Date: Wed, 11 Oct 95 14:18:11 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#029
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 11 Oct 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 029
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Grocery Purchases and my Privacy
Re: Grocery Purchases and my Privacy
Junk Sales Calls
Junk Sales Calls
Where Caller ID Is Headed
Corporate Information Databases
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
New Federal Audit Policy
Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Privacy Invasion, Request for Suggestions
Need help with Harassing Creditors
European Encryption Control Proposal
Cellular Phone Location Tracing
Netscape Logging Use of Its Product
Info on CPD [unchanged since 08/01/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ahdnn1a.lz2flp@eds.com
Date: 05 Oct 95 14:41:00 PDT
Subject: Re: Grocery Purchases and my Privacy
Organization: Somewhere in EDS...
One of the local grocery store chains here in Indianapolis is
switching from an old fashioned "check cashing" card to a new
"scanned" card. They euphemistically call it their "Fresh Idea"
[...]
This idea has been in place at large retailors for years.
Wal-Mart, for example, has a system which combines credit card and
check approval
One of our local Detroit supermarkets, Farmer Jack, does the the same
type of thing where you have a check cashing card that is scanned with
each purchase. I'd never really thought about it being used for
"marketing" though... Makes one think carefully now about using it.
What to do? I spend only cash, saving checks for rent and utility
bills.
Well this particular chain has tempted us in another way. They have
advertised specials throughout the store that can only be taken
advantage of if the card is scanned. I think I'll ask someone as to
WHY I must use this card in order to receive the discount. WHY is this
card so important to them. It should be interesting..
--
Jerry
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 05 Oct 1995 21:31:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Grocery Purchases and my Privacy
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
The problem with asking someone at the non-profit group, if they track
your information or gather demographics on you is......
The person you ask will likely be unaware of it, if it is happening...
and... if it `is' happening' ....... The person who actually knows it
what's going on will likely not be available, or will elect not to
admit it. After all, what's it your business if they are selling your
privacy out from under you, for their business.
The best way to handle such circumstances is to call the non-profit
with the attitude that you know its happening, and ask which firm they
are working with that runs the program.... ostesibly so you can do the
same with your non-profit members.
In this way, the non-profit will not feel threatened by your questions,
and will more likely want to brag about (or complain about) their
campaign.
It's much easier to get information from an outfit, if they think you
have the information already.
--
Bob Bulmash, President -
Private Citizen, Inc.
1-800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: Robert Ellis Smith <0005101719@mcimail.com>
Date: 05 Oct 95 14:13 EST
Subject: Junk Sales Calls
Responding to the inquiry about Caller ID from Beth Givens
(prc@acusd.edu), Lynne Gregg of AT&T <lynne.gregg@attws.com> on
September 26 said, "The blocking options ordered by the FCC are
generally thought to be acceptable. Many telephone companies offer
Per Line Blocking for those consumers who wish to block display of
their numbers." That's encouraging - after privacy advocates spent
several years getting telephone companies to offer blocking. We
succeeded only by getting regulatory agencies to requi re it. Why did
the phone companies resist blocking in the early years?
Lynne Gregg writes, "Sure, Caller ID may been used by marketers and
other entities to gather phone numbers. However, most folks don't
realize that many marketing companies have been doing this for years
with ANI." Most folks may not also realize th at federal regulations
now prohibit companies that do this from disclosing - or selling - the
information.
Lynne Gregg writes, "Yes, Caller ID is effective at thwarting
harassing callers." Where's the evidence of this? I keep hearing
this claim by phone companies but have never seen any documentation.
Gregg says, "The "horror" story on Caller ID is that with today's
technological capabilities, some consumers are deprived of the basic
right to know WHO'S CALLING them. For example, when someone rings my
doorbell, I can look through the window to see who's there and choose
to answer or not." In that example, you don't have the capability (as
you do with CALLER ID) to know A NUMBER that will allow you to track
down or harass or commercially exploit the person who comes c alling at
your door. In fact, you have only the capability to know whether the
person is a friend or stranger.
Lynne Gregg writes, "Consumers who buy Caller ID indicate that they
want to know WHO'S CALLING - especially when they're wrapped up with
dinner or other activities and would naturally prefer to defer phone
calls." doesn't an answering machine do this b etter? With Caller ID,
you still have to stop what you are doing and go to your phone unit,
then you have to have had memorized the incoming calling number.
Gregg says, "I have seen Caller ID marketing materials from most RBOC
and several independent telcos. I do not see anything that is
intentionally misleading or manipulative in the materials I've seen."
What do you think of this sales pitch from Amerite ch? "You know
exactly who's calling . . . Caller ID actually spells out the names of
callers . . . You'll have a record of both the names and numbers of
callers." Caller ID doesn't do that at all; it tells you only the
number (or name) of TH PERSON SUB SCRIBING TO THE CALLING PHONE, not
the caller.
What do you think of this claim from Bell Atlantic? "With Caller ID, .
. . the problem of malicious callers or just 'pranksters' practically
disappears"? Isn't that deceptive? Within five years has the problem
of harassing phone calls "practically disa ppeared"?
--
Robert Ellis Smith/ Privacy Journal, Providence RI
------------------------------
From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn)
Date: 05 Oct 1995 21:34:09 -0400
Subject: Junk Sales Calls
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
The circumstance you describe, if the junk sales caller did not leave a
name, the name of the firm on whose behalf they were soliciting, and
the address `or' phone number (where you can successfully call them
back)... is against federal law.
You can sue the outfit for $500, for the violation pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 USC 227) .
Upon reading quite a few junk call trade publications, and Caller ID
promotional material from various telcos, it is evident that the
purpose of Caller ID is (primarily) to allow firms to get your unlisted
number.
Statistically, 25% of all residential phones are unlisted, with some
areas (like Las Vegas) having an `unlisted rate' of 75%. Here in the
Chicago metro area, it's 40% unlisted. Caller ID allows telcos to sell
you the service of being unlisted, then sell junk callers the service
of getting your unlisted number, and as a result, increase the number
of junk calls that would otherwise not have been made... Thus
increasing the telco's income a third way.
--
Bob Bulmash, President
Private Citizen, Inc.
1-800-CUT-JUNK
------------------------------
From: Beth Givens <bgivens@pwa.acusd.edu>
Date: 09 Oct 1995 13:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Where Caller ID Is Headed
Thanks to the many readers of this forum who have responded to my
recent posting which asked how Caller ID works in your states. (FYI,
California is one of only two states which does not now have Caller ID,
although it is likely to be offered here in the coming months.) The
information you have provided is most useful.
You might be interested in a recent Caller ID story from Missouri.
Southwestern Bell, the major local telephone company in that state,
recently announced a new service called Caller Intellidata, which would
be available to businesses. It is essentially "an embellishment of
Caller ID," according to Jerri Stroud, a reporter for the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch. She described the service in stories appearing October 5
and 6, 1995. Here are excerpts:
"The new service would package the Caller ID information with the
caller's address and demographic information compiled by Equifax Inc.,
a national credit reporting and information service....
"Bell proposes to sell businesses monthly reports about their callers.
The reports would include the date and time of each call, the caller's
name, telephone number, street address, city, state, nine-digit zip
code and whether the number is a resident or business....
"The company would also give businesses a statistical profile of their
customers as a group, using demographic information from Equifax...The
information would include income, lifestyle, education, neighborhood
and other information from census reports. A Bell spokesman said the
demographic information cannot be tied to a specific caller..."
The Public Counsel for Missouri, Martha Hogerty, objected to the
service, saying that it "smacks of Big Brother." She said "Consumers
should not be forced to become statistics in a marketing study merely
by placing a telephone call." She called the service "an abuse of the
company's local telephone monopoly."
The next day Southwestern Bell withdrew its plans and said it would
reintroduce Intellidata after the regulators have a chance to
understand it better.
Apparently Caller Intellidata is already in place in other Southwestern
Bell cities: Houston and Austin, Texas, and Wichita and Topeka,
Kansas.
It should be noted that phone customers in the state of Missouri do not
have the ability to use Per Line Blocking for their outgoing telephone
numbers, only Per Call Blocking. This means that for each call they
make, they must dial *67 before dialing the phone number in order to
prevent their calling number ID from being transmitted to the display
device of the call recipient.
In most other states, phone customers can sign up for Per Line
Blocking, which automatically blocks every number from being delivered.
Customers can unblock the number by entering another code before
dialing the number.
Southwestern Bell's use of Caller ID data in its Caller Intellidata
service is, I believe, a good indicator of what is yet to come on a
much larger scale. This type of transaction-generated data is far too
lucrative for business marketing applications to be allowed to be
limited strictly to billing purposes.
One of the many things that concerns me about the proposed Southwestern
Bell use of Caller ID data is that phone customers were apparently not
going to be notified about the proposed usage. Nor were they going to
be given the opportunity to opt-out of such usage. In addition, they do
not even have the ability to put the Per Line Blocking feature on their
phone line.
--
Beth Givens Voice: 619-260-4160
Project Director Fax: 619-298-5681
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Hotline (Calif. only):
Center for Public Interest Law 800-773-7748
University of San Diego 619-298-3396 (elsewhere)
5998 Alcala Park e-mail: bgivens@acusd.edu
San Diego, CA 92110
------------------------------
From: Erik@harry.lloyd.com
Date: 11 Oct 1995 02:44:09 GMT
Subject: Corporate Information Databases
Organization: <Sippers Anonymous>
I noted a posting on another news group regarding gathering information
about corporations. Are there publically accessable databases to
determine corporation ownership and/or asset information?? I would be
particularly interested in tracking folks on the boards of directors
etc. and any database information that would enable me to cross check
directors and verify ownership and affiliated businesses/corporations.
If you have any information or suggestions, I would appreciate an
e-mail response as my news reader seems to be having problems here
recently. Thanks, Erik
--
Erik Holst He who dies with the most toys looses;
erikh@spider.lloyd.com he who leaves no footprints wins.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@pica.army.mil>
Date: 05 Oct 1995 20:07:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: U.S Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Prvt Ctzn <prvtctzn@aol.com> wrote: Evidently you did not read the
law I refer to. Rather than suggesting I get a life, perhaps you
should get a copy of the law AND READ IT.
I read it. To quote the definition part:
227(a)
(3) The term 'telephone solicitation' means the initiation of a
telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase
or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is
transmitted to any person, but such term does not include a call or
message (A) to any person with that person's prior express invitation
or permission, (B) to any person with whom the caller has an
established business relationship, or (C) by a tax exempt nonprofit
organization.
execption (B) applies in this case. By virtue of your AOL account you
have a business relationship with AOL so the rest of this law doesn't
apply. Even if did not have a business relationship with them there
are other elements that would make this statute irrelavant to your
case.
As for AOL sending it to me, whether or not I am a subscriber to
AOL, they havce a duty to respect the federal laws of this nation.
What law did they not respect, certainly not this one.
Furthermore, I had specifically notified AOL that it was not to
send me unsolicited advertisements by e-mail. Perhaps you accept
the proposition that AOL has a higher calling than respect of its
subscriber's wishes.
Once again, if you don't want them to send you advertisements get off
their service. If a store wants my SSN I do not do business with
them.
It seems peculiar that someone reading this newsgroup, such as you,
would be so critical of efforts to enforce statutes put into place
to protect your rights of privacy.
I object to people trivializing privacy elements. Our courts are
swamped enough as it. They don't whiners who object to an occasional
piece of email from their service provider wasting further court time.
Now you just go and read the law,
I did read the law. Anything, you disagree with?
--
dennis
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@condes.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 08 Oct 1995 11:29:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: Conceptual Design
prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) wrote: As for AOL sending it to me,
whether or not I am a subscriber to AOL, they havce a duty to
respect the federal laws of this nation. Furthermore, I had
specifically notified AOL that it was not to send me unsolicited
advertisements by e-mail. Perhaps you accept the proposition that
AOL has a higher calling than respect of its subscriber's wishes.
A subscriber might also "wish" not to be billed, but in such a case AOL
does indeed have "a higher calling": the agreement between the company
and the subscriber. You appear to be saying that if two parties make an
agreement, then the federal government should have the right to
override that agreement and dictate terms. Yet on the other hand you
seem to be implying that you're a "privacy advocate." I find this
confusing. You seem to be implying that sending E-mail to a person
without his consent violates his "right of privacy." On what, exactly,
is this claim based? By the act of creating an electronic mailbox,
you're giving other people the capability to send mail to it; if you
want a storage area which only you and those you authorize can write
to, what you want is a protected shared directory. Moreover, you are
implying that prosecuting people for sending E-mail to other people is
not itself a violation of the right to privacy. If "privacy" doesn't
include the right to communicate without fear of prosecution, what does
it mean?
Your original post, in which you presumably cited the law to which
you're referring, has scrolled off, so I can't verify whether there is
some law which bans unsolicited E-mail. If there is, it gives a deadly
opportunity for the government to stifle free communication and
prosecute people at will. Don't forget that when the government can
prosecute people on the basis of other people's "wishes," it isn't
necessarily your wishes which will prevail.
--
Gary McGath
gmcgath@condes.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
------------------------------
From: David M Kennedy <David_M_Kennedy@smtp.ord.usace.army.mil>
Date: 10 Oct 1995 09:51:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn): Evidently you did not read the law I
refer to. Rather than suggesting I get a life, perhaps you should
get a copy of the law AND READ IT.
I suspect you are referring to 47 US 227. If you are referring to
another law, please cite it. If you are indeed basing your argument on
47 US 227, perhaps you should point your browser at:
gopher://hamilton1.house.gov:70/11d%3a/uscode/title47/sect01/file.082
Where you will find a law that makes no mention of electronic mail.
This law, recently enforced in at least one court case, restricts some
unsolicited telephone calls, including some facsimile transmissions.
However electronic mail is not mentioned in the statute and, absent
your citing a law or a case, you are stretching this statute too far.
Annoying electronic mail is just that, annoying, it is not illegal.
(Note, I am not commenting on the desirability of such a statute, just
that none now exists under federal law.) Annoying e-mail is why the
gods saw fit to give us the delete key.
I will gladly eat my own electrons if you would be kind enough to cite
the law on which you seem so intent on having enforced.
--
Regards,
Dave Kennedy [US Army MP][CISSP]
a.k.a. 76702.3557@compuserve.com
Volunteer SysOp Crime/Law/Policy National Computer Security
Assoc.
------------------------------
From: L Bednar <74513.2034@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 10 Oct 1995 16:35:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Junk Faxes & e-mail are Illegal
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
Furthermore, I had specifically notified AOL that it was not to
send me unsolicited advertisements by e-mail. Perhaps you accept
the proposition that AOL has a higher calling than respect of its
subscriber's wishes.
Do you want AOL to *read* your mail and determine its content? How
will they know it's unsolicited advertisements?
Before you make sweeping statements like this, consider the
repercussions should AOL actually *enforce* your wishes. AOL cannot
determine the content without someone reading the mail, and making a
decision. Do you wish to give up the privacy of your email and have
some unknown person decide what you should and should not receive????
For the sake of all our email privacy, I sincerely hope you were *not*
serious!
------------------------------
From: Richard_Meeder@atlmug.org (Richard Meeder)
Date: 06 Oct 95 02:02:31 -0400
Subject: New Federal Audit Policy
Organization: Atlanta Macintosh Users Group
I recently read an article in a newsletter by Dan Pilla , author of Tax
Amnesty, it mentioned that 137,000 audits will take place under the new
TPCC, Tax Payer Compliance campaign, The IRS will target independent
contractors, small business owners for audits but this time they will
be looking into "lifestyles" of a particular individual to verify the
validity when they file. These will be random audits, not filers in
suspect of fraud, or errors. Their goal is to eventually bring the "self
employed" individual under closer scrutiny (its not enough that self
employed people pay twice as much in social security like myself) but
the signature data collection would be a sure way of verifying and
tracking your purchases for a positive ID.
------------------------------
From: bcn@world.std.com (Barry C Nelson)
Date: 06 Oct 1995 06:52:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
They had, in effect, scanned my signature, without my permission.
You gave it to them of your free will and one should suppose they could
do pretty much as they like with it, short of passing it off as their
own.
Is there a law against this? (I live in Wisconsin.)
Is signature authentication technology proven as accurate?
I still fail to see how "digitally capturing" your signature on a
special pad is any worse than having you sign with paper and ink which
can instantly be digitized and duplicated anyway.
And how could anyone "verify" your signature in a store anyway, since
there is nothing which requires you to use the same signature every
time you sign things. In fact, even using signature dynamics
technology, you still have to make wide allowances for day-to-day
variations.
--
BCNelson (not a lawyer)
------------------------------
From: jsgard@ix.netcom.com (J. Scott Gardiner)
Date: 06 Oct 1995 13:12:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Organization: Internet Access Group, Orlando, Florida
clouds@rainbow.rmii.com (Philip Duclos) wrote: Having a digital
copy of my signature scares me, in spite of Sears' assurances that
my signature is only associated with the individual receipt and
cannot be viewed by clerks for verification. Seems like this is the
next logical step. After that, why do they need me to sign at all?
Simply print my digitally captured signature on anything they
please.
Circuit City does the signature capture also. When the clerk informed
me that it is "how it is done" I told him that he was wrong. After the
store manager got involved I finally was able to purchase my TV. Watch
them!!!! If you have signed into a system at Circuit City then call
the sotre manager and after a few calls you will reach the sysop in
NC. They will remove a signature the day you call. I helped someone
else out with this.
--
Scott
------------------------------
From: peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: 06 Oct 1995 17:36:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Signature Data Collection at Kinkos
Organization: Network/development platform support, NMTI
Philip Duclos <clouds@rainbow.rmii.com> wrote: Having a digital
copy of my signature scares me, in spite of Sears' assurances that
my signature is only associated with the individual receipt and
cannot be viewed by clerks for verification. Seems like this is the
next logical step. After that, why do they need me to sign at all?
Simply print my digitally captured signature on anything they
please.
They can already do this photographically, and probably to a higher
resolution. As someone else already noted, it's when they start
recording timing and pressure that you'll have to be worried.
Personally, I prefer retina scans. They're starting to use these at
ATMs, I've heard.
--
Peter da Silva (NIC: PJD2) `-_-' 1601 Industrial Boulevard
Bailey Network Management 'U` Sugar Land, TX 77487-5013
+1 713 274 5180 "Har du kramat din varg idag?" USA
Bailey pays for my technical expertise. My opinions probably scare them
------------------------------
From: Bill Hensley <bhensley@oceo.trw.com>
Date: 06 Oct 1995 15:03:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Knowing Where you Browse?
Organization: Questar Network Services
"Prof. L. P. Levine" (levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu) writes: Anybody out
there know if a browser can be remotely ordered to report its
history?
For what it's worth, a very recent issue of Communications Week (I
think) had an interview with the head of Netscape. It was one of those
Q and A pieces. One of the questions concerned the expiration of
Netscape on a user's machine such that the browser would *only* access
URLs in the mcom.com domain. He said that they (Netscape) knew every
time one of their browsers was activated, and that they collected tens
of millions of hits via this monitoring every day. I'll try to get the
specifics of the article (I'm at home today, the paper is at work) and
post them.
It follows that if the browser can call home every time it comes up,
then it could report it's history as well.
--
Bill Hensley
bhensley@oceo.trw.com
------------------------------
From: KAY A SCHAFER <k.schafe@morehead-st.edu>
Date: 06 Oct 1995 14:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Privacy Invasion, Request for Suggestions
Because I teach a course of which privacy rights is one segment, a
student on our campus who has been the victim of a serious invasion of
privacy has come to me for help. A person who has the same first and
last name has acquired information concerning her bank and account
number. The person has had checks made up and is cashing checks on her
bank account. Checks have bounced and the police came to arrest the
girl. The local police found out what happened, investigated, and she
was not arrested, but she is living in fear of additional problems.
She would like advice. Unfortunately, the only suggestion I have is
write all three major credit bureaus to check and if necessary, offer
corrections as to her credit record. I gave her those addresses but I
want to do more. After an invasion of private financial records
occurs, what does a citizen do? This is a lovely young woman and
though she will have no difficulty with our local law enforcement, I am
afraid that she may continue to have difficulty in her business
activities unless appropriate steps are taken.
--
Kay A. Schafer Associate Professor, Paralegal
k.schafe@morehead-st.edu Studies (Dept. of G.G. & H.)
U.P.O. Box 764, Morehead State University, Morehead, Kentucky 40351
------------------------------
From: misterz@ix.netcom.com (Mark Zilberman)
Date: 08 Oct 1995 20:09:32 GMT
Subject: Need help with Harassing Creditors
Organization: Netcom
I would appreciate any assistance. My parents are going through a
wrenching bankruptcy in FL. They are not young. They are getting a
deluge of calls from credittors. This past week they (the credittors)
started calling neighbors. I am not in a postition to help my parents
financially but I will do all that I can. I would like to know the
full range of options regarding this matter. Specifically, what would
be the legal limits that apply to these credittors? Additionally, what
are the legal/procedural remedies that one might employ to keep the
hounds at bay (to alleviate some of the stress)? Finally, is anyone
familiar with the "Debt Collection Practices Act": what is it, where
can I get a copy (ideally on the Net)?
Thank you all in advance. You may call or fax me at 212-288-6152. If
you want my postal address please e-mail and I'll oblige.
--
Thanks,
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 09 Oct 1995 11:30:09 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: European Encryption Control Proposal
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Taken from RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Sunday 8 October 1995
Volume 17 : Issue 38 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND
RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) ACM Committee on Computers and Public
Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
From: david@swarb.demon.co.uk (David Swarbrick)
Date: 03 Oct 95 06:51:04 GMT
Subject: Re: European Encryption control proposal? (Anderson, RISKS-17.36)
In Risks v17 no36 Ross Anderson reported a proposal from the Council of
Europe to ban strong encryption within Europe, and to introduce a
'Euro-Clipper'. I have to say that I think the article he reports
jumps the gun somewhat. The actual proposal reads (in the relevant
section)
"V. Use of Encryption
---------------------
14. Measures should be considered to minimise the negative effects of
the use of cryptography on the investigation of criminal offenses,
without affecting its legitimate use more than is strictly
necessary."
The UK already allows a Police Constable to obtain a warrant requiring
a suspect to produce all information on his computer 'in legible
format' ie de-crypted, and I suspect this is all that will be required
to meet the proposal.
This is not of course to say that there are not people about
contemplating doing just what Ross relates. They are usually sat on a
fat surveillance budget, and wondering how they will justify it next
year.
--
David Swarbrick, Swarbrick & Co, Solicitors, 22 Bradford Road Brighouse
HD6 1RW| UK Tel 01484 722531 david@swarb.demon.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Jongsma, Ken" <kjongsma@p06.dasd.honeywell.com>
Date: 09 Oct 95 08:38:00 MDT
Subject: Cellular Phone Location Tracing
Well, you knew it was only a matter of time...
from the October 1995 issue of GPS World:
Texas Adds GPS to Cellular E911 Trials
A Houston, Texas based emergency services agency is preparing a $1.4
million trial and proof of concept demonstration that will evaluate the
comparitive utility of GPS and other positioning technologies for
providing the location of cellular callers to E911 response centers.
[...]
Traditional "wireline" telephones at fixed sites can provide location
automatically to PSAP operators. The Federal Communications Commision
is in the midst of a rule-making process that would require new
wireless equipment to do so as well.
[...]
So, with the assistance of GTE and the participation of state and local
jurisdictions, the E911 network has begun a two phase project to
determine the optimal approach to locating wireless callers. The first
phase, now underway, involves the installation of intelligent
workstations and a computer integrated telephony infrastructure that
can automatically display caller identification _and the section of the
cellular system from which the call originates_.
The second phase, which will begin in November, and continue through
next May, covers the evaluation of positioning techniques, including
various time difference of arrival methods and digital direction
finding, in addition to GPS.
[...]
--
Ken Jongsma
------------------------------
From: Bill Hensley <bhensley@oceo.trw.com>
Date: 11 Oct 1995 01:56:46 GMT
Subject: Netscape Logging Use of Its Product
Organization: Questar Network Services
I finally got around to looking up the interview that talks about
this.
It's in _Communications Week_, 25 Sep 95, pg 73, an interview with Jim
Clark, Netscape Chairman. Quoted without permission:
Comm Week: How do you track usage?
Clark: We have worked out schemes to tell us when you use our program
and for how long you use it. That capability is easy to add. We can
tell each and every time you turn it on and we can tell whether you
have paid for it or not. We were getting 10 million hits a day at our
Web site. It had doubled since our IPO.
--
Bill Hensley
bhensley@oceo.trw.com
------------------------------
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 #029
******************************
.