Date: Sun, 17 Jul 94 12:52:48 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 V5#007
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 17 Jul 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 007
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Sprint Canada and SIN (SSN)
LIBER Files
The Great Usenet Piss List
SSN's on Local Radio Discount Card
Re: Cellular phone risks/privacy
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
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: slavitch@dev.simware.com (Michael Slavitch)
Date: 15 Jul 1994 14:50:05 +0100
Subject: Sprint Canada and SIN (SSN)
I received a flyer from Sprint Canada, Inc. advertising their services
(yes, equal access has hit Canada, and with it the ubiquitous Candice
Bergen.)
The flyer of course had an application form. The application included
a field for my Social Insurance Number (SIN, which is equivalent to the
US SSN). They also gave an 800 number to apply over the phone. I
decided to play devil's advocate and called the Wicked Sprint of the
North's toll-free number, which is 800-396-8238 (it is not private :^).
First I told the telephone representative that I objected to releasing
my social insurance number.
She told me that my application couldn't be filled out without it.
I then asked her why my SIN had to be used. She then said it is used to
"easily categorize customers".
Yikes.
I asked her what that meant, and she didn't know.
Next, I asked for her manager. Her manager told me that I didn't have
to release my SIN, after all. That it is now optional. Initially the
database couldn't accept a transaction without a SIN, but that's been
changed, after "customer requests to do so". I grilled her some more
and she revealed that they use the SIN to access "consumer information
databases", with data sorted a number of ways, including the social
insurance number. I asked her where they get the match between SIN and
name, which is supposed to be secret. She said that people waive that
right when they apply for a car loan, credit card, or mortgage.
I asked her if anyone else grilled her the way I did. She said I was
the second person to do so. I assume the first person forced the
change to their transaction system.
Now, does Joe Normal know that this happens?
I wonder when I "waived" my right to privacy?
Michael Slavitch, Simware. Inc. 2 Gurdwara Road, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 1A2
V: (613) 228-5100 x4102 F: (613) 727-9409.
------------------------------
From: turf@netcom.com (Brian McInturff)
Date: 16 Jul 1994 16:09:26 GMT
Subject: LIBER Files
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
I have 5 files which may be of interest. They are:
LIBER_INTRO: A collection of introductory materials to
libertarianism. Essential for beginners and anyone who wants a copy
of this outreach material.
LIBER_QUOTES: The most popular LIBER file. A collection of quotes
from historic and modern sources. Great for message bumpers, debate
material, and perusal. Updated continuously.
LIBER_PGP: An introduction to the PGP encryption program. Provides
technical details and sites where this shareware may be freely
obtained. Also includes speculative posts of the effects of
encryption on society. Great for providing security for your system
and mailings.
LIBER_TAX: A copy of the Libernet thread in which it was stated and
"proven" that paying US federal income tax is optional for most
Americans.
LIBER_DRUGS: Q&A on the current Prohibition. Includes debate
tactics and a transcript of the 60 Minutes episode on legalized
drugs. Chock full of references.
The file are relatively small, about 16 to 32 K. Request one or more
of these files from me, via mail (do not post to the newsgroup) at
turf@netcom.com
I cannot send files via Julf's anon remailer, so send requests to me
directly.
turf
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 16 Jul 1994 08:45:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: The Great Usenet Piss List
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
In the library at UWM.EDU I have placed a copy of the Great Usenet
Just-Say-NO-to-PISS-TESTs Project. In it you will find, according to
the author:
You will find two lists in this postings. The first is a list of
companies that have PISS or other Human Quality test programs as
reported by first person experience. The second list is a list of
companies that are known to have public policies AGAINST the
invasion of privacy and the violation of Constitutional Protection
that Human Quality tests constitute.
If you would like to obtain a copy of this list at intervals other
than the first of the month, there are three different methods of
getting it.
If you have direct access to Internet, you can get the list via
anonymous ftp from the directory ftp://rafferty.com/pub/piss/, or
through the <a href="http://rafferty.com/~piss/">World Wide
Web</a>.
An automatic server can also ship you a copy. Simply send mail to
the above addresses and set the Subject: line to "send". Any text
in the message body is dropped.
[...]
**** Statement of Purpose ****
This list exists as a one man crusade (supported by a cast of
thousands) against the current Government sponsored terrorism
sometimes called the Drug War, and the resultant destruction of the
Constitution. This crusade is about Constitutional protections,
individual privacy and freedom. It is NOT an advocacy of the abuse
of any mind-altering substance. It is a strong plea to consider
the data contained herein when making purchasing or employment
decisions.
[... 800 lines of listing excluded ...]
I find this list to be interesting and feel the author's purpose is
real. Copies can be gleaned from the above addresses. I will be glad
to eMail copies to anyone who can reach me but who cannot reach the
author's posted address.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Leonard P. Levine | Moderator of: Computer Privacy Digest
Professor of Computer Science | and comp.society.privacy
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | Post: comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Box 784, Milwaukee WI 53201 | Information: comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu
| Gopher: gopher.cs.uwm.edu
levine@cs.uwm.edu | Mosaic: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: david@c-cat.PG.MD.US (Dave)
Date: 15 Jul 94 21:18:58 EDT
Subject: SSN's on Local Radio Discount Card
Organization: China Cat BBS (301)604-5976
newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe) writes: A local radio
station in Atlanta (99.7 FM) have come out with a "Freeloading"
card that gets you discounts at places (movies, music, etc...). On
the application, they have the usual name, address, household info,
along with a field labled SS#. What the hell do they need that
for. Oh well, time for a "My Blue Heaven" :)
On the other side, I got a job.. the relevent news is that the company
I now work for only required my SSN on my W-2 (w-4?) well, the only
one required by law. they were more than happy to respect my privacy.
as I am theirs.
so... we are on the move...
--
David R. Ristau
========================
david@c-cat.pg.md.us
uunet!anagld!c-cat!david
------------------------------
From: hedlund@teleport.com (M. Hedlund)
Date: 16 Jul 1994 20:08:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Cellular phone risks/privacy
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
Phillip Brown's comments on cellular phone monitoring (forwarded to
comp.society.privacy) seem to make the assumption that privacy
advocates are concerned about possible monitoring of *all* phone
users. That is not so much my concern; instead, I'm bothered by the
current and future capabilities of cellular phone or PCS monitoring
under wiretap laws, particularly as envisioned by the FBI's Digital
Telephony Proposal. In addition, Willis H. Ware's point (to which, in
part, Brown purports to respond), is that smaller-sized "cells" will
overcome the surveillance difficulties Brown describes.
Microcell canisters are one of the proposed methods for dealing with
the increase in cellular-phone traffic in recent years. These
canisters relay mobile-phone signals from a transreceiver location
("microcell site") to a processing network interface ("host site").
Most authors predict that microcell sites will cover individual
buildings or even particular office floors in congested business
areas. Since it is so easy for Brown to pinpoint a customer's cell
site, a severe decrease in cell area (accomplished by microcell
canisters) would immediately increase the precision of his information
for "tracking" purposes.
On a side note, an article on page 32 of the national New York Times,
Saturday, July 16, describes community resistance to cellular-phone
antenna installation, both for health-related and aesthetic reasons.
Unobtrusive microcell canisters, featuring less-powerful transmitters
and virtually invisible installations, will probably be a popular
answer to such problems.
--
M. Hedlund
<hedlund@teleport.com>
------------------------------
From: tnyurkiw@lambert.uwaterloo.ca (Tom Yurkiw)
Date: 15 Jul 1994 19:14:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: University of Waterloo
jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes: Oh, and in case it isn't
clear, yes I am advocating destroying cameras that belong to
others. Just consider it a bit of direct action against those who
(attempt to) invade my privacy. And no, I don't accept the premise
that I and other ordinary people must submit to surveillance to
facilitate catching an occasional criminal.
Sounds like a great use for the hidden utility pole camera.
Unsuspecting Armond-type destroys his neighbor's visible camera, then
slinks off... WHAM his face is caught in living color on the HIDDEN
camera, he is promptly arrested, tried, and convicted of vandalism...
hopefully in Singapore! Better yet, the homeowner is watching in
real-time and is forced to subdue said Armondite while making a
citizen's arrest. Of course, the homeowner isn't trained in the
niceties of restraining someone painlessly...
------------------------------
From: flash@csd.uwo.ca (Andrew D. Marshall)
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:35:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> wrote: [moderator:
This is the first time I have commented on the content of a posting
as moderator. The following posting, by John De Armond discusses a
technique for disabling TV cameras and then addresses the limits he
chooses to place on actions to protect his privacy and anonymity.
Finally we should note that the nature of eMail forces us to
question if the name "John De Armond" is real or a pseudonym. It
might even by be used by an enemy of Mr. De Armond to get him in
some sort of trouble. We must carefully separate the message from
the messenger and address only the content.]
Professor Levine raises an interesting point. I read John De Armond's
post -- in fact, I chose to read the thread because my newsreader
showed that he was a contributor to it. I have often seen posts in
other newsgroups from him (the one that springs to mind first is
misc.consumers.house) and, while I don't always agree with what he has
to say, I often find his posts entertaining. The post in this thread
attributed to De Armond was consistent stylistically, and in the point
of view expressed, to what I've seen elsewhere under his name.
The more general issue, which I suspect has been hashed out here and
elsewhere, is that of writing style being used to identify an article's
writer or, to extend Professor Levine's suggestion, even being used to
discredit a writer by imitating his or her style.
So not only do I have to keep my SIN/SSN private, and guard my bank
card PIN and all that stuff, if I truly want to maintain my privacy, I
probably shouldn't be posting on the net.
--
Andrew D. Marshall
Computer Science Department E-mail: flash@csd.uwo.ca
Middlesex College Voice: +1 519 661 3342
University of Western Ontario Fax: +1 519 661 3515
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
------------------------------
From: "David A. Honig" <honig@binky.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 15 Jul 1994 13:39:26 -0700
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: UC Disneyland, in the Kingdom of Bren
tnyurkiw@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca (Tom Yurkiw) writes: To me, the
issue of video cameras **hidden on utility poles, is completely
different than the question of **visible cameras in public places.
A person standing on a side street in the middle of the night has
an expectation of privacy, wheras a person in the town square with
8 cameras pointed at him does not.
What counts as hidden? How big does the housing have to be? Can
something be hidden for myopic people and not hidden for paranoid
cognescenti?
A camera is the size of a pen these days. Technology is *not* a
problem.
One can take photos of anything one sees on the street, or through a
window, visible with the naken eye; I'm not sure about making money off
them, when the subjects are private; but paparazzi certainly have a
field day.
--
David A. Honig, informivore
Prof. D. Denning: fool, fascist or Faust? Only the NSA knows for sure..
Ayatollah:Rushdie::NSA:RSA
------------------------------
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Date: 16 Jul 94 06:01:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> writes: Finally we
should note that the nature of eMail forces us to question if the
name "John De Armond" is real or a pseudonym. It might even by be
used by an enemy of Mr. De Armond to get him in some sort of
trouble. We must carefully separate the message from the messenger
and address only the content.
That most assuredly was me posting and no, I'm not worried about
"getting in trouble" or whatever.
When one asks himself how far he will go to protect his privacy, the
proper approach, I think, is to ask "What are the consequences of NOT
protecting a particular privacy?" Is one willing to risk a middle of
the night raid by the DEA gestapo because one happened to be caught by
a transformer-mounted DEA video camera watching a store, as happened
here in Atlanta to the customers of a hydrophonics store? Is one
willing to have his personal or financial details used against him in a
political context? Is one willing to suffer the annoyance of every
hukster who gets his phone number?
Perhaps some are; I am not. I endeavor not to shop at stores that use
security cameras that I can see and I wield my laser pointer vigorously
in those which I can't avoid. I use aliases and other false
information wherever I legally can, for I know that seeding
privacy-invasive databases with false information is more damaging than
refusing any information. I live on a cash economy. No paper trails.
Am I paranoid? Perhaps. But after hearing via an inadvertently
left-open speakerphone, a high ranking state official list me by name
as someone he was going to "get" because the gun rights group I'm
active in defeated one of his hand-picked candidates, I take no
chances. Do I think that "getting me" might involve grazing databases,
surveillance tape and so on for innocent but apparently damaging
information? Sure I do. A nice byproduct of my multi-year personal
privacy campaign is that I now get telephone solicited by scumbags so
seldom that it is a notable event. Sometimes I even feel up to playing
with them.
Beyond all that, there is an even more central question and that is,
how many people are willing to do something other than just yap about
privacy? How many of you are willing to take direct action to protect
your privacy? Are you willing to zap a video camera or use a false ID
not to defraud but to disguise your real identity? My personal
decision is YES. I will do just about anything as long as the possible
legal consequences are mild. No felonies, to be sure, but minor
misdemeanors? Sure. If I get caught, with a little luck, I can make a
media circus out of it. A win for everyone involved.
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA jgd@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
------------------------------
From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: 16 Jul 1994 03:44:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA
Tom Yurkiw writes: ... A person standing on a side street in the
middle of the night has an expectation of privacy, wheras a person
in the town square with 8 cameras pointed at him does not.
Is this a tenet of estabished law about 'expectations of privacy', or
just your opinion? I am amazed at how quickly many advocates of one
thing or another leap to paint a solid black or white world, when
reality is, of course, zillions of shades of gray [even if one
entertains your distinction, it only raises more questions than it
answers: what time is "the middle of the night"? [the microsecond
exactly half way between sunset and sunrise? do you have less of an
expectation if there is a full moon? Is "side street" precisely
defined? etc]
Overall, I think that folks are rather liberal with deciding that there
are "expectations of privacy" in arenas where the law doesn't make any
such distinction. [in particular, as far as I know, if you are out in
public [that is, not on private property] you have virtually no
'expectation of privacy', no matter whether it is midnight or noon, or
the Rose Garden or a back alley]. Emphasizing that "Expectation" here
is a *legal* term, not a casual "well, I didn't _expect_ that..."
--
Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
------------------------------
From: mckeever@cogsci.uwo.ca (Paul McKeever)
Date: 17 Jul 1994 17:04:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Canada
Tom Yurkiw makes the distinction between "side streets" and town
squares. Why is it acceptable to have no privacy in town squares but
to have privacy on side streets. Where, for example, does more crime
occur? Where, for another example, are their likely to be fewer cops
walking the beat? I fail to see how Mr. Yurkiw justifies one form of
surveillance but not the other.
Regards,
Paul
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #007
******************************
.