Date: Sat, 08 Oct 94 07:25:25 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#045
Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 08 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 045
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
The DT bill just passed in the Senate
Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number
Re: Background Check For Job
Re: Background Check For Job
Corporate E-mail Privacy Guidelines (long)
The National Computer Security Organization
Some Good News for a Change
Anti-Clipper T-shirts for Sale
Re: Post Office Boxes
SSN on driver's license in MO
Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir@panix.com>
Date: 08 Oct 1994 00:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The DT bill just passed in the Senate
Subject: Wiretap Watch FINAL EDITION (The DT bill has passed)
The Wiretap Watch
Final Issue
October 7, 1994
Distribute Widely
Recent Quotes: (It's been a busy week, we've answered over 2,000 emails)
"I think we should adjourn now [..] the country is safer when
we're not in session."
-Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) on C-SPAN
"Senator Wallop's office, may I help you?"
"Yes, I called to register my support for the Senator's
concerned position on the bill."
"Ok, got it. Thanks"
"Have there been a lot of calls today? Dozens? Fifty?"
"Hundreds so far today."
-A conversation I had earlier today with Sen. Wallop's
office
"I called Feinstein again and the offical breakfast food is
still a waffle."
-Another California caller on Feinstein's FBI Wiretap
position
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents
A look back at the bill
What you should do right now
Positions of legislators pro and con
Status of the bills
Brief explanation of the bill
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A LOOK BACK AT THE BILL
As you may have already discovered the Senate passed the bill tonight
on "unanimous consent". Although I will leave the soothsaying to more
eloquent folks, there are a number of things that need to be said and
people that need to be thanked.
1. A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THIS LEGISLATIVE FIGHT
During this campaign, we asked people to contact several legislators
about the bill. This was a very effective means ofat mobilizing people.
When we put out the word that Senator Wallop needed support, hundreds of
calls were received the very next day -- their office was stunned.
This is the first time many of the sitting legislators learned that
constituents were concerned about privacy. We have begun to teach
them that this is an important issue. Educating a legislator is an
ongoing process that we'll continue to assist with in preparation for
the elections. It would be great if legislators begin to consider what
effects their actions will have on "the privacy vote."
Sincere thanks go out to the literally thousands of people who took the
time to call their legislators. The response we received to our alerts
was amazing. The mail itself was overwhelming; the letters really
kept us going on those late nights. When people wrote to us, saying
that they had faxed our press release to a dozen papers and called the
same number of legislators, it seemed inconceivable that we should let
something as minor as sleep slow us down.
Thanks to everyone who contributed by calling and faxing (and sending in
corrections). It appears that our technique of providing excellent
information with the research done for the reader is a technique people
appreciate. We'll continue to refine it in preparation for the next
legislative session.
2. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE
Much worse versions of the DT bill have been introduced. They were all
killed before really getting anywhere. When this version was brought up,
the EFF had a difficult decision in front of them: assume the soothsayers
were right about it passing this year and try to hack in some privacy
provisions, or try and mount a fight against it. Other factors such as
organizational direction played a part in this decision I'm sure, but I'm
not qualified to talk about that. (I'm about as far from an EFF insider
as you can get.)
There are several privacy provisions that have been added to the bill.
Had the EFF not intervened, they would not be there. PERIOD. I think
we owe them a thank you for that.
Did they really know what they were doing or was it a lucky guess?
Who's to say; we all have 20/20 hindsight. When EFF made this
decision, it was months ago. They were like an ace-in-the-hole should
the bill pass.
3. THIS IS STILL A PROCESS THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO MONITOR
There are several ways in which the powers in the bill could be abused
by law enforcement. The bill provides law enforcement with unprecedented
assurance that a wiretap will always be available. This will subtly
change the way law enforcement does its work. ("When your most ubiqitous
tool in a hammer, the world starts to look a lot like nails..")
Furthermore the process for creating the wiretap functionality standards
truly rests in the hands of the FCC. We have seen from past experience
with the CallerID blocking fiasco that the FCC is not the bastion
of privacy that we wish it was. In that instance, there was significant
public outcry against the proposal, and yet privacy still lost.
What's the good news? There are organizations who we can count on to
watchdog this process. The EFF wrote most (if not all) of the privacy
provisions of the bill. They will be in a great position to monitor
the progress of this process and ensure that not just the LETTER of
the privacy provisions are followed, but the SPIRIT as well.
Furthermore, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is
aggressive in their FOIA efforts, which keep our government honest. I
sleep better at nights knowing they're keeping an eye out. I would
have given my left foot to be in the courtroom this week with EPIC when
the FBI's counsel asked for a five year delay on releasing twenty
pages of wiretap data, and the judge told the attorney to "..call
Director Freeh and tell him I said this matter can be taken care of
in an hour and [a] half."
Finally, I want to take a moment to thank David Sobel, Marc Rotenberg,
& David Banisar of EPIC for all the help they gave us. Not being in
DC, its difficult for us to simply "drop by" the office of a swing vote
legislator and present our arguments. We're very grateful to them for
this.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO RIGHT NOW
Nothing for the moment. The Senate passed the Digital Telephony bill
(S. 2375) a few minutes before adjournment tonight. The various holds
put on it by Republican Senators were removed and the bill passed on
"unanimous consent". This means that there was no opposition to it.
President Clinton is almost certain to sign it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS
STATUS SB 2375
It passed on the evening of Oct. 7 on unanimous consent literally
minutes before the Congress adjourned.
STATUS HR 4922
It passed on the evening of Oct. 5 on a voice vote.
Oct 7, 94 The Senate passed S. 2375 on unanimous consent minutes
before adjournment.
Oct 6, 94 Nothing happened, though a Senate vote was expected. Several
Senators have placed holds on the bill.
Oct 5, 94 House passes HR 4922 on a voice vote.
Oct 4, 94 House is scheduled to vote on HR 4922, along with more than
50 other items on the "suspension calendar". The debate
took place tonight; the House vote was put off until Oct 5, '94.
Oct 3, 94 Judge Richey instructs the FBI to comply with a FOIA request
to make available their wiretap surveys (which they claim
justify their bill) by Nov. 1.
Sep 29, 94 HR 4922 marked up and reported out of the Hse. Jud. Comm
and nearly to the full House
Sep 28, 94 SB 2375 amended, marked up, and reported out of the Sen. Jud.
Comm. to the full Senate
Sep 15, 94 HR 4922 hearing held in the Telecommunications Comm.
Aug 18, 94 HR 4922 reported back to committee (write to Rep. Jack Brooks!)
Aug 11, 94 Sen. Leahy & Rep. Edwards hold a joint hearing on the bills in
Wash. DC at 1pm in Rayburn 2237.
Aug 10, 94 HR 4922 referred to Subcomm. on Civil and Constitutional Rights
Aug 10, 94 SB 2375 referred to Subcomm. on Technology and the Law
Aug 9, 94 Rep. Hyde officially cosponsors HR 4922
Aug 9, 94 HR 4922 referred to House Judiciary Committee
Aug 9, 94 SB 2375 referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Aug 9, 94 Identical House and Senate bills are announced by their respective
sponsors, Rep. Don Edwards (D-CA) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
EFF states the legislation is "not necessary" and predicts it
will pass regardless.
For more information about the Digital Telephony bills, check the
Voters Telecomm Watch gopher site (gopher.panix.com) or contact Steven
Cherry, VTW Press Contact at (718) 596-2851 or stc@vtw.org.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINAL POSITIONS OF LEGISLATORS
Because the Senate version passed with "unanimous consent", all of the
sitting Senators supported it. This means that if someone is a Senator,
they supported it. No fancy ASCII tables required.
Three representatives we know of opposed the bill in the House:
Dist ST Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax
==== == ======================== ============== ==============
4 CA Doolittle, John T. (R) 1-202-225-2511 1-202-225-5444
1 OR Furse, Elizabeth (D) 1-202-225-0855 na
12 NC Watt, Melvin* (D) 1-202-225-1510 1-202-225-1512
Please call them and thank them for their privacy stances.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE BILLS
The FBI's Wiretap bills (also known as the DT - Digital Telephony bills)
mandate that *all* communications carriers must provide wiretap-ready
equipment so that the FBI can more easily implement their court-ordered
wiretaps. The costs of re-engineering all communications equipment will
be borne by the government, industry and consumers. It does not cover
information service providers.
The bill is vague and the standards defining "wiretap ready" do not
exist. Furthermore, the FBI has yet to make a case which demonstrates
that they have been unable to implement a single wiretap. Although
we as a society have accepted law enforcement's need to perform
wiretaps, it is not reasonable to mandate this functionality as a part
of the design. In itself, that would be an important debate. However
without any proof that this is indeed a realistic and present problem,
it is unacceptable and premature to pass this legislation today.
The Voters Telecomm Watch (VTW) does not believe the FBI has made a
compelling case to justify that all Americans give up their privacy.
Furthermore, the VTW does not believe the case has been made to justify
spending 500 million Federal dollars over the next several years to
re-engineer equipment to compromise privacy, interfere with
telecommunications privacy, and fulfill an unproven government need.
There are some privacy protections built into the bill. Their benefit
does not outweigh the damage that building wiretaps into all communication
does, however.
------------------------------
From: jswylie@delphi.com
Date: 05 Oct 94 21:24:00 -0500
Subject: Re: How to Verify Your Phone Number
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
pp000837@interramp.com wrote: If you dial 1-800-MY-ANI-IS
(1-800-692-6447), you should be able to ascertain/verify the number
you are calling from. This technique is particularly useful when
calling from a pay phone (that accepts incoming calls but is
missing a listed number) or when calling from an unlisted phone
that you want to crack.
If you are calling out through a PBX, it is going to either return the
billing number or the number of the trunk line actually used for the
call, I'm not sure which. It is not going to be able to return your
extension number because as of yet, the PBX has no way to pass that
information to the telephone company switch. There may be exceptions
to this, but they would be rare. Some day that will change. I'm not
sure how this works if you have centrex. In that case, the telephone
company would know the number since it's all done in its switch.
By the way, for the same reason, services like return call can't return
calls to pbx extensions even though they have outside numbers which
you can dial in with.
--
John S. Wylie - Internet: jswylie@delphi.com
[moderator: Similar remarks were made by johnny@.interramp.com (John
Featherman), elvey-matthew@CS.YALE.EDU (Matthew Elvey) and
crf@access.digex.net (Clarke Ferber) who also reported that it works
for him in 301 land.]
------------------------------
From: poivre@netcom.com (Serrano)
Date: 07 Oct 1994 03:45:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Background Check For Job
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Edward Kazmarek (kazmarek@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
lindline@rice.edu (Ann Lindline) writes: Is this legal? If
you want to work for certain government agencies, I know you
have to ...
I'm not sure, but I suspect it's legal. At least, it's pretty
common. For security clearance background checks, it is quite
common to assess someone's potential security risk by the character
of the company they keep. Even more, it's quite common to pursue
what are called ...
Yes, it is possible to assess someone's risk by seeing the kind of
company they keep, like their friends. But it should not be family. I
mean, if a relative/family member is a bad apple, you don't want to
have anything to do with them, but can't run away because you're bound
by blood. And then to have people judge you based upon a family
member's behavior/record that you can not control, and can not
disassociate yourself from, is wrong! We do not choose our families.
Anyway, is there any legal way to cut those familial ties?? I don't
think so. This whole business with family is like that old saying
about judging a person on the sins of their father. I guess OJ's kids
would never be able to get a sensitive government job because of what
their father did. Nor for that matter, any kids who happened to be
unlucky enough to be born in a bad family. It has closed one door of
opportunity.
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
poivre@netcom.com : #include <disclaimer.h>
:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
From: Bill Parker <billp@snark.wizard.com>
Date: 07 Oct 1994 09:17:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Background Check For Job
Organization: @wizard.com - Las Vegas Access
Ann Lindline (lindline@rice.edu) wrote: In fact, one of the
roommates received a follow-up call/letter from the company that he
must come to the company for an interview before the employee can
be approved. All the roommates wonder if this person's Chinese
ethnicity (but American citizenship, I think) is the reason for the
interview.
Hi Ann, as one who has worked for the Gov't in this type of area, I can
tell you that it is routine and legal. A routine background check
would be in order for any individual who was working with sensitive or
classified information. The extent of the review depends on the type
of information and the kind of agency/company he or she is working
for.
Is this legal? If you want to work for certain government
agencies, I know you have to submit to, and subject your family and
friends to, a lot of poking and prying into backgrounds. Is
working for a defense contractor basically the same as working for
the government? What rights to refuse would these roommates have?
Well, as I pointed out above it is legal. If your roommates do not
want to say anything, it is certainly within their rights to do so. I
have been asked on a number of occasions to provide background
information for friends who work for the gov't or defense contractors.
Working for a DC is not the same as working for the Gov't, but in a lot
of cases where security concerns are a issue, it is.
For example, if I want to work in a casino in Las Vegas, I need to have
a Sheriff's work card (which requires a cursory background check, local
and perhaps thru NCIC).
The types of questions which are usually asked in such interviews are:
Does xxx have a problem with drinking (excessive or on the job)
Does xxx have a problem with gambling ("")
Does xxx have any financial problems that you are aware of?
Does xxx a person of good character or standing in the community.
Does xxx have a sense of humor (needed in cases where a person will be
carrying a firearm).
Does xxx have family living in countries which support communist or
terrorist practices, etc.
In cases where a person applies for a job dealing with cryptographic
intelligence, a polygraph test may be administered as well. Depending
on the level of Security Clearance needed, the questions get more
extensive.
------------------------------
From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com>
Date: 06 Oct 94 20:22:35 EDT
Subject: Corporate E-mail Privacy Guidelines (long)
GO NCSA on CompuServe will get this document, among others. The next
message discusses this service.
-----------------------------
FORMULATING A PRIVACY POLICY FOR
CORPORATE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING
Email is transforming the way people work together. In a matter of half
a decade, email has emerged as one of the most important collaborative
tools of our age. But if the vast majority of networked organizations
now possess sophisticated electronic messaging infrastructures, barely
a handful have developed policies and guidelines that ensure both
managers and users use this tool intelligently and with integrity. The
Electronic Messaging Association has been at the forefronts of efforts
to promote better use of email systems, particularly with regard to
privacy concerns. Here, the EMA's Executive Director, Bill Morone,
offers advice on where to start.
If your company does not have an electronic messaging privacy policy,
it should.
There are certain key questions and policy options that need to be
considered when developing your organization 's privacy policy for
electronic mail and messaging systems. The appropriate policy will
differ for each company depending on the needs of the organization, the
reasonable expectations of employees, the rights of outsiders, and a
balancing of various complex interests.
The only policy that can be vigorously endorsed by EMA for virtually
all circumstances is this:
"A company should have a policy with regard to protection of its
employees' privacy, and should tell employees what that policy is."
Most employers should establish privacy solutions that deal with all
media of communication used by employees, rather than singling out
electronic mail as if it posed some unique threat to employee privacy.
The following six questions should be considered by employers in the
course of formulating a policy:
1. Who has a stake in establishing a responsible policy regarding
access to and disclosure of company electronic mail? How will the
policy affect the:
* Employer?
* Employee?
* Third Parties?
* Law Enforcement Authorities?
* Electronic Communications Service Providers?
2. What baseline legal rights and duties constrain any policy?
* Legal duties not to invade employee privacy
* Federal and State Law duties regarding use, interception, access during
storage, and disclosure of electronic communications without authority
3. What operational features of electronic communications systems
should affect any policy on access, use and disclosure? For example:
* Electronic mail is typically stored pending receipt.
* Electronic mail may easily be forwarded.
* Electronic files are more easily transferred than paper files.
* Company files can be transferred off the network by electronic mail.
4. What analogies can be used to help formulate a consistent set of
policies? You may want to analyze your policy choices by considering
your reactions to the following roughly analogous situations. For
example:
* Inspecting an employee 's drawer.
* Intercepting or monitoring employee telephone calls.
* Regularly reviewing files kept in filing cabinets by employees.
5. What criteria should be used to evaluate a proposed policy? For
example:
* Does the policy maintain a productive workplace?
* Does the policy provide for adequate security?
6. Has your policy been disclosed in advance to all concerned?
Three additional areas should be considered when establishing
procedures that will be used to put together your organization's
privacy policy:
1. Who from your organization should participate in the development of
the policy? For example:
* Senior Management
* Human Resources
* Legal Counsel
* Employee Users
* Security
* Union Representatives
* MIS Director
* Chief Information Officer
2. What corporate assets should be considered in formulating overall
workplace privacy policies?
* Paper File Cabinets
* Employee Offices/Desks
* LANs
* Hard Disks
* Floppy Disks
* Voice Mail
* Electronic Mail
* Telephones
* Call Accounting Records
* Audio Recording Equipment
* Paper Mail
* Closed Circuit Television
3. What information will you want to gather in advance or during the
course of formulating your policy. Examples include:
* Number of electronic mail users.
* Connection of electronic mail system through gateways to other systems.
* Contract(s) with electronic mail service providers.
MOST IMPORTANT:
* Develop A Privacy Policy.
* Develop Procedures For Implementing The Policy.
* Clearly Tell Your Employees What It Is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORMULATING A PRIVACY POLICY FOR CORPORATE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING was
adapted from a publication of the Electronic Messaging Association --
"Access to and Use and Disclosure of Electronic Mail on Company
Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for Formulating Your Company's Policy" --
prepared by David R. Johnson of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering and John
Podesta of Podesta Associates, Inc. for the Electronic Messaging
Association (EMA).
EMA publishes a variety of books and papers on electronic messaging
issues. Two EMA publications relating to privacy issues are:
* EMA'S PRIVACY TOOLKIT -- Access to and Use and Disclosure of
Electronic Mail on Company Computer Systems: A Tool Kit for Formulating
Your Company's Policy
Prepared by privacy experts David R. Johnson and John Podesta, this
tool kit serves as a means of helping you decide what policies your
company should adopt. The Tool Kit features a series of alternative
policy formulations which have been arranged by topic to help you
tailor your policy with regard to particular issues.
Price: $20, EMA Members - $45, Non-Members.
* PROTECTING ELECTRONIC MESSAGING -- A Guide to the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986
This comprehensive document interprets key aspects of
ECPA, which, in essence, updated federal wiretap law in light
of new technologies to protect against unauthorized interception
of electronic communications. The Guide discusses ECPA's role
in protecting electronic messaging and mail both in transmission
and in storage, its interception by law enforcement officials,
and the role of public service providers and government with
regard to electronic communications privacy.
Price: $55, EMA Members - $195, Non-Members.
FOR MORE INFORMATION,
CONTACT THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ASSOCIATION:
For further information, including a catalog of publications and membership
information, contact EMA at any of the following addresses:
Internet: info@ema.org
X.400: S=info; O=ema; A=mci; C=us
Telephone: 703/524-5550
Facsimile: 703/524-5558
Address: 1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 850
Arlington, VA 22209 - U.S.A.
ABOUT THE NCSA
Thank you for your interest in the National Computer Security
Association (NCSA). NCSA is the leading membership organization
providing educational materials, training, testing and consulting
services to improve information security, reliability and ethics.
We are a membership organization and currently support over 1600
members. Among other things we publish a newsletter, conduct public
and in-house training and sponsor an annual security conference. NCSA
is also sponsoring a Medical System Security Symposium in Washington,
DC, November 16-17, 1994. More information about this symposium can be
EMailed upon request. Our next annual conference will also be held in
Washington, DC, and is scheduled for April 10-11, 1995.
In addition, NCSA runs an InfoSecurity forum on CompuServe (GO NCSA).
This forum addresses the full range of info security topics, including
PC/LAN security, encryption, UNIX/InterNet security, viruses, disaster
recovery, audit and much more. Our moderators are among the leading
experts on matters pertaining to information security. The Forum
supports over 7,000 members and has one of the most active message
bases on CompuServe.
NCSA also publishes a 32 page infosecurity resource catalog which
contains nearly all of the books written about the subject of
information security. It also includes security-related periodicals,
self-audit kits and tools and training materials such as videos, PC
based tutorials and security posters. The catalog is free and can be
requested via EMail at 75300.2557@compuserve.com. An electronic
version in the form of a HyperText database is available for download
from our forum on CompuServe (LIB 1/NCSA.ZIP). If you do not have
access to CompuServe, a hardcopy can be mailed to you if you'll provide
your snail-mail address.
NCSA can be reached at:
National Computer Security Association
10 S. Courthouse Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-258-1816 - Voice
717-243-8642 - Fax
75300.2557@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: "(NCSA) Bob Bales" <74774.1326@compuserve.com>
Date: 07 Oct 94 10:47:46 EDT
Subject: The National Computer Security Organization
Thank you for your interest in the National Computer Security
Association (NCSA). NCSA is the leading membership organization
providing educational materials, training, testing and consulting
services to improve information security, reliability and ethics.
We are a membership organization and currently support over 1600
members. Among other things we publish a newsletter, conduct public
and in-house training and sponsor an annual security conference. NCSA
is also sponsoring a Medical System Security Symposium in Washington,
DC, November 16-17, 1994. More information about this symposium can be
EMailed upon request. Our next annual conference will also be held in
Washington, DC, and is scheduled for April 10-11, 1995.
In addition, NCSA runs an InfoSecurity forum on CompuServe (GO NCSA).
This forum addresses the full range of info security topics, including
PC/LAN security, encryption, UNIX/InterNet security, viruses, disaster
recovery, audit and much more. Our moderators are among the leading
experts on matters pertaining to information security. The Forum
supports over 5,000 members and has one of the most active message
bases on CompuServe.
We are not presently "on the InterNet", although we do receive mail and
relevant UseNet information. NCSA also publishes a 32 page
infosecurity resource catalog which contains nearly all of the books
written about the subject of information security. It also includes
security-related periodicals, self-audit kits and tools and training
materials such as videos, PC based tutorials and security posters. The
catalog is free and can be requested via EMail at
74774.1326@compuserve.com. An electronic version in the form of a
HyperText database is available for download from our forum on
CompuServe (LIB 1/NCSA.ZIP). If you do not have access to CompuServe,
a hardcopy can be mailed to you if you'll provide your snail-mail
address.
NCSA can be reached at:
National Computer Security Association
10 S. Courthouse Ave.
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-258-1816 - Voice
717-243-8642 - Fax
74774.1326@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub)
Date: 07 Oct 1994 17:56:23 -0500
Subject: Some Good News for a Change
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
I have a Visa card from Chase Manhattan Bank. They recently sent me a
notice informing me that they "never rent or sell [their] list of
cardmembers to any person or organization."
I guess I blew my cover, but I thought other people might want to
know. :-)
--
Seth Golub | "..And in all of Babylonia there was
seth@cs.wustl.edu | wailing and gnashing of teeth, till the
seth@hilco.com | prophets bade the multitudes get a grip
| on themselves and shape up." - W. Allen
------------------------------
From: normh@crl.com (Norman J Harman)
Date: 07 Oct 1994 01:08:46 -0700
Subject: Anti-Clipper T-shirts for Sale
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest]
Anti-Clipper shirts are ready!!!
Sizes available (S, M, L, XL)
The price for one shirt mailed in the U.S. is $8.50
(International persons please E-mail me for postage cost normh@crl.com)
Make checks/money orders payable to Smiley Publishing Company
Send to:
Smiley Publishing Company
PO Box 420943
San Francisco, CA 94142-0943
Many of you who responed to my posts expressed the desire to have
higher quality shirts. I talked to Zerolith and they where happy to
provide 100% pre-shrunk cotton shirts that are not much more expensive
than the 50/50 ones. The original price I quoted was for a one sided
shirt. But there were many good ideas and I think this design will
attract more people and thus discussion.
These two factors combined caused the price increase + $.60 Hopefully
you still think it is a good deal. I would like to restate that this
is the cost for the shirts and postage. I am not making a profit nor
will I make any money to donate to a charity, although I am using one
to silk-screen the shirts(see below).
The shirts are white 100% pre-shrunk cotton
The front has a "Big Brother Inside" Logo, and a chip with the word "clipper".
The back has the following top-ten list (possibly with changed order or
slight wording/spelling/grammer corrections);
"Top 10 reasons to Say No to Clipper"
#1 "Can't trust Clinton not to read McDonalds recipes for Big Mac secret
sauce."
#2 "We all know its just so the FBI can get free phone sex."
#3 "The spies at NSA will get eyestrain reading all of Santa's mail."
#4 "Because a policeman's job is only easy in a Police State."
#5 "The Clipper chip will cause it to be slightly less convenient to plan
protests, revolutions, conspiraces, and bake sales."
#6 "The 4th Amendment was a pretty good idea. Read it."
#7 "If the Feds listened to my conversations they would be too bored and
sleepy to defend our country."
#8 "Responsibility and Government don't mix. See #10"
#9 "It will get the stupid crooks out of the way for the government
sponsored ones."
#10 "If they learn how unhappy we are with the government they might start
shutting down BBS's, killing off divergent religious groups, illegalizing art,
conducting radioactive tests with us, censoring books, and keeping files on us.
Thanks to the following for their ideas.
David Merriman
Robert Herndon
Doug Moore
Rob Deairsto
Jeff Holland
Donald Alan
Thanks to everyone else who made suggestions. Sorry they could not all
be used
A worthy cause is better if it benefits another good cause so the
shirts will be silk-screened by Zerolith, part of a non-profit
organization that employs, shelters, and assists homeless youth. If
you would like to talk with Zerolith or donate money directly here is
how to contact them.
Zerolith
3075 21st Street
San Francisco, CA 94110-2626
415.641.1014 voice
415.641.1474 fax
--
o o
Norman J. Harman Jr. Smiley Publishing
normh@crl.com \__/ San Francisco, CA
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@condes.mv.com (Gary McGath)
Date: 07 Oct 1994 08:23:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Post Office Boxes
Organization: Conceptual Design
Mike Crawford <crawford@scipp.ucsc.edu> wrote: In California,
businesses are required to provide a street address. I am not sure
who collects this information - whether it is the resale license,
the business license, or the franchise tax board, but the purpose
is to discourage fraudulent businesses which have a PO box and no
other way to track down or arrest them. I believe the state will
provide this information to anyone. There is an exception for
people who run businesses out of their homes. hmmm... I think
maybe the actual law says that the street address has to be on any
literature the business distributes. I'm hazy about this, but
check it out.
When I applied for a P.O. box recently, the application said the
information can be disclosed to anyone for a business which deals "with
the public." Businesses which don't deal with the public, but only with
a limited clientele, aren't subject to disclosure by this rule; at
least I interpreted the rule this way with regard to my own computer
consulting business.
--
Gary McGath
gmcgath@condes.mv.com
------------------------------
From: seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub)
Date: 07 Oct 1994 18:08:12 -0500
Subject: SSN on driver's license in MO
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
I recently got a Missouri driver's license. Normally, in Missouri,
your Social Security Number is used as your license number. I had
heard that it was possible to avoid this, so when I went down to get my
license I was prepared to deal with ignorant drones as long as was
necessary to get a different number.
When I entered the DMV I saw a large sign in a prominent location with
large, clear type (and with some parts highlighted) that said I could
check a box on a form if I objected to using my SSN as my license
number. I checked the box, and I got a different number. No hassle.
Of course, I'll have to deal with store clerks' odd looks when they see
a license number that starts with a letter, but I guess that will be a
good time to enlighten them about SSNs.
--
Seth Golub | "..And in all of Babylonia there was
seth@cs.wustl.edu | wailing and gnashing of teeth, till the
seth@hilco.com | prophets bade the multitudes get a grip
| on themselves and shape up." - W. Allen
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:45:51 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc.
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
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.
If you read this from the comp.society.privacy newsgroup and wish to
contribute a message, you should simply post your contribution. As a
moderated newsgroup, attempts to post to the group are normally turned
into eMail to the submission address below.
On the other hand, if you read the digest eMailed to you, you generally
need only use the Reply feature of your mailer to contribute. If you
do so, it is best to modify the "Subject:" line of your mailing.
Contributions generally 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.
A library of back issues is available on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18].
Login as "ftp" with password identifying yourid@yoursite. The archives
are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy".
People with gopher capability can most easily access the library at
gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Mosaic users will find it at gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu.
Older 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
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #045
******************************
.