Date: Thu, 19 May 94 19:52:03 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#068
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 19 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 068
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Tracking
Drivers License & Car Dealer's
Clipper chip bill number?
Re: Article 21 of the Japanese Consitution
Re: Electronic Coupons
Re: IRS Privacy Principles
Re: IRS Privacy Principles
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: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 17 May 1994 14:56:49 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Tracking
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taaken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Tuesday 17 May 1994
(16:07):
Date: 5 Apr 1994 15:31:31 -0700
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
"There is something a little eerie about picking up a car phone and
having a voice describe your location to within a few feet on a
pleasant if unremarkable street of colonial and tudor-style houses."
That's a quote from a second article in the New York Times promoting
the Avis project to track the company's rental cars through GPS
hardware and wireless communications. The full reference is:
Peter Marks, For a few lucky motorists, guidance by satellite, New York
Times, 2 April 1994, pages 1, 16.
The reporter apparently went for a ride with the system, and was
enthralled. No doubt it was a fascinating experience. This article
does at least mention privacy concerns, in a parenthetical note, as
follows:
"On the Nynex computer screens, the cars show up as small dots moving
along the roads on the computer maps. Nynex officials say, however,
that for the sake of privacy, a car's position will only show up on a
screen for the duration of a driver's call to the Project Northstar
number."
Note that "privacy" only extends to what's presented on the operator's
screen. Nothing is said about the more fundamental issue, what records
are stored in the computer.
Phil Agre, UCSD
------------------------------
From: Al Cohan <0004526627@mcimail.com>
Date: 17 May 94 18:01 EST
Subject: Drivers License & Car Dealer's
My family for many years has been involved with the Car Business and it
is interesting to note that30 to 40 years ago, when you asked for a
test drive, the dealers usually threw you the keys and asked when you
would be back.
About 20 to 30 years ago, you got to drive with the salesman sitting
next to you while you took the test drive. That worked fine until one
day in sunny California, the driver stopped someone came over from the
sidewalk and pulled the salesman out of the car and jumped in! BTW,
there NEVER did recover the car!
No, you must not only take a test drive with the salesman, but also
leave either your drivers license or have the deal make a copy of your
drivers license. The interesting this is the both driving without the
license in your possession and making a copy of your license, are both
against the law!
What the dealer does with the license is conjecture, but I know TRW for
one has a plan where for xx $$ per year they send you a notice
everytime someone checks your credit - telling you who checked. I know
of several applications for credit that have been denied our customers
because they were shopping for the best lease rates on a large purchase
of equipment. The granters of credit saw all of these other "inquiries"
and assumed they were borrowing way past their credit limits with each
one. Ya just can't tell how they are going to react.
------------------------------
From: travis@netrix.com (Travis Low)
Date: 19 May 1994 20:46:46 GMT
Subject: Clipper chip bill number?
Organization: none
Can someone please email me at travis@netrix.com and
tell me the actual bill number for the clipper chip
initiative on the house floor?
--Travis
------------------------------
From: djones@CIM.McGill.CA (David Jones)
Date: 17 May 1994 21:14:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Article 21 of the Japanese Consitution
Organization: Centre for Intelligent Machines, McGill University
Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org> wrote: 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.
So how does the Japanese system handle:
(a) people who cause harm by shouting "Fire!" (in Japanese of course :-)
in a crowded theatre ??
(b) people who publish so-called "hate literature", inciting violence
against an identified group.
(c) people who create and publish "child pornography"
(d) etc., etc.
just curious. Article 21 seems to be stated like an absolute right.
Are there "escape clauses" as in the Canadian Charter?
------------------------------
From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: 18 May 1994 03:09:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Electronic Coupons
Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA
"Prof. L. P. Levine" writes: 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."
I'll point out that this is just as I"ve been trying to say for some
time: our privacy is NOT going to be trampled by some incredible and
unlikely grand conspiracy, but rather by 'bribing' folk, little by
little, to give a little here, a little there. It is VERY hard to
combat [IMO] because the actual incursions are so minor and the
come-ons can be made so attractive [would you be willing to cut your
food bill by 10% in exchange for the supermarket knowing whether you
prefer Skippy to Jif?]
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.
I think this is a BAD idea. I think the gov't should just stay the
hell OUT, rather than continuing to go around, muscling people, telling
everyone what to do. The gov't that is powerful enough to be your big
brother and protect your privacy, is powerful enough, well, to be big
brother...
He indicated that "while the guarantees are there today, they could
be gone tomorrow."
Just so. And that means that consumers who care can turn in their
cards tomorrow. If the *agreement* I sign says "you'll use it for
statistical purposes only", then it becomes a matter of contract law
and they have to tell me if they change the conditions. I don't have
ANY problem with getting a note in the mail saying "Here are the new
terms and conditions, continued use of our card/service/whatever will
be construed as acceptance of them" and summarily sending their card
back, terminating the service, whatever. How is that so hard that it
needs the government's stepping in and bullying everyone around.
He was looking for a contract describing this privacy protection.
Well, he should look for a contract when *HE* signs one. I don't think
the state ought to compel the store to do anything of the sort, and for
our part we should stop being such damn sheep and learn to start
thinking for ourself and acting in our *own* interest.
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.
But I still don't see what the big deal is. So they drop the card in
the trash barrel on the way out of the store and _presto_ their privacy
is restored. I wish that all threats to privacy were as easily
dispatched.
I think the bigger worry is that the greedy shoppers [perhaps fueled by
the rather myopic 'privacy brigade'] will try to eat their cake and
have it too. That is, KEEP the coupons but *FORCE* the store to
impose 'privacy rules'. I think this would be a likely, but terrible
outcome. The gov't already intrudes into FAR too much of our lives,
they have many too many regulations telling everyone what to do and
what not to do.
--
Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
------------------------------
From: Laura Sullivan <LSULLIV3@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Date: 18 May 94 12:09:35 CDT
Subject: Re: IRS Privacy Principles
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?
Last year, the IRS released an internal audit of its Southeastern
region that revealed that many of its employees [166 in one news report
and 386 in another] were caught snooping into tax records of relatives,
neighbors, and celebrities. Criminal investigations ensued.
Laura Sullivan
lsulliv3@ua1vm.ua.edu
School of Library and Information Studies
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
------------------------------
From: msieving@cyclone.xnet.com (Mark Sieving)
Date: 19 May 1994 23:31:02 GMT
Subject: Re: IRS Privacy Principles
Organization: XNet Information Systems
Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> wrote: 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 could also assume that they put this in writing simply because
that's good management practice. It doesn't imply any particular
problem.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #068
******************************
.