Date: Thu, 06 Apr 95 07:46:38 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 V6#034
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 06 Apr 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 034
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Abolishing the IRS
Re: Abolishing the IRS
Re: Can a LAN Supervisor Watch Me?
Re: Is Reading E-Mail Legal?
Re: Proving your Citizenship
Re: Proving your Citizenship
Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
PTC 1995 Research Prizes
SS# Question
Invading Someone Else's Privacy
Copyright of Databases
Computer Crime in Networks
Re: Can My Neighbor Peruse my Medical Records?
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 01 Apr 1995 16:58:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS
Organization: Conceptual Design
mikeb@ssd.fsi.com (Mike Bates x581) wrote: Snooping is still
snooping, even if the target is a merchant. The IRS will want to
know that all sales tax owed is paid and that means certifying the
total sales for a merchant and differentiating between taxable and
non-taxable items. (And count on Congress to produce as many
exemptions for a national sales tax as they do for the income tax.
It's a great way to aid friends and punish enemies.) The
record-keeping burden wouldn't be any less; it would simply be
lifted from those of us who don't sell services or merchandise.
While I agree that the best change would be to do away with direct
federal taxation (and to shrink the size of the government so that the
amount it needed to collect would be much smaller), I think that's
effectively impossible in the short run, and that replacing the income
tax with a national sales tax would significantly reduce the federal
assaults on our privacy.
Currently, any income-generating transaction comes under the scrutiny
of the IRS, and this results in governmental requirements that all of
these activities be reported. Replacing it with a sales tax would
remove many transactions from the federal eye, and thus would be less
intrusive.
Still, nothing can be changed without changing popular attitudes toward
the government so that its power can be kept in check. Otherwise, the
government will eventually declare that working for a living is "sale
of services" and thus taxable, and we'll be back where we started from
or worse.
--
Gary McGath
gmcgath@condes.mv.com
PGP Fingerprint: 3E B3 62 C8 F8 9E E9 3A 67 E7 71 99 71 BD FA 29
------------------------------
From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com>
Date: 01 Apr 95 21:27 EST
Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS
Leonard A DiMenna <ldimenna@osf1.gmu.edu> sez: With Reguards to
letting the state goverments collect taxes for the IRS, there are
some state goverments that can't balance their own budjets. How can
you give them the responsiblity to collect money that's not theirs?
I believe that by giving the states more to do, its one more thing
that can go wrong. It ends up costing the state tax payers more
money.
States like New York _already_ collect taxes for city governments,
what's so different about them also collecting it for the IRS? In New
York, sales tax and witholding is forwarded by businesses to the state
along with a form indicating what city the tax is collected for. For
sales tax, the form lists the city, tax rate, and amount collected. I
presume the state then forwards it back to the respective cities. Since
New York is collecting the money in trust, it would be fraud to
unjustly take money for other purposes. Besides, the cities would go
_ape_ if that happpened.
It may cost the tax payers money, but I think it would cost less
overall to consolidate the IRS functions into the existing state
governments. So it costs the states more, big deal. They can be
compensated by keeping a percentage of the revenue they collect.
Imagine how much money goes to duplicate adminstrative functions
between the IRS and state offices, now imagine the IRS-part gone.
--
Chris
czguris@mcimail.com
------------------------------
From: Marc Thibault <marc@tanda.on.ca>
Date: 01 Apr 95 16:37:01 EST
Subject: Re: Can a LAN Supervisor Watch Me?
Organization: Tanda and Associates
kadokev@rci.ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) writes: As long as you have the
network drivers loaded, there is the possibility that someone,
somewhere can obtain information from your system. You could set
the machine up so that you can boot without
I don't think so. Netware drivers aren't general-purpose shells. They
specifically are not file servers. PC network drivers generally have
the least amount of code necessary to redirect I/O to a server on the
LAN. They certainly don't have interpreters for incoming packets asking
to peek at memory or disks.
Getting LAN communications working at all is difficult; Getting
unintended communications through a specialised interpreter written to
minimise code space would be astounding.
You are confusing Netware with Unix.
Cheers,
Marc
---
This is not a secure channel; assume nothing.
Marc Thibault | Information Systems Architect
PGP fingerprint = 6C 54 49 77 DB A7 AE DA 73 EA 30 EE F7 07 90 DA
------------------------------
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Date: 02 Apr 1995 09:27:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Is Reading E-Mail Legal?
Organization: Saltieri, Poore, Nash, deBrutus & Short, Attorneys at Law
w2jc@ritz.mordor.com sez: The current Communications "Decency" law
which just passed the Senate and was sponsored by Sen. Exon would
REQUIRE service providers to monitor EVERY email and article to
guarantee that none of them violated Big Bro's sense of
"decency"...
False.
1) It hasn't "passed the Senate" yet. The bill was simply reported
out of the Commerce Committee as part of the telcom reform bill.
2) The revised version of S.314 adds several defenses for providers,
including a lack of editorial control over content. Nothing in the
present version would require universal monitoring.
S.314 is bad business and flagrantly unconstitutional in places (e.g.,
the revision to 47 USC 223(a)(1)(A)). In discussing it, though, let's
get our facts straight.
------------------------------
From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau)
Date: 03 Apr 1995 15:00:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Proving your Citizenship
pnk@dlep1.itg.ti.com (Pete Karculias) wrote: Of course people born
abroad who have at least one US citizen parent are US citizens.
But you have to _prove_ the facts. The easiest way is to file a
report of a birth abroad with the nearest US consulate. This
provides the necessary documentation to satisfy the buearucrats.
I think you're missing his point. He was not born "abroad", but in
Puerto Rico, which is part of the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation
goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive
+1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
------------------------------
From: "Vinod Narayanan" <vinod@watson.ibm.com>
Date: 03 Apr 95 17:10:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Proving your Citizenship
Bill Ranck writes: If I remember correctly, service in the US
military is one way to obtain citizenship. Not sure of the
details, but I'm fairly certain that it makes a person eligible,
and possibly it is automatically granted.
The usual requirement is that you be a legal permanent US resident (ie.
a "green card" holder) for five years before you can apply for US
citizenship. However, if you work for the US Military, I believe this
term is shortened to 3 years. The residency requirement is also
shortened if you are married to a US citizen (what is the similarity?
:-)
I am not sure if you can become eligible to be a legal permanent US
resident through just having served in the US Military.
--
vinod@watson.ibm.com
------------------------------
From: palmer@chmsr (Michael T. Palmer)
Date: 04 Apr 1995 17:39:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
/DD.ID=OVMAIL1.WZR014/G=DANIEL/S=STICKA/@EDS.DIAMONDNET.sprint.com
wrote: A lot of time has been spent in this digest discussing the
Exon/Gorton ammendment and the Communications Decency Act. I agree
that this is an important issue of freedom of speech, censorship,
etc., but what does it have to do with privacy? The letter from
the ACLU seemed a bit outside the charter of this discussion
group.
Privacy of personal communications. What could possibly be MORE
relevant? Also note the possible implications for banning encryption:
"But we have to be able to *read* it to know if it's *dirty*!"
Privacy: 1789-1995. RIP.
--
Michael T. Palmer (palmer@chmsr.isye.gatech.edu) RIPEM Public Key available
Center for Human-Machine Systems Research, Dept of Industrial & Systems Eng
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0205
------------------------------
From: tombell@america.com (Tom Bell)
Date: 06 Apr 1995 04:09:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Organization: Southern Bell
/DD.ID=OVMAIL1.WZR014/G=DANIEL/S=S TICKA/@EDS.DIAMONDNET.sprint.com
writes: A lot of time has been spent in this digest discussing the
Exon/Gorton ammendment and the Communications Decency Act. I agree
that this is an important issue of freedom of speech, censorship,
etc., but what does it have to do with privacy? The letter from
the ACLU seemed a bit outside the charter of this discussion
group.
Right now, SysOps can read mail on their systems if they wish. The
Exon/Gorton amendment to the Communications Act would REQUIRE SysOps to
read all messages (private & public). Discussions of such an abuse of
power by the legislature is germaine to the topic of the digest, i.e.,
privacy.
--
Tom Bell
user of OS/2 and GeoWorks!
------------------------------
From: jwarren@well.sf.ca.us (Jim Warren)
Date: 05 Apr 1995 23:16:53 +0800
Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat
it"
Santayana, _The Life of Reason_
In 1926, seven years before the National Socialists achieved absolute
power, a bill similar to Exon amendment was passed in the German
Reichstag. I quote the following passage from page 266 of _Purity in
Print_ (Scribner's: 1968) by Paul S. Boyer:
The purity crusade now found a focus in the "Act for the Protection
of Youth Against Trashy and Smutty Literature," a national censorship
bill proposed to the Reichstag late in 1926. This _Schmutz und
Schund_ (Smut and Trash) bill, as it was dubbed, aroused fears in
German literary and intellectual circles, but the Minister of the
Interior soothed the apprehensive with assurances that it "threatens
in no way the freedom of literature, [the] arts, or [the] sciences,"
having been designed solely for the "protection of the younger
generations." It was aimed only at works which "undermine culture"
and purvey "moral dirt," he added, and had been devised "not by
reactionaries, but by men holding liberal views..." On December 18,
1926, after a bitter debate, the _Schmutz und Schund_ bill passed the
Reichstag by a large majority. The Catholic Center and the
Nationalist parties were strong in it support, the Socialists
divided. In accordance with the provisions of the new law, the
Interior Minister appointed boards of censorship for each of the
Federal states. These eight-member panels, including representatives
from publishers', authors', and booksellers' groups as well as from
youth, welfare, and educational organizations, were empowered to
prohibit the advertising, display, or sale to minors of any book
deemed morally objectionable.
Presented for your information by, David Dubin@notes.pw.com This has
not really been one man's opinion, but yours still may vary with
mileage.
[via pys@well.com]
------------------------------
From: pbwhite@latrobe.edu.au (Peter B White)
Date: 02 Apr 1995 16:56:20 +1000
Subject: PTC 1995 Research Prizes
PLEASE DISTRIBUTE
1995 PACIFIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL RESEARCH PRIZES
The Pacific Telecommunications Council, a non-profit, international
membership organization promoting the development and beneficial use
of telecommunications in the Pacific Hemisphere, announces the
availability of the 1995 PTC Research Prizes.
The competition is designed to promote fresh inquiry into
telecommunications-related topics, as enumerated below, and is open to
all individuals who are either actively working on a degree or have
obtained undergraduate or graduate level degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, PhD,
etc.) within the last five years. In receiving applications or judging
submissions, PTC will take no interest in the race, national origin,
creed, ethnicity, sex or age of the participant. We shall be guided
only by the quality of the scholarship demonstrated.
Three prizes, which include a monetary award in the amount of US$2,000
for each prize*, will be awarded to the authors of the best research
and/or policy paper in the following subject areas:
1. International Telecommunications-Policy and Regulation
2. International Telecommunications-Economics and Finance
3. Impact of International Telecommunications Policies on
the Development of Societies and Cultures.
Papers submitted must be original works of publishable length and
should ideally focus on the communications needs and concerns of the
Pacific region, defined as Asia (including East Asia, South Asia and
Southeast Asia), Oceania, and the Americas. Such papers must have not
have been published elsewhere or submitted elsewhere for publication or
presentation.
Submissions should be typed, double-spaced and in English. Copyright
of the winning papers will be transferred to PTC and may be published
in any of several forms with due credit to the author(s). Non-winning
papers will not be returned unless accompanied by an addressed envelope
and return postage (or international reply coupons).
Winning entrants will be invited to present their papers at a special
session of the 18th Pacific Telecommunications Conference, Honolulu, in
January 1996. Travel assistance will be made available, if needed, for
this purpose.
The deadline for submissions is 30 June 1995.
The selection committee reserves the right to not award any or all
prizes.
For further information and application forms, please contact (by post
or fax) Richard Nickelson, Editor, PTR, Pacific Telecommunications
Council, 2454 South Beretania Street, Suite 302, Honolulu, Hawaii
96826-1596 USA Telephone +1 808 941 3789; Facsimile +1 808 944 4874;
richard@alex.ptc.org.
*U.S. participants are reminded that such prizes are considered by the
U.S. Internal Revenue Service as part of their gross taxable income.
------------------------------
From: John Kwiatkowski <0007152212@mcimail.com>
Date: 02 Apr 95 00:28 EST
Subject: SS# Question
Can anyone tell me the available ways to obtain the social security
number of someone who is only 17 and probably not yet in most computer
databases? Thanks.
------------------------------
From: anonymous <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 04 Apr 1995 01:35:57 -0400
Subject: Invading Someone Else's Privacy
[Moderator - please remove this section between brackets if you decide
to include this post. If you know of the answer to this question,
and/or it is not appropriate, feel free to not send it out! If you do
send it out, please remove my name, as the person I am interested in
could quite possibly read this too!]
I have been reading this group for quite a while, and I have seen many
threats to our privacy brought into the open and discussed. I don't
remember each one, but now I wish I had. I want to investigate
someone, and see if there are any skeletons in their closet. I am
thinking about things such as financial history, educational history,
past criminal charges, and civil court actions. Also, they do live in
the U.S., and I don't want them to find out they are being
investigated.
What net resources are there that have information on how to find this
information out about someone? Any other pointers?
------------------------------
From: Eric Noble <noblee@uchastings.edu>
Date: 03 Apr 1995 15:15:19 GMT
Subject: Copyright of Databases
Organization: CERFnet
I have a student here at Hastings College of the Law (visiting this
semester from the University of Leiden, Netherlands) who has asked me
to post the following questions concerning copyright protection of
databases. If you can respond, please write to Victor Schmedding
(schmeddi@uchastings.edu).
TIA
Eric Noble
UC Hastings Comp Svcs Coord
http://www.uchastings.edu/
"The database the questions are about, is a database of facts which are
not copyrightable. U.S. Copyright will only protect this database as a
compilation. A compilation will receive copyright protection if it is
original in its selection or arrangement. The European Directive on
protection of databases has the same requirements.
"Originality in selection:
"A database has the capacity of holding an almost exhaustive amount of
data. Therefore a database author will try to include as much data as
possible. But for the database to be a good quality database, its
author will have to make a selection based on what quality data is and
what is not. If this is the case then almost every database will have
met the selection requirement for copyright. I think this is the case,
don't you?
"Originality in arrangement:
"Does this requirement refer to the manner the data is stored in a
database or does it refer to the way the data is presented to the user?
If the former is the case, the database software arranges and
rearranges the data. Thus the database author will have no control over
the arrangement. The latter option seems more appealing for it lets the
author have more control over the arrangement. If this is the case, how
does the 'CCC Information Services v. MacLean Hunter' decision (decided
in December 1994) fit in? And which standpoint on arrangement would
seem to be the better?
"The note I am writing also covers antitrust implications of database
protection. I am having trouble finding good leads in this area. Can
you help me?
"Antitrust considerations:
"Looking at copyright protection and contractual protection of
databases. Are there any antitrust complications? I have come up with
illegal tying agreements and copyright misuse. Are there any others I
have overlooked?
------------------------------
From: Kerstin Muehle <muehle01@fsuni.rz.uni-passau.de>
Date: 03 Apr 1995 19:13:40 GMT
Subject: Computer Crime in Networks
Organization: University of Passau, Germany
I am starting to write a thesis about computer crime in networks, e.g.
"hacking", exchange of secret information etc. How can I find books or
articles on that subject? How can I get information about the subject
at all?
Thank you for responding to: muehle01@fsuni.rz.uni-passau.de
------------------------------
From: tombell@america.com (Tom Bell)
Date: 06 Apr 1995 04:17:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Can My Neighbor Peruse my Medical Records?
Organization: Southern Bell
levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu said: "conducted a survey of Fortune 500
companies and found that half of them had used medical records to
make hiring decisions, often without informing the potential
employee."
Don Wilson remarked: How does the company acquire the medical
records if the potential employee has not given permission for the
release of the medical records?
Well, Don, it is because the company hires the doctors and yearly gives
the employees "FREE" medical exams. That makes the records the
property of the company. My union has argued against any employee
using a 'company doctor.' However, some employees can't resist a "good"
thing.
--
Tom Bell
user of OS/2 and GeoWorks!
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 1994 10:50:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
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.
This digest is a forum with information contributed via Internet
eMail. Those who understand the technology also understand the ease of
forgery in this very free medium. Statements, therefore, should be
taken with a grain of salt and it should be clear that the actual
contributor might not be the person whose email address is posted at
the top. Any user who openly wishes to post anonymously should inform
the moderator at the beginning of the posting. He will comply.
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 to CPD should be submitted, with appropriate, substantive
SUBJECT: line, otherwise they may be ignored. They must be relevant,
sound, in good taste, objective, cogent, coherent, concise, and
nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome, but not personal attacks. Do
not include entire previous messages in responses to them. Include
your name & legitimate Internet FROM: address, especially from
.UUCP and .BITNET folks. Anonymized mail is not accepted. All
contributions considered as personal comments; usual disclaimers
apply. All reuses of CPD material should respect stated copyright
notices, and should cite the sources explicitly; as a courtesy;
publications using CPD material should obtain permission from the
contributors.
Contributions generally are acknowledged within 24 hours
of submission. If selected, they are 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 V6 #034
******************************
.