learned Hand
------------------------------
From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish)
Date: 14 May 1994 00:13:46 -0500
Subject: Article 21 of the Japanese Consitution
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Forwarded message: From: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)
Article 21:
Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other
forms of expression are guaranteed. 2) No censorship shall be maintained,
nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
--
Stanton McCandlish * mech@eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist
"In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich
Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of
phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps.
When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it."
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 17 May 1994 10:06:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Telemugging the Constitution
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from alt.privacy: slvrmn@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
May 9, 1994
In late March of this year, I received Public Notice DA 92-1716
(released on January 11, 1993) from the FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) in response to my request for information about the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Section 227 of Title 47 of
the U.S. Code. The legal information about this law which I had prior
to this time was not up to date, due to budget cuts in San Diego
County, which maintains the law library that I use for my legal
research. At that time, updated information was scheduled to be
received by the county in early April.
As I stated in my recent post entitled "Nailing the Telemuggers," this
FCC Public Notice contains a footnote stating that the FCC has been
enjoined from enforcing Section 227(b)(1)(B) of this law, pending a
judicial decision by an Oregon District Court on its constitutionality.
This section of the law FORBIDS the use of automatic dialing equipment
to send prerecorded messages to residential subscribers and names the
FCC as the federal enforcement agency. Additionally, it gives an
individual the right to sue for the sum of $500 in a private action;
i.e., without relying upon filing a complaint with the FCC.
Several days ago I checked with the law library and found that their
information on the TCPA has now been updated with a 1994 insert
(WestLaw). In the update is a note that, on June 1, 1993, the Oregon
District Court, in response to a suit filed by the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF TELECOMPUTER OPERATORS (Moser v. FCC, D.Or.1983, 826 F.Supp. 360,
found this particular section of the law to be unconstitutional. As a
result, the FCC has now been PERMANENTLY enjoined from enforcing this
section of the law, unless the decision is overturned on a future
appeal.
The basis of the finding of "unconstitutionality" by the Oregon
District Court is that the law forbids "free speech" in violation of
the First Amendment, _on the basis of content_. This finding comes from
the fact that the law does not ban nonprofit (i.e., non-commercial)
organizations from using automated dialing equipment and/or prerecorded
messages, which are every bit as much of an intrusion upon privacy as
are commercial messages using such equipment. The court found that
banning commercial messages via such equipment while permitting
non-commercial messages was unlikely to lead to any significant
reduction in privacy intrusion for residential telephone subscribers.
The bottom line
The direct effect of this ruling (the federal District Courts have
jurisdiction over the FCC) is that a residential telephone subscriber
who receives an _out-of-state_ call from a telemugger using a
prerecorded message cannot file a complaint with the FCC to prevent
such calls in the future.
Yet the fact that this avenue is now closed (at least temporarily) is
of little consequence, since the law that is still on the books permits
an individual to file a private (non-FCC-assisted) action _in STATE
court_ to collect $500 (or $1500 in special cases). If the suit is
filed in a state Small Claims Court, the "judge" may well (and probably
will) decide to follow the federal law that is now on the books,
despite the fact that this section of the law has been declared
unconstitutional in an Oregon federal court, thus preventing FCC
enforcement.
As it happens, Small Claims Court (at least in California) is not a
"real" court, with regard to the appeals process. In California, a
defendant who loses a case in Small Claims Court may file an appeal to
the next higher level (Superior Court), _but that is the end of it_.
Hence, the Superior Court judge who hears the case (from scratch, since
the original case proceedings are not recorded) can decide whatever
he/she feels is "proper," without there being any danger that the
decision will be overturned on further appeal.
Although _not REQUIRED to do so_, because of this freedom from being
overturned on appeal, the judge will probably base his decision upon
the federal law passed by the Congress, without regard to its being
overturned because of a question of constitutionality. On the other
hand, if the lawsuit is filed in "regular" court (not in Small Claims
Court), the judge will then be required to follow the legal precedent
established by a higher level court (with proper jurisdiction), since
the appeals process is not restricted as it is in Small Claims Court.
However, for only $500, it is impractical for an individual to file a
suit in a court other than Small Claims Court, due to the prohibitive
cost.
Furthermore, the District Court in Oregon (while being able to enjoin
the FCC from enforcing the law)_has jurisdiction only in Oregon_. Hence
a court in some other state need not follow the precedent established
in Oregon.
For these reasons, an individual who has received an IN-STATE call
using a prerecorded message will still probably find it worthwhile to
file suit in Small Claims Court in the state where the call originated,
citing the section of the TCPA which outlaws such calls and permits a
private action to be filed for damages from violation.
And finally, some states (such as California) have their own laws which
may place restrictions upon the use of prerecorded messages. In such a
case, the receipt of an IN-STATE call in violation of a state law can
still serve as the source of a private lawsuit; i.e., without having to
rely upon the federal TCPA. There is no reason why this suit cannot be
pursued in Small Claims Court, although the "judge" is not bound to
rule in favor of the plaintiff, for reasons stated above, relating to
the lack of the normal appeals system.
Albert Silverman
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 17 May 1994 10:33:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: ATI(FOI) Act and CAR in Canada
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
This was taken from <CARR-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>, The
Computer-assisted Reporting & Research mailing list.
From: Robin Rowland <eridani@IO.ORG>
Date: 14 May 1994 10:56:10 -0500
Subject: Changes to ATI(FOI) Act and CAR in Canada
X-To: Computer-assisted Reporting & Research
<CARR-L@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Copy of a relevant news release about a Canadian Member of Parliament's
new campagin to bring the Access to Information Act into the next
century:
------------------------------------------------------------
On Monday, May 9, Hamilton Wentworth Liberal MP John Bryden led a
delegation before Justice Minister Alan Rock to request that the
government undertake a study into the feasibility of completely
overhauling the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
Mr. Bryden explained that both acts have evolved into signicant
barriers to the free flow of government information, both current and
historical. Indeed, both acts have created bureaucracies that are now
working to withhold information , or slow its release, rather than
making it accessible. He explained to the Justice Minister that the
problem had become especially urgent with the rapid expansion of
information technology and systems like Internet.
He pointed out that the so-called information super-highway would not
be able to function effectively unless new protocols were designed that
would allow most government information to be accessed promptly.
Otherwise, he said, Canada stands to lose significantly economic and
industrial benefits which will acrue to trading partners such as the
United States and Mexico.
Mr. Rock expressed interest in the proposal and promised to come back
to Mr. Bryden with his reply as soon as possible.
The other participants in the meeting were:
Mary Calamai Access to Information researcher Southham News
Peter Calamai Editiorial Page editor, Ottawa Citizen, and
representative for "The Campaign for Open
Government."
Norman Hillmer Historian
John Starnes Former Director General of the RCMP Security
Services
John English MP Liberal Kitchener
_______________________________________________________
Robin Rowland Eridani Productions
Writer/Producer/Researcher Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Internet eridani@io.org Compuserve 70471,336
________________________________________________________
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #067
******************************
.