Date: Sun, 31 Jul 94 09:24:51 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#015
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 31 Jul 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 015
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
DMV records available to anyone who wants to subscribe
Digital Telephony Bill - Latest Status
Bank of Canada opposes widespread availability of cash machines
CNN Report on Aurora, Ill.
Re: Is License Plate No. a Key to Personal Info?
Re: Is License Plate No. a Key to Personal Info?
Re: Many Phone Taps are now Legal
Re: Government E-Mail Directive
Monthly CPD Message
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Housekeeping information is located at the end of this Digest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bfolensbee@aol.com (Bfolensbee)
Date: 29 Jul 1994 22:59:03 -0400
Subject: DMV records available to anyone who wants to subscribe
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
There are a number of commercial "information providers" which can be
subscribed to and the ones I have seen include not only DMV records but
info on your property, neighbors, any type of publicly filed
information such as bankruptcies, tax liens, judgements against you,
whatever. It always amazes me what is available on most people in this
country that they have no idea
someone can access.
------------------------------
From: jdevoto@apple.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto)
Date: 30 Jul 1994 03:27:52 -0700
Subject: Digital Telephony Bill - Latest Status
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, California
[Article by Brock Meeks, originally posted to the wired conference
on the WELL and reposted here with permission]:
---------------------------------------------------------
CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1994 //
Jacking in from the "Just Nationalize It" Port:
Washington, DC -- The most recent draft of the FBI's digital wiretap
bill turns control of the nation's communications network over to the
Justice Department.
It's a twisted policy that, in essence, ponies up more than $500
million in an effort to nationalize all telephone and electronic
communications networks, a move that's unprecedented in U.S. history.
For although private companies retain control over profits and
revenues, this bill puts them at the technological beck and call of the
Justice Department. Think of it as Attorney General Janet Reno moving
her lips, but it's FBI Director Louis Freeh making all the noise.
The July 19 draft of the FBI bill obtained by Dispatch, gives the
Justice Department the authority to make technological demands of the
nation's communications networks that must be complied with or risk
severe penalties.
However, the bill specifically states that law enforcement agencies
can't dictate a "specific design or system configurations," but that's
little comfort.
The bill gives the government the authority to dictate -- forever -
-specific capabilities each communications company has to met or be
held in contempt, forced to pay as much as $10,000 for every day they
can't met the government's demands of easy wiretap access to their
customer's conversations, electronic mail messages, faxes or file
transfers.
The draft also dramatically expands the scope of the bill, from just
"common carriers" (which are mainly your local and long distance
telephone companies) to a new category of "telecommunications
carriers."
This new category, penciled in at the insistence of the telephone
companies facing the threat of having to bear the entire burden for
making the FBI's job easier, includes "any person or entity engaged in
the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications for
value for unaffiliated persons, but does not include persons or
entities engaged in providing information services."
This means all networks, including the one that delivered this Dispatch
article to your electronic mailbox, will now have to be "wiretap
ready," according to FBI blueprints. The only companies that escape
are free BBSs and systems that must prove they are information services
rather than communications services. Just how America Online, Prodigy
and CompuServe will deal with this is unknown, since systems like these
split the fence between information providers and communications
facilitators.
If this bill is passed, the Attorney General has one year to draw up
its easy wiretap access battle plan and present it to the industry.
Included in that plan must be a written notice of the maximum capacity
required to "accommodate all the communications interceptions, pen
registers and trap and trace devices" the Attorney General "estimates"
the government will need.
All "telecommunications carriers" then have 3 years to comply with
those requests. The catch is, the Justice Department can
"periodically" provide updates to that original plan, which "increases
the maximum capacity" first stated. For each upgraded estimate, the
industry has 3 years to cooperate or get hammered.
If a carrier fails to comply, the Justice Department can order
compliance, up to and including ordering manufacturers to redesign
their products so they can be installed on U.S. communications networks
-- yes, that includes the amorphous Internet, at least on the U.S.
side. Noncompliance carries the possible fine of $10,000 per day.
However, the current bill takes away the veritable "Thor's Hammer"
authority from Justice, that is, the ability to shut down a carrier's
network for not complying with the bill.
Standards? We Don't Need No Stinking Standards
==========================
Just to make sure that all this "easy use wiretap" software gets
codified, there will be standards written. This means every public
telephone network and communications system, will, forever, now come
with built in eavesdropping capability, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
The bill doesn't actually demand that wiretap access be written into
the standards, but the sub-text of the bill clearly intends for them to
be there. "The absence of specifications or standards for
implementing" wiretap access won't be considered an excuse for carriers
to claim noncompliance, the bill says.
Enter the Federal Communications Commission. Under this bill, the FCC
is made out to be court of last resort for any wiretap standards
disputes. "[I]f industry associations or bodies fail to issue
specifications or standards, any person may petition" the FCC to
"establish... specifications or standards" that implement easy wiretap
access, the bill says.
In other words: If industry tanks on creating specs, Uncle Sam,
impersonating the above referenced "any person" will compel the FCC to
write the damn things. The FBI gets its wiretap software written
voluntarily or by force. They don't care which route they have to
take.
Of course, the FCC is woefully equipped to write standards; they are
enforcers after all of such standards, not creators of them. So, in
order to help out with this egregious task, the bill allows the FCC to
assess and collect fees that it will levy against telecommunications
carriers for, well, there's no nice way to say this, doing their
fucking job.
And get this, the FCC gets to use that penalty tax money to help it pay
for writing the wiretap rules. You gotta love these bill writing wonks
for creating: Self-help Agency Funding or "Bigger Appropriations
Through Fines."
The Bottom Line
==============
What's it going to cost to allow the FBI to eavesdrop from virtually
any "remote" location of their choice, as the bill states? The first
bite from the taxpayer wallet is a healthy $500 million in the first 3
years. (Remember, now, FBI Director Louis Freeh, as late as last
month, was on television telling the world this electronic Trojan Horse
would cost only $300 million.)
However, the bill contains a "blank check" clause, which allows the
government (Hint: This is really you and me) to continue paying for
upgrades to this wiretap software from 1999 "and thereafter" in "such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this act." You
can thank the telephone companies for this clause. Without the endless
credit line, they said they would fight the bill with all their
resources. Now they'll just whimper a lot and roll over.
Although the telephone still oppose the bill on principle -- they just
don't like the government telling them to do anything -- they're just
happy not to have to pay for this themselves. As long as every other
telecommunications company gets stung and the taxpayer foots the bill,
well, hell, they can live with it. Besides, they have bigger fish to
fry, like squeezing Congress to let them into the long distance market
where they can really make some coin.
So, what we get now from the telephone industry -- trust me on this --
is token opposition to the FBI bill. "This thing is beginning to smell
like law," said a telephone company executive familiar with his
industries efforts on the bill. Dispatch suggested a more colorful
"smells like" phrase. The executive simply smiled.
All Said And Done
================
The bill, while not the final version, is "pretty damn close," a
congressional staffer said. The fight over language hasn't been pretty
and it's likely to continue to be ugly until the final bill is
submitted, which will be before the August recess. "We will have a
bill one way or another," another congressional staffer said. The
staffs of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del) and
Rep. Don Edwards (D-Cal.) have all had a crack at melding this bill.
EFF's been in there fighting, too. In fact, EFF's legislative liaison
cancelled a trip to Japan to stay and "fight" for better language in
the bill, according to a message he posted online.
If that's the case, someone needs to fight harder. There is, however,
some evidence of EFF's fingerprints on this bill.
The bill specifically states, for example that "any law enforcement
agency" is NOT authorized to "prohibit the adoption of any feature or
service by providers of wire or electronic communication service."
This means that if your "telecommunications provider" provides some
kind of encryption capability -- even non-government approved
encryption -- this bill doesn't force you to turn over the encryption
keys to the cops.
And in the area of transactional data, the bill limits the cops to just
getting your telephone number and address, without the ability to
scavenge through all your private transactions and billing records.
This ends the threat of the bill having the effect of turning the
telephone network into "a nationwide surveillance tool" of the FBI, as
EFF Executive Director Jerry Berman said previous versions of the bill
would allow.
Just remember, as this bill stands, the FBI bought your privacy rights
for a mere $500 million-plus. That cheap at twice the price.
Meeks out...
[end reposted article]
--
======== jeanne a. e. devoto ===========================================
jdevoto@apple.com | You may not distribute this article under a
jdevoto@well.sf.ca.us | compilation copyright without my permission.
========== Clipper: Just Say No - as many times as it takes. ===========
------------------------------
From: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 21:54:29 PDT
Subject: Bank of Canada opposes widespread availability of cash machines
A document recently obtained under Canada's Access to Information act
has revealed that the Bank of Canada opposes the widespread
availability of automated bank machines(gas stations, beer stores, drug
stores, supermarkets, consumer electronics, etc.) dispensing $20 bills
because they make the canadian currency system "inefficient".
Apparently there are about 53 bills in circulation for every $1000 of
currency, putting the Canadian Dollar in 18th position according to
this measure of "efficiency".
The bank would like to replace the $2 bill with a coin, and get more
people to use $50 and $100 bills. It will also retain the $1000
banknote, which had been scheduled for removal from circulation. It
sees the popularity of $20s dispensed by bank machines as a major
obstacle to improved "efficiency" of the monetary system.
Above all it would like to replace the widespread use of these machines
for obtaining spending money with credit cards, checks, and debit
cards, all of which happen to be traceable and which could be used to
obtain information about individual buying habits and which are usually
recorded in computer systems.
Other proposals in the document were not released.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:27:14 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: CNN Report on Aurora, Ill.
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The following was taken (without permission) from alt.privacy, an
unmoderated discussion group:
From: klootzak@stein4.u.washington.edu (Michael Stuyt)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: CNN Report: Aurora, Ill.
Date: 26 Jul 1994 17:27:48 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
Interesting report on CNN Headline News last night about landlords in
Aurora, Ill. Apparently, on advice of the local police, landlords have
begun to request arrest records as part of the screening process for
potential tenants. Note: arrest NOT conviction. So as part of the
rental process, the potential tenant has to get a copy of their arrest
record from the local station.
They interviewed a landlord, with the expected 'see, look at this
apartment that was used as a drug lab', an advocate for housing, she
touched upon the privacy issue, and a cop.
Thoughts?
From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: CNN Report: Aurora, Ill.
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
We covered this topic on Full Disclosure Live the last two weeks. A
landlord that uses a tenant rating service, called in and said that he
loved the service, because he didn't have to worry about the
responsility of picking tenants.. he just told them, that had to have a
6 or 7 rating to get an apt... and that was the end of his worry.
Is life better if you let OTHERS take responsibility for you?
The police thing is worse... the Chicago Tribune article on it, put the
focus on LANDLORDS doing the JOB of the POLICE! If the police did their
job, the landlord would't need to participate in this plan.
------------------------------
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Date: 29 Jul 1994 13:03:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Is License Plate No. a Key to Personal Info?
Organization: Oppedahl & Larson
harris.jarnold@ic1d.harris.com (Jon Arnold) writes: While watching
channel 6 late news last night, they did a short clip on the fact
that in Florida, if you get a vehicle's license plate number, you
are *readily able* to get the owner's name, date of birth, *social
security number*, address, etc. I can't believe this!?! The
example used in the clip was that if for example somebody cut you
off while driving and you got the license number, you could go to
any tax collector's office and simply ask for the information, and
they are *required* to give it to you.
There MUST be more to the story than this!?! The clip went on to
say that this law was repealed in California a few years ago
because some woman was stalked & killed by somebody who got
information about her this way. Is there a bright side to this
law? Surely it can't be as "open" as the news clip suggests?
All the more reason to set up one of those $100 corporations to own
your car, and presumably your home as well.
--
Carl Oppedahl AA2KW
Oppedahl & Larson (patent lawyers)
Yorktown Heights, NY
oppedahl@patents.com
------------------------------
From: Jeff Hupp <jhupp@novellnet.gensys.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 17:57:12
Subject: Re: Is License Plate No. a Key to Personal Info?
Organization: Gensys Technologies, Inc.
harris.jarnold@ic1d.harris.com (Jon Arnold) writes: While watching
channel 6 late news last night, they did a short clip on the fact
that in Florida, if you get a vehicle's license plate number, you
are *readily able* to get the owner's name, date of birth, *social
security number*, address, etc. I can't believe this!?! The
example used in the clip was that if for example somebody cut you
off while driving and you got the license number, you could go to
any tax collector's office and simply ask for the information, and
they are *required* to give it to you.
Well, here in Houston, Texas (Harris County) there is a $2.00 charge
per plate number searched.
--
Jeff Hupp | Public education,
<Jhupp@NovellNet.Gensys.com> | it's a bug, not a
I speek for myself, don't you? | feature.
------------------------------
From: johan@netcom.com (Johan Strandberg)
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 14:08:10 -0800
Subject: Re: Many Phone Taps are now Legal
Chuck Weckesser writes: [A cordless phone] available from the
Sharper Image (A Uniden model) operates on the 900 mghz range,
making "accidential" interception impossible.
Ha! My cordless headphones operate in the 900 MHz range too and every
time they are slightly de-tuned I get treated to numerous phone calls.
And I don't even try...
--
Johan Strandberg
------------------------------
From: binskeep@crl.com (Bob Inskeep)
Date: 29 Jul 1994 15:24:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Government E-Mail Directive
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access 415-705-6060 [login: guest]
Dan Newcombe (newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu) wrote:
huggins@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Jim Huggins) writes: shown each time I
used it, but I disregarded them.) The theory being, of course,
that IBM wasn't paying for Internet access so that I could talk for
free with my girlfriend (now my wife).
I thought that for Internet access, places paid one flat annual
fee. So what difference does it make. It would seem you'd be
getting your moneys worth if people used it more and more.
My opinion exactly. The Govt usually pays a flat rate for a system, the
cost is there whether or not the system is on, off, in use, idle,
personal or work mail. I suspect several reasons for limiting the use
of Gov systems for email or private postings (though I see many, many
gov or mil domains on usenet postings). One could be the view that it
is fraud waste and abuse of Gov Equipment. The other being that an
employee is paid to work, not send private email. Let the press find
out about such use..there would be heck to pay..too many questions to
answer.
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 09:13:35 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Monthly CPD Message
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The paragraphs below are the boilerplate text normally printed at the
bottom of the eMailed copy of the Computer Privacy Digest. As a result
they would never be seen by the readers of the comp.society.privacy
newsgroup were it not for this posting. People who read this as a
newsgroup should simply post contributions. As a moderated newsgroup,
attempts to post to the group are normally turned into eMail to the
submission address below. People who read the digest eMailed to them
generally need only use the Reply feature of their mailer to
contribute. All contributions are acknowledged within 24 hours of
submission. An article is printed if it is relevant to the charter of
the digest. If selected, it is printed within two or three days. The
moderator reserves the right to delete extraneous quoted material. He
may change the subject line of an article in order to make it easier
for the reader to follow a discussion. He will not, however, alter or
edit or append to the text except for purely technical reasons.
Boilerplate text follows:
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. 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".
People with gopher capability can access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of
technology on privacy or vice versa. 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".
People with gopher capability can access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133].
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #015
******************************
.