Date: Mon, 28 Aug 95 08:30:58 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 V7#017
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 28 Aug 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 017
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Time to Tree the Tiger in the U.S.A.
Re: A Netscape Story
Re: An Abuse of Individual Right to Privacy?
Trying to Find a Record of Marriage
Re: Information Collection at Sears
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@Pica.Army.Mil>
Date: 23 Aug 95 17:37:24 EDT
Subject: Re: Time to Tree the Tiger in the U.S.A.
Bryan Nelson <nells@pacificrim.net> writes: We can't control their
numbers, we cant fire them. We can't cut their purse strings,they
hold the purse, and can weave more strings faster than we can cut
them. It probably will do no good to complain about them, even to
your State representatives,you will be talking to one of them over
the phone. They are unionized governmentemployees. You may have
thought that government employees were not allowed to
unionize...think again. It's one of government's most closely
guarded secrets.
One of the most closely guarded secrets. Bullshit, like nobody has
heard about:
o Postal Employees Union - every time their contract comes up
strike talks resumes.
o air traffic controllers - They struck and Reagan fired them
all
o National Treasury Employess Union - beat Nixon in court over
the wape and price freeze
o various other government unions from teachers to police to
administrations to professionals
Once I read this piece of misinformation I question everything else in
his post. The point of the unions is to protect them against their
employer, in this case the government. God, I can't believe I am
defending unions.
--
dennis
------------------------------
From: glew@galstar.com (Gordon A. Lew)
Date: 24 Aug 1995 14:49:20 GMT
Subject: Re: A Netscape Story
Organization: Galaxy Star - Northeastern Oklahoma Internet
Evan Rosser <ejr@cs.UMD.EDU> wrote: I am not too concerned about
undocumented playful hacks. It has a long history -- i.e. "MAKE
LOVE"/Not war? on DEC-20's, developers' pictures in the Mac SE
ROM's, etc. As a matter of fact, there are more such things in
Netscape -- try typing "about:mozilla" as a URL to load.
Further examples:
about:JWZ
about:authors
about:jeff
about:montulli
------------------------------
From: haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (bill hazelrig)
Date: 26 Aug 1995 01:46:30 GMT
Subject: Re: An Abuse of Individual Right to Privacy?
Organization: The University of Chicago
Robert Shorten <shorten@nic.wat.hookup.net> wrote: Well, wouldn't
such a thing be like the phone book? The phone company lists names
and addresses of people and doesn't ask them first whether they
want to be listed (such people have to contact the phone company.)
As long as they
A specious argument, since essentially every consumer is aware that
phone books exist, and you must, in fact, contact your phone company
and ask for phone service before you can be listed. *You* are the one
who initiates the process, and you have the opportunity to prevent
listing right there at the start, in that very same telephone call.
You need never, even for a few days, be listed against your wishes.
(the directory people) give clear information in their directory as
to how one can be unlisted, I don't think it's an invasion of
privacy. There are already paper directories that list names,
addresses, phone numbers, and even places of work.
Having random stranger being able to find me and try to sell me things
is not what I think of as "privacy", thank you. If I must receive junk
communications, I do prefer email to snail mail, and snail mail to
telephone calls, but my real preference is simply not to receive
unsolicited communications, period. If I want someone to be able to
reach me, I'll tell them how.
--
Bill (haz1@midway.uchicago.edu)
------------------------------
From: AJFried@ix.netcom.com (AJF)
Date: 27 Aug 1995 00:16:27 GMT
Subject: Trying to Find a Record of Marriage
Organization: Netcom
A friend of mine asked if I new a way to find out if someone is
married. He thinks his ex-wife (to whom he has been paying alimony for
20 years!) is actually remarried. However, he has no proof. I have
her name and social security number. Is there any way to search
marriage license records, or anything else that might show some proof
that this woman is married? I don't think this is illegal or even
unethical since marriage licenses are probably public record ( I
certainly wouldn't want to do anything illegal!) In general, I would
think there is plenty of public record information on people. How can
I use this cool internet to get at it?
So, can someone point me in a good direction? This stuff is always
seems easy in the movies!
--
A.J. Fried. AJFried@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------
From: dzubint@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Thomas Dzubin)
Date: 28 Aug 1995 03:06:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Information Collection at Sears
Organization: Vancouver Regional FreeNet
Nigel Arnot (NRA@MAXWEL.PH.KCL.AC.UK) wrote: Possible
countermeasure. I have just produced a few perfectly recognisable
copies of my own signature which would have *extremely* different
pressure/velocity profiles, by the simple expedient of
concentrating and deliberately writing slow/fast/extra heavy/light
at various moments during the manufacture of the signature.
One of the many many things that I like to do is have different
signatures for different situations...my "signing for a parcel"
signature looks like "John Smith". My "signing non-legal-type
miscellaneous documents" signature looks like "Fred Jones"
As far as I know, there is no requirement for you to only have one
valid signature. Because my scrawl is pretty illegible at the best of
times nobody can tell that my "John Smith" isn't really "Thomas
Dzubin" However, my "John Smith" signature is certainly unique to me.
I consider all of my "signatures" to be valid... I'm not trying to
defraud anyone...I just happen to have multiple signatures...
--
Thomas Dzubin
Vancouver, B.C. CANADA
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:39:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
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.
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
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 V7 #017
******************************
.