Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:54:09 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#046
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 10 Oct 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 046
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
FBI Wiretap Bill, Copy Available
FBI Wiretap Bill, What Does it Say?
AOL Sells its Subscriber List
Re: Eastwood Problem (last word)
Freedom of Information in WI
Freedom of Information in NJ
Info on CPD, Contributions, Subscriptions, FTP, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: leander@xmission.com
Date: 08 Oct 94 09:42:49 PDT
Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
Organization: XMission Public Access Internet (801 539 0900)
seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) reported: 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.
Here in Utah the law changed a couple of years ago. In '92 a woman
took the state to court about the practice of putting SS#'s on drivers
licences (the licence already has its own number).
So in Utah, if you don't want your SS# put on the licence, you just let
them know.
It is a giggle when store clerks look for the SS# to write on your
check and find it isn't there <grin>.
--
Leander
------------------------------
From: sean@sdg.dra.com (Sean Donelan)
Date: 08 Oct 94 12:50:17 CDT
Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO
seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) writes: 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.
Yes, it is indeed possible to get "the government" to see the light.
Remember its your government. If the government is doing something you
don't like, work to get it changed. Sometimes the system works.
In 1990-91 Missouri started using the SSN as its driver's license
number. When the original law passed there were only two exceptions.
1) If you didn't have a SSN, verified by a letter from the Social
Security Administration. 2) A religious objection, verified by a
county-level or higher judge. No other exceptions. No SSN. No
driver's license.
This was important because Missouri Department of Revenue (which issues
driver's licenses in Missouri) regulations say a person's SSN is
considered confidential *EXCEPT* when used as the drivers license
number. Missouri driver license records, like most Missouri public
records, may be sold, given, or shown to anyone. Anyone can buy
individual driver's records for $1.50, or in bulk for about
$0.01/each.
A number of people complained to the Missouri DOR clerks (not very
useful) and their state representatives (somewhat more useful). The
following year the state legislature modified the law adding a third
exception. The third exception is if a person "certifies" to the
director of DOR his or her objection to using his or her SSN as the
driver's license number. No explaination is required, just a certified
objection.
Although DOR could have made it a pain, they didn't. "Certification"
consists of checking a box on the form "I object ..." and signing your
name. No great hassle. You still have to provide your SSN for DOR's
records (still somewhat objectionable, I left the SSN spot blank for a
number of years until DOR refused to renew my license without it), but
since the SSN isn't your driver's license number, the SSN is considered
confidential according to DOR regulations.
The final gotcha is previous license numbers. I haven't been able to
find out DOR's policy for those people (such as myself) whose drivers
license expired the year the law required them to use their SSN as the
license number and had their license number changed after the law was
modified. Normally DOR lists the previous license numbers on the
driver's record.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
------------------------------
From: dpaulson@cpdsc.com (Dean Paulson)
Date: 10 Oct 1994 15:38:23 GMT
Subject: Re: SSN on driver's license in MO
Organization: CP DSC Communications, Plano TX
seth@cs.wustl.edu (Seth Golub) writes: I recently got a Missouri
driver's license. Normally, in Missouri, your Social Security
Number is used as your license number.
I once had a dl which used my SSN as the dl number. That was 10 years
ago when I lived in North Dakota (glad I moved away). I don't know if
they stilldo yhis up there...
--
Dean Paulson
dpaulson@cpdsc.com
------------------------------
From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@eff.org>
Date: 08 Oct 1994 15:36:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: FBI Wiretap Bill, Copy Available
Do you have an online copy of the bill as passed?
ftp.eff.org, /pub/EFF/Policy/Digital_Telephony/digtel94.bill, just
updated yest.
--
<A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/mech.html"> Stanton McCandlish
</A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech@eff.org
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Fndtn.
</A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/a.html"> Online Activist </A>
------------------------------
From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Date: 09 Oct 94 11:20 CDT
Subject: FBI Wiretap Bill, What Does it Say?
Did I read the wiretap act correctly, in that it outlaws listening to
cordless phones on a scanner? (it seems to amend the ECPA to include
cordless phones as cellular phones).
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 1994 11:06:20 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: AOL Sells its Subscriber List
Taken from RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Monday 10 October 1994
Volume 16 : Issue 45 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND
RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G.
Neumann, moderator
Date: 05 Oct 1994 10:03:16 -0700
From: "David L. Gehrt - RIACS" <dlg@skydesign.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: AOL Sells its Subscriber List
On the front page of the buiness section of the San Jose Mercury today
(5 Oct 1994) is an article describing one of the most egregious privacy
violations I have heard of. America Online, described in the article
as the fastest growing on-line service providers, has or appears to be
ready to peddle subscriber information. The kind of information by AOL
collected upon sign up is (IMHO) excessive. My wife signed up and I
nearly told her to find another service provider and if she had known
about the possibility that the info would be sold I am sure that she
would have not signed up.
According to the article the information which might be included in the
sale of AOL subscriber info includes: "...name, gender, address,
income, family, type of computer equipment, and payments to the
company."
My hope is that other subscribers will rise up in anger and convince
AOL that this invasion of their privacy will cost them more $$$ in lost
subscribers than they can hope to gain via the sale of the info.
--
David L. Gehrt
------------------------------
From: ed.chilton@ablelink.org
Date: 08 Oct 1994 20:54:39
Subject: Re: Eastwood Problem (last word)
-----------------------------------------
[Moderator: This was sent to me last week, but somehow I managed to
lose it.]
-------------------------------------------
The problem as stated is not an issue of "computer ethics." It is a
matter of Eastwood condominium administration. The administrators, who
would include the security sysop, would be hired to execute the will
and activities and policies determined by the Eastwood Owner's
Association. IMO the particular technology used is irrelevant.
Data about the comings and goings of persons to monitored facilities or
places are recorded, stored, and deleted all the time - and not only
now but HAVE BEEN for thousands of years, using the latest means
available to do so. (Spying is called the second oldest profession.)
Today, banks and other places videotape the persons who enter their
premises and if I don't like it, too bad.
An observed coming or going can be recorded by tying a knot in string
and the distance between knots can represent time. We may ask such
rarely posed questions as: How long should a data string be kept? Who
should be allowed to see the string before the knots are untied and the
string is used again? Under what conditions should the data
(information?) be made available? Are these questions a matter of
"string ethics"?
Further, just because something CAN be recorded does not mean that it
MUST be recorded. That is a matter of policy. Successful and legitimate
use of a device to enter secure premises can be ignored, and
UNsuccessful, and therefore POSSIBLE illegitimate use, CAN be
recorded. Recording the former could be regarded to be an invasion of
privacy and recording the latter could be regarded as constituting
security of the area. It is a judgment call not an absolute.
The issue of privacy is relevant to power. Owners of a condominium
building can set policy. Tenants of a condominium cannot and must look
to legislation and other means to protect their well being. In that
dispute technology is neutral. The issue is who controls it.
If out of 250 condo owners 50 are really interested in the issues of
their condo complex and 200 don't give a damn; and if the 50 who care
are paranoids or snoops titillated by having information about other
residents - then the policy concerning how technology will be put to
use will lean towards the Orwellian Right.
Power is the essential issue in Social Contract and politics. A
democracy is ostensibly a "condominium owner" model where those who
live in the unit (nation) determine policy and actions. The government
is supposed to be the hired sysop. But it is the basic nature of
Government to protect itself by fighting for landlord status over the
residents. Privacy is the main battleground. Government always seeks
to know as much as it can about the citizenry by invading their privacy
and at the same to prevent the citizenry from knowing about its inner
workings or protect its own privacy. The latter is called "national
security" and "executive privilege" ha ha.
Let's say that, due to resident apathy in the first go-round, 50
paranoid condo owners called the shots and set the policy. Now another
50 condo residents are really pissed and they are quite determined to
organize and to gain control of the condo admini- stration. This group
of 50 "libertarians" meet and keep records of their meetings in one
condo called the Watergate Suite.
--
From the "Up" I'm Ed Chilton.
------------------------------
From: "anonymous" <levine@cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 08 Oct 94 13:29:17 CDT
Subject: Freedom of Information in WI
FILE NO. 94-639 REFERRED BY COUNTY BOARD CHAIRMAN JULY 12, 1994 TO
LEGISLATIVE
Offered by By Supervisor Dan Diliberti
A RESOLUTION
urging the Legislature and Governor to amend the Wisconsin Open Records
Law to include 1) permissive language to grant counties and/or other
public agencies the authority to set appropriate fees and charges for
access to and reproduction of electronically produced records and data
which take into account the initial costs of developing and building
such data and 2) that any person acquiring a copy of an electronically
produced record shall have no claim to proprietary ownership of said
record and shall be prohibited from selling or otherwise retransmitting
said acquired record.
WHEREAS, Milwaukee County, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage
District, the Wisconsin Energy Corp., the Wisconsin Gas Co. and
Wisconsin Bell (Ameritech), are jointly funding development of an
electronic data base known as the Milwaukee County Automated mapping
and Land Information System Program (MCAMLIS); and
WHEREAS, the focus of this project is the joint development of an
electronic data base attendant to planimetric and cadastral,' or
property boundary-base maps; and
WHEREAS, the cost of developing the geographic data base for this
project including certain enhancements is approximately $5.2 million;
and
WHEREAS, each of the three private utilities has committed $520,000 in
support of the common electronic base mapping program; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that each of the private utilities will also
commit to sharing in the operating costs of an ongoing geographic data
file storage, retrieval, update and maintenance program associated with
MCAMLIS; and
WHEREAS, although the nature of the technology of constructing
electronic data files is such that while the capital costs of creating
the files are extremely high, the costs of redily duplicating the files
is relatively nominal; and
WHEREAS, Sections 19.21 through 19.39 of the Wisconsin Statutes
relating to the Wisconsin Open Records Law provide that anyone has the
right to request a copy of data classified as public records; and
WHEREAS, all the data developed un the MCAMLIS as well as other
companion county and regional work programs will, by law, be public
records upon completion; and
WHEREAS, the law provides that a public agency may only charge a party
requesting a public record the actual reasonable cost of reproduction,
thereby providing ready access to anyone to acquire at a nominal fee
digital data bases produced at a very high cost; and
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin open Records Law does not distinguish between
the commercial and noncommercial use of a public record; and
WHEREAS, the private utility members of the MCAMLIS partnership are
concerned that competing enterprises might gain a significant advantage
in waiting for the data base to be completed and then simply obtaining
copies of that data base at a nominal copying cost; and
WHEREAS, public agencies should also be concerned about the potential
commercial exploitation of publicly funded data bases and should also
be concerned about maintaining the integrity of the data; and
WHEREAS, some mechanism should be in place to ensure that the public
agency responsible for the data base has direct knowledge of all users
of the data base and the purposes for which the data is being used; and
WHEREAS, while the Wisconsin Open Records Law rightfully promotes ready
citizen access to public records, it does not encourage public-private
partnerships in building electronic data bases, nor does it prevent
private gain through the commercial exploitation of public records
created at the costs of taxpayers and utility rate payers; and
WHEREAS, all of these concerns point to the need to amend the Wisconsin
Open Records Law to allow counties and/or other agencies to set
appropriate fees for access to and reproduction of electronically
developed records and data which take into consideration the costs of
developing and building such data; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the law should be ammended to state that those
acquiring a copy of an electronically produced record shall have no
proprietary claim to said record and in addition shall be prohibited
from selling or otherwise retransmitting said acquired record; now,
therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors does
hereby urge the Legislature and Governor to amend the Wisconsin Open
Records Law to include permissive language to grant to counties and/or
other public agencies the authority to set appropriate fees and charges
for access to and reproduction of electronically produced records and
data which take into account the initial costs of developing and
building such data; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Wisconsin Open Records Law be further
amended to provide that any person acquiring a copy of an
electronically produced record shall have no claim to proprietary
ownership of said record and shall be prohibited from selling or
otherwise retransmitting said acquired record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Division of Intergovernmental
Relations is hereby authorized and directed to have the appropriate
amended language drafted, seek sponsors for said legislation and lobby
for its passage; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to send a copy of this resolution to the Wisconsin Counties
Association and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission.
FISCAL NOTE: Adoption of this resolution will not require an
expenditure of funds. docl4O2/lg 050394
------------------------------
From: email list server <listserv@Sunnyside.COM>
Date: 08 Oct 1994 21:34:56 -0700
Subject: Freedom of Information in NJ
On September 26 the New Jersey State Senate's Government Committee
voted 5-0 in favor of a bill to make information on laws, legislation
and legislative activity available to the public without charge via the
Internet. The bill is scheduled for full consideration by the State
Senate in the very near future.
You can show your support for S1068 by writing or faxing your State
Senator. A copy of your letter should also be sent to:
Senator Donald DiFrancesco Senator Joseph Bubba
(Senate President) (bill sponsor)
1816 Front Street 1117 Rt. 46 East Suite 202
Scotch Plains, New Jersey 07076 Clifton, New Jersey 07013
FAX: 908-322-9347 FAX: 201-473-2174
Future ACTION ALERTS for New Jersey's Internet bill will be issued. If
you want to remain informed and placed on the S1068 Mailing List or
need the address of your State Senator email to: swayze@pilot.njin.net
Your support is appreciated.
<<<THIS MESSAGE MAY BE REPRODUCED AND RECIRCULATED TO OTHER PARTIES>>>
SENATE, No. 1068
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
INTRODUCED MAY 16, 1994
By Senator BUBBA
An ACT providing for public access to legislative information in
electronic form, and supplementing P.L.1979, c.8. (C.52:11-54
et seq.).
BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the
State of New Jersey:
1. a. The Office of Legislative Services shall make available to
the public in electronic form the following information:
(1) the most current available compilation of the official
text of the statutes of New Jersey;
(2) the texts of all bills introduced during the two-year
session of the Legislature, including amended versions, as well as
sponsor statements, committee statements, fiscal notes, and veto
messages;
(3) bill-indexing data on all bills pending in the
Legislature, including indexing by subject and sponsor and, where
appropriate, by citation of the section of law to be amended by a
bill;
(4) bill-tracking data on all bills pending in the
Legislature, including the history of actions and current status;
(5) a current calendar of legislative events, including the
schedule of legislative committee meetings, and a list of bills
scheduled for legislative action;
(6) a current directory of the members of the
Legislature, including complete committee membership information;
(7) the texts of all chapter laws beginning with laws
enacted during 1994; and
(8) such other information as the Legislative Services
Commission shall direct.
b. The information specified in subsection a. shall be made
available to the public through the largest nonproprietary
cooperative public computer network.
c. No fee or usage charge shall be imposed by the Office of
Legislative Services as a condition of accessing the information
specified in subsection a. of this section through the network
described in subsection b. of this section.
d. The Office of Legislative Services may offer a fee-based
electronic legislative information service which may include, in
addition to the information specified in subsection a., the
following information and capabilities:
(1) the ability for users to automatically maintain
updated private databases and receive notification of scheduled
action on specific bills or subject matter;
(2) the ability for users to retrieve information by various
means of searching full text; and
(3) archives of bill texts and related information from
prior sessions of the Legislature.
e. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as
prohibiting a private individual or entity from using the
information specified in subsection a. to provide, either
commercially or on a voluntary basis, services similar to those
provided by the Office of Legislative Services pursuant to
subsection d.
2. This act shall take effect on the second Tuesday in January
1996.
STATEMENT
This bill would require the Office of Legislative Services (OLS) to
make available to the public, in electronic form, the following
information: the texts of statutes (in both a compiled format and by
chapter law beginning with laws enacted during 1994); the texts of
pending bills along with sponsor statements, committee statements,
fiscal notes and veto messages; bill indexing and tracking information;
a calendar of legislative events; a directory of members of the
Legislature, including a listing of committee memberships; and such
other information as the Legislative Services Commission shall direct.
Information would be provided through the largest nonproprietary
cooperative public computer network (Internet). No fee or usage charge
would be imposed by OLS for the privilege of accessing this
information. The bill would also permit OLS to offer, via Internet, a
fee-based legislative information service which, in addition to
providing the foregoing information, would enable users to:
automatically update private databases; receive notification of
scheduled action on specific bills or subject matter; retrieve
information by various means of searching full text; and access
archives of bill texts and related information from prior sessions of
the Legislature.
At present, four states (California, Hawaii, Minnesota and Utah) offer
"full-text" legislative information through Internet without usage
fees. OLS currently offers an electronic information system which is
available to users for a monthly fee. The bill would make this
information available to a broader range of users with no fee imposed
by OLS. By enhancing public access to the texts of statutes the bill
would increase compliance with existing law. In addition, facilitating
access by members of the public to information on pending legislation
would increase awareness of, and participation in, the legislative
process.
_______________________
Requires Office of Legislative Services to make information on laws,
legislation and legislative activity available to the public in
electronic form.
--
Michael Swayze |"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of
swayze@pilot.njin.net |the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the
|beginning of wisdom." --Bertrand Russell
------------------------------
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 #046
******************************
.