Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 08:55:27 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#054
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 28 Dec 95 Volume 7 : Issue: 054
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses
Re: Nastiness From "Netnet"
Re: French Authorisation puts People into a Secret File
Re: Must I PAY For My Own Drug Test?
Re: Risks of Checking Accounts
Racial Classification
AT&T sends bill of $13,662.52
Compuserve Censoring USENET
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bo774@freenet.carleton.ca (Kelly Bert Manning)
Date: 23 Dec 1995 00:16:06 GMT
Subject: Re: BC Commissioner Upholds Severing of Voter Addresses
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet
(afaulkne@bclands.crl.gov.bc.ca) writes: 8. Order I find that the
provisions of the Municipal Act apply to <snip> in dispute. I also
find, under section 22(1) of the Act, that it
This gets a bit complex and cofusing because there are 2 acts
involved. My impression is that where the text refers to "the Act"
without a name the Commissioner is referring the the basic FOI/POP
which created his office and provides his mandate.
It should be clear to any reader of the FOI/POP act that politicians
are not provided any sort of exclusion from the blanket prohibition on
extracting names and addresses or phone numbers for soliciting or
prospect list creation.
Canada has a much less efficient electoral process than countries such
as the US which have a single piece of legislation for all levels of
government and a single electoral process.
This decision deals with Municipal Lists of Electors, which would not
include the City of Vancouver(Vancouver has a special charter). I have
a very wide cynical streak and wouldn't put it past provincial MLAs to
give themselves an exemption while telling municipal politicians to
keep their hands off voter address data.
There isn't any formal party affiliation at the local political level,
although they often form unoffical coallitions or slates that have
non-binding ties to provincial party organizations.
This may have interesting ramifications for the up coming
provincial election. The voters list is provided to political
parties for their use. Usually that involves merging the name,
address, occupation fields with telephone data bought from BCTel.
This becomes a very powerful campaign tool, especially when coupled
with occupation directed campaigning (e.g. teachers, doctors) and
ethnic sub-listing based on last name. I wonder if this usage will
still be allowed?
This type of usage isn't limited to political campaigns and illustrates
exactly why this type of information shouldn't be released without the
consent of the voters involved.
A "Data Extractor" taken to civil court last year told the judge that
if he was denied direct access to voter data he would just get it by
other routes, and gave a couple of examples:
- contract with a candidate/party to merge voter list data with
Dominion Directory data(available on CD-ROM) and keep a copy of the
voter list
- file as a candidate himself if that failed
Do you have any data on what level of coverage Dominion Directory has
for BC? BC Tel won't say. A small trial of my own showed that 40% of
active numbers in a residential area exchange were not listed in a Polk
directory.
I did pick a high property value area, so this may be
unrepresentative. An interesting twist to this is that Squamish is
relatively close to the Whistler ski resort, so the list of electors
might have included a larger that usual % of wealthy people for whom
keeping their address a private matter is literally a routine security
precaution. Property owners can vote even though the property is just a
ski chalet or vacation cottage, not their principal residence.
The commissioner's decision refers to personal security as well as
privacy. -- notice: by sending advertising/solicitations to this
account you will be indicating your consent to paying me $70/hour for a
minimum of 2 hours for my time spent dealing with it
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 23 Dec 1995 17:27:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Nastiness From "Netnet"
Organization: Conceptual Design
Nightwolf <N-wolf@cris.com> wrote: Has anyone else reading any of
these newsgroups received the same pair of advertisements? If so,
then what have you done, or what are you planning to do? Would it
be out of line for me to suggest that each person who has received
a copy of this advertisement might call the eight hundred number
given in the advertisement, and advise whomever answers that you
are calling to protest the sending of junk E-Mail? If this is not
the best solution, then what is a better idea? Does anyone have
any suggestions? Please do let me know! I want to make a point of
nipping this damned garbage in the bud!!!
I did receive one mailing from these people and complained to them, but
didn't hear anything from them after that. Calling their 800 number to
complain strikes me as an excellent idea; but people should be advised
to actually state their complaint in a way that can't be construed as a
"harassing phone call," however much the spammers deserve one.
--
Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
------------------------------
From: lpele@worldnet.fr (Laurent PELE)
Date: 23 Dec 1995 23:01:56 GMT
Subject: Re: French Authorisation puts People into a Secret File
Organization: New Cypherpunks
JeanBernard_Condat@eMail.FranceNet.fr says... New official
authorisation to put all people in a secret file... November 16th,
1995: In middle of the strike period in France, the Ministry of the
Army publish a text dated November 9th giving the authorisation to
the Army to put all available data in local files for future uses.
The available data mind political, philosophical, religion...
opinions of a person called "terrorist" or "victim of a
terrorist." :-|]
It is right that it is quite incredible that the CNIL accepted that
text, there where no guaranty to protect people in the file : their
rights to access it, to rectify it and people in the file don't even
know that their political opinions are in the file.
This text is contrary to the first part of Art 31 of Law "Informatique
et Libert" 6 January 1978 : "Il est interdit de mettre ou conserver en
mmoire informatise, sauf accord exprs de l'interess, des donnes
nominatives qui, directement ou indirectement, font apparaitre les
origines raciales ou les opinions politiques, philosophiques ou
religieuses ou les appartenances syndicales des personnes. [...] Pour
des motif d'intret public, il peut aussi etre fait exception
l'interdiction ci-desus sur proposition ou avis conforme de la
commision par dcret en Conseil d'Etat"
In other means, the CNIL accepted that the law didn't apply to the army
and don't control it.
Note that this law doesn't define what is a terrorist. Note also that
it is France that invented terrorism : France have done the first
plane deviation.
France authorities use also terrorism actions (for example bomb in
Rainbow Warrior ship in Auckland in New Zealand, 10 years ago, a
journalist were killed)
--
Laurent PELE | Tel: +(33) (1) 42 29 93 58
13 rue Lantiez | Fax: +(33) (1) 42 29 99 32
F- 75017 PARIS | lpele@worldnet.fr http://www.worldnet.net/~lpele/
-- Open an account in E-cash and visit my own picture shop on
http://www.worldnet.net/~lpele/images.html, that's cheap!
------------------------------
From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: 26 Dec 1995 03:19:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Must I PAY For My Own Drug Test?
Organization: Fantasy Farm Fibers
"Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> wrote: I cannot
believe that it could _possibly_ be legal to require applicants to
PAY for processing employer-mandated drug tests!
I'm more than a bit baffled. On what possible basis could you argue
that it even _might_ be illegal? Companys can, by and large, require
whatever they please from employees, right? Are there some laws I
don't know about relating to employers prerogatives to charge fees and
other such for employment applicants?
And how does this relate to 'privacy'? [since it appears that you've
already conceded the only real privacy issue related to this matter, as
your gripe is not that they _want_ a drug test, but only who is to
_pay_ for it].
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
------------------------------
From: Diann <71600.621@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 27 Dec 1995 03:42:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Risks of Checking Accounts
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
Interesting and scary about getting that woman's checking data.
However, I've noticed that many places which want account numbers get
all bent out of shape if they don't get it. I almost screwed up my car
insurance payment by forgetting to write the insurance account number
on the memo line; this dispite the fact the silly thing was listed on
the sheet of paper from the insurance company that I sent back with my
check.
So, one is damned if one does and damned if one doesn't. any
suggestions???
------------------------------
From: gmcgath@mv.MV.COM (Gary McGath)
Date: 27 Dec 1995 13:06:06 GMT
Subject: Racial Classification
Organization: Conceptual Design
An issue which I haven't seen discussed much on this forum is how to
deal with requests to categorize oneself racially. Twice in the past
two years I've been faced with such requests.
The first time was in applying for a mortgage (one of the most
privacy-destroying situations that many of us encounter). When I saw
the question, I refused to answer it. The loan officer told me that in
that case he'd fill in his best guess, and then would sign it to
indicate that he was supplying the answer. He tried to "forget" to sign
it, but I insisted on it. I feel that I should have acted more
forcefully, writing on the form that I didn't consent to having my race
taken into account in a loan application.
A little more recently, I received a questionnaire from a company in
Georgia for which I'd done some consulting services. This one didn't
directly ask for my race, but rather asked if I was a "minority-owned
business." This time, I sent back an angry refusal to answer the
questionnaire at all.
My suspicion is that in both of these cases, the requests were
pressured, if not directly mandated, by Federal law. I'm wondering if
people reading this have come up with effective techniques to refuse to
be racially categorized, and what kind of reactions they've encountered
in the process.
--
Gary McGath gmcgath@mv.mv.com
http://www.mv.com/users/gmcgath
------------------------------
From: JeanBernard_Condat@email.Francenet.fr (JeanBernard Condat)
Date: 21 Dec 1995 17:14:16 GMT
Subject: AT&T sends bill of $13,662.52
Organization: FranceNet
For the holidays, AT&T don't hesitate to put a little humor all over
the world and for the people that don't have chance to leave in the
USA. The French computer spy Jean-Bernard Condat have receive a bill
for the month of January 1983 with an uncredible amount of $13,662.52.
For years Jean-Bernard Condat has undoubtedly been France's best-known
computer hacker. Appearing on television talk shows, launching
provocative operations and attending computer seminars, he founded the
Chaos Computer Club France (CCCF) in 1989 as Frances answer to the
renowned Chaos Computer Club in Hamburg (Germany). French journalist
Jean Guisnel revealed last month in a book entitled 'Guerres dans le
Cyberespace' (Cyberspace War, Internet and Secret Services) published
by the Editions La Decouverte (ISBN 2-7071-2502-4) that Condat has been
controlled from the outset by the Direction de la Surveillance du
Territoire (DST).
A student in Lyons where he followed music and information technology
courses, Condat was taken in hand by the local branch of the DST in
1983. The DST organized his participation in hacker meetings abroad.
Guisnel said that from 1989 onwards Jean-Luc Delacour , Condat's
handler at the DST, decided that his proteg was ready for bigger and
better things. He asked Condat to start up CCCF, then worked to
promote his public image in order that the largest number of hackers
would gravitate towards him. The DST printed hundreds of T-shirts and
thousands of post cards for him.
When Thomson and Pechiney found that hackers were trying to breack into
their systems Condat enabled the French counter-espionage service to
trace the intruders. When he was taking part in a television program in
September 1991 in which he was to demonstrate how to hack into a system
his handler dictated what he should say in his earphones. Questioned by
Intelligence Newsletter, Condat admitted he had worked for the DST over
a 52 month period and written up 1,032 reports during that time. He
claims, however, that he broke with the DST in 1991 and that he intends
to shortly publish an account of what he calls his 'turpitude'. The
book called 'BND2' cannot be publish in France at this time for
security reasons.
Condat worked for several years in SVP company before leaving it a few
months ago to take over a key fonction: he is now security officier for
one of the first French bank in Paris. But never understand why AT&T
ask it an uncredible bill of $13,662.52!
Don't hesitate to contact it at: condat@atelier.fr.
------------------------------
From: an280463@anon.penet.fi (Thurston J. Whistlestop)
Date: 28 Dec 1995 02:19:07 GMT
Subject: Compuserve Censoring USENET
Organization: CompuServe Incorporated
I use Compuserve to access the net. Recently (Around December 26) their
USENET server had most of the alt* heirachy removed. I wrote to them to
ask why. My letter and response (Unedited except for my pseduonym) are
attached. What gives?
(Letter to CIS)
Sir/Madam,
I use CIS to access the internet via CID/PPP (Also use CIM sometimes
too). One of the common things I use is USENET via a program called
WinVN.
Today I connected as usual from my locale in Melbourne, Australia and
found that large section of the alt* heirachy was no longer available
from your server, there were also other parts not accessible and in
general it appeared as though any group that could possibly have
anything to do with adult discussions had vanished.
I also used the "GO USENET" portion of CIS to confirm the absense of
these groups and also to eliminate any problems with my client
software.
Could you please expain why these groups are no longer available on
your NNTP server? If there has been a change in Compuserve policy I
would appreciate an explanation as to what the driving force(s) behind
this change is.
Thank you
(Reply)
To: Thurston J. Whistlestop
Fr: Susan Kurtz
Customer Service Representative
Re: Usenet Newsgroups
Thank you for writing Feedback! I am responding to your inquiry
regarding the cancellation of certain newsgroups.
The access to the newsgroups was blocked by order of the German
Government. The block is pending legal review from CompuServe in
response to the German order. Since our service is international by
design, we can not block areas for just one country. I apologize for
any frustration or inconvenience this may cause you.
If you have any further questions or comments, please contact us at
Feedback. We are here to assist you!
Susan Kurtz
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 1995 14:25:54 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
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 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.
Web browsers 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 | Web: gopher://gopher.cs.uwm.edu
---------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V7 #054
******************************
.