Date: Sun, 09 Apr 95 22:28:44 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#035
Computer Privacy Digest Sun, 09 Apr 95 Volume 6 : Issue: 035
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Abolishing the IRS
Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995
Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants
Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants
Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Re: Use of Mailboxes
Re: Can You Buy Boxes to Fool CallerID/ANID?
Who Reads This Group?
Info on CPD [unchanged since 12/29/94]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@Pica.Army.Mil>
Date: 07 Apr 95 11:08:51 EDT
Subject: Re: Abolishing the IRS
Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com> writes: 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.
There are some states like Florida, Texas, and Alaska that do not even
collect income taxes. You also have situations where people live in
one state but are residents of another state. How would you handle
people who do not live in the country? If it goes to the states, how
would you handle people who work in more than one states? Are you
going to force company A in State A to provide a W2/W4 information to
State B?
--
dennis
------------------------------
From: Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>
Date: 07 Apr 1995 15:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995
A privacy bill was approved by the House of Representatives
on April 4, 1995. The bill is the Family Privacy Protection Act
of 1995 (H.R. 1271). The Committee report is House Report 104-
94. The floor debate can be found in the Congressional Record of
April 4, 1995, at pages H 4125 to H 4141. The Act was part of
the Republican Contract With America.
The legislation requires the written consent of a parent
before a minor can be asked to respond to any survey or
questionnaire from a person funded in whole or in part by the
federal government if the survey or questionnaire is intended to
elicit information about --
1) parental political affiliations or beliefs
2) mental or psychological problems
3) sexual behavior or attitudes
4) illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behavior
5) appraisals of other individuals with whom the minor
has a familial relationship
6) relationships that are legally recognized as
privileged, including those with lawyers, physicians, and
the clergy
7) religious affiliations or beliefs
There must be written consent before this information can be
solicited, and there must be advance public availability of the
questionnaire or survey.
There is an exclusion for tests intended to measure academic
performance.
There are also four exceptions covering--
1) the seeking of information for the purpose of a
criminal investigation or adjudication
2) any inquiry made pursuant to a good faith concern
for the health, safety, or welfare of an individual minor
3) administration of the immigration, internal revenue,
or customs laws of the United States
4) the seeking of information required by law to
determine eligibility for participation in a program or for
receiving financial assistance
These rules would apply equally to surveys and
questionnaires that are anonymous and to those that are
identifiable.
I offer a few observations about the bill. First, it
appears that this is part of the agenda of the new right. Buried
in the Committee report is this sentence which may explain the
principal purpose of the bill:
In some cases, survey questions have been phrased
in a manner that suggests neutrality or even tacit
approval of behavior or attitudes which may be contrary
to the values held by parents.
Second, none of the key terms in the bill is defined.
"Sexual behavior" could arguably range from mating activities of
earthworms to fashion trends for seventh graders. Also, a survey
could arguably include a question asked by one teacher to one
student. It is also not clear what constitutes "antisocial"
behavior. Drinking? Rock concerts? Baseball strikes? Poorly
drafted legislation?
Third, the exclusion for tests of academic performance is
based on the intent of the test. Thus, prohibited questions
might be permissible in a test whose principal intent is the
measurement of academic performance. This may be true even if
the test is non-identifiable. On the other side, a sharp student
might argue that a biology test violates the rules without
parental consent and advance availability by questioning the
intent. This is not necessarily a winning argument, but it might
buy a postponement of an exam while the lawyers argue about
things.
Finally, the exceptions are worthy of note. You may not ask
a minor about sexual experiences without written parental
permission unless your purpose is to put the student or the
parent in jail or to collect taxes. This turns privacy
legislation on its head by denying anonymous and recourseless use
of information but permitting use of the information to harm the
provider. Thus, it is okay to ask children if their parents have
committed a crime if it is part of a criminal investigation but
not as part of a research project.
This legislation now goes to the Senate.
Posted by Robert Gellman, Washington, DC rgellman@cais.com
------------------------------
From: josephro@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Joseph Robinson)
Date: 08 Apr 1995 08:25:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants
Organization: University of Alberta
Obie 602 (obie602@aol.com) wrote: I do not really know who to ask
about this, but I have heard rumors about the use of microchip
transmitters in animals to track their where abouts. I am told
that there a product called KIDSCAN that has been developed to be
placed into children to prevent kiddnapping and so on. Have you
heard anything about this and can you suggest where I might go for
more information?
Well, it's not a rumor. I just got a cat from the local SPCA and it is
now their policy that all animals leaving get "chipped". I can't see
how chipping kids could prevent their being kidnapped, but it would
help ID them anyways... The only help I can offer is get in contact
with the animal ID company, they could probably help you...
PETNET (reg. tm of Anitech ID Systems Inc.)
Registration Dept.
620 Alden Rd, Suite 101
Markham, Ontario L3R 9R7
[905] 477-6950
[800] 463-6738
[905] 477-6956 (fax)
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Date: 08 Apr 1995 10:35:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Need Information on Microchip Implants
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
obie602@aol.com (Obie 602) writes I do not really know who to ask
about this, but I have heard rumors about the use of microchip
transmitters in animals to track their where abouts. I am told
that there a product called KIDSCAN that has been developed to be
placed into children to prevent kiddnapping and so on. Have you
heard anything about this and can you suggest where I might go for
more information?
Try the Bible, in the Book of Revelations. I am an agnostic myself,
but I find the provision very interesting. Here's ny free association
of what I believe the provision says:
And The Beast [Satan] shall require all: rich, poor, free or bond,
to obtain a mark upon their forehead, or upon their hand, save that
one does so, they may not buy or sell anything. [Can't work, can't
buy food] Let he who has an ear, hear: for the mark is the number of
a name, of a man, and his number is 666.
------------------------------
From: kawyle@ansel.intersource.com (Karen A. Wyle)
Date: 09 Apr 1995 00:08:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Relationship of Exon/Gorton to Privacy
Organization: InterSource, Bloomington, IN
/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.
I haven't seen the posts preceding Mr. Stickas's, but an amendment
which would criminalize "indecent" e-mail seems to me to have quite a
bit to do with privacy. For one of many possible examples: newlywed
on business trip sends his bride a passionate letter about their
wedding night via e-mail; said newlywed spends the first two years of
his married life in the federal pen. I think his privacy would have
been invaded, no? (This is -- I hope -- an unlikely example, but it
would be within the law as Gorton-Exon would revise it. I am sure one
could come up with many more likely invasions of privacy under this
proposed law.)
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Date: 08 Apr 1995 06:54:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Use of Mailboxes
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
Mario Hendricks <mjh9@lehigh.edu>, writes wicklund@Intellistor.COM
(Tom Wicklu nd) writes: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com>
writes: I thought it was _illegal_ to put anything in someone's
mailbox!
If it is considered to be the "primary" mailbox. Sure it's illegal.
I've done it myself, a few times. Probably everyone reading this
message has at least once. It's one of those "victimless crimes" that
unless someone complains about you inserting stuff in their box, or a
mailman sees you, nothing ever happens and nobody gets prosecuted over
it.
In fact, one time I did that intentionally because the mailman messed
up. I live at an address like "220 State Street" and there is another
person, with a different name, who lives at "220 E State Street".
(Address changed intentionally) So on occasion, he's gotten my mail and
I've gotten his. So I had to go that way once, and I just dropped it
in his mailbox. I think it's when we get a new carrier or a temporary
one they mess up for a while, since it seems to happen every 5 or 6
months, on one or two pieces. One time I made the mistake and opened
his phone bill, because it had my address and I didn't notice. Then I
saw the name was wrong. Even though I'd never met him, I called him.
Three guesses as to where I got his phone number from, and I also
called C&P Telephone to let them know it's not his fault his phone bill
might be late, and maybe to put some heat on the USPS.
Private delivery companies can't put magazines in private mailboxes
because it's against the law and the post office will sue them into
the stone age.
If they get caught.
I posted the post to which Christopher Zguris responed, and I think
I can add a little to the explanation. Our campus wide post office
is a Contract Postal station. The university pays the U.S. Postal
service to have the privlage of opperating a post office.
Other way around. They are acting as an agent of the Postal
(inadequate) Service, same as a grocery store in some small town that
does this for the USPS. The Post Office pays them, not the other way
around. USPS is getting them to do work for it, so it pays for it. It
would have to be some really wierd arrangement for the postal service
to charge them for the privelege of not having mail delivered to the
individual campus addresses.
Finally, the post office must abide by all postal regulations (eg,
they cannot accept personal checks, they cannot just trash first
class mail with a bad address, they must forward mail, etc.).
Funny, but the building in Alexandria, VA where I sent an Express Mail
package, that has a metal wall plaque indicating President Ford and
Postmaster Bolger dedicated the place when it opened, (e.g. a
government operated post office) accepts checks, Visa, Discover, Master
Card and Most ATM cards. Can't see why a private place would not.
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <paul@tdr.com>
Date: 08 Apr 1995 07:19:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Can You Buy Boxes to Fool CallerID/ANID?
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning), writes A recent
article in Macleans magazine stated that some Canadians with the
new pizza sized Direct Broadcast Satellite receivers are using
devices to make their pay per view calls look like they are coming
from a US area code. [...] The article also said that some callers
call an 800 service to bypass this problem. That doesn't seem to
make much sense, since the call would show up in the billing
details, unless it is some sort of call forwarding operation. I'd
expect that to be a 900 pay per call service, not an 800 service.
No, there are at least three of these "800 bypass services" that do
this. AT&T operates one at 1-800-CALL-ATT. MCI operates one at
1-800-950-1022. Sprint operates one at 1-800-877-8000.
For those of you who recognize these numbers, they appear on the back
of your calling card for these companies. This is the number to call
to place a call billed to your calling card. They may or may not give
the ANI they get from the call via the 800 number to the called party
if they pass Caller-ID information.
There are two phone lines in my office. I dialed into the number that
had Caller-ID on it when I was testing it, and it showed the local
number. When I dialed it via the 1-800-CALL-ATT number, and used my
calling card, it showed "O" for Out of Area. When I called the 1-800
number I have which terminates on that line, the call also showed up as
out of area. I answered it to create a billing record. When my bill
came in, it did list the ANI of that number for the 13c local call of
one minute. (Intrastate rates, much more expensive.)
Also, there are, in most telephone areas, an equivalent exchange which
is a toll-free call: 950-XXXX. Most carriers use it to match their own
carrier code, e.g. MCI uses 950-1022, Sprint uses 950-1033. I know
AT&T runs a data network with modems, not a voice number, and you can
access their Easylink E-Mail system from either their 1-800 number or
from 950-1028 if I remember correctly. The 950 number also allows
access to other data services the way several companies use
Compuserve's numbers to allow you to access their systems. (I've never
understood why someone would pay Compuserve $7.50 an hour to provide a
data connection service at night when they could get an 800 number
termination for large calling volumes on bulk rates for probably less.
Maybe compuserve also supplies them with the computers as part of a
package, or they don't receive enough calls to justify an 800 number.)
Yes, there are 900 services, that allow you to keep from showing your
number at all: 1-900-STOPPER is one. Until and unless the long
distance carriers pass ANI or Caller-ID information from calls to 1-800
or 950 numbers they use for incoming calls, the information can't be
passed on.
------------------------------
From: Robert Gellman <rgellman@cais.cais.com>
Date: 04 Apr 1995 21:48:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Who Reads This Group?
I have a question about CPD, which I have been reading now for a few
weeks. I am curious about the circulation. How many people receive it
and how has the circulation changed over time? If you are willing, you
might post the answer in the next issue.
[moderator: sure. There are just over 1000 people who get it mailed
direct, like you do now, and an unknown number of people who read it
from the newsgroup.]
[A handle on the latter can be gleaned from the fact that about 5/6 of
the submissions come from people who are not on the direct list. This
lets me brag that there are about 6000 total readers.]
[I took over the newsgroup from Dennis Rears, a system person at the US
Army's Picatinny Arsenal in December 1993. He originated it about 5
years ago, and was responsible for its direction and early growth.]
[Just by chance he has a posting in this issue. Hi Dennis.]
[So as you can see, I just send this to a few thousand of my best
friends.]
------------------------------
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 #035
******************************
.