Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 14:01:07 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 V8#007
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 18 Jan 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 007
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
New Pro Privacy Web Site
Re: Computers See ALL Your Postal Mail
Re: Computers See ALL Your Postal Mail
Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Employer Request for Kids SSN
Re: Spy Viruses
Privacy Conferences and Events
Info on CPD [unchanged since 11/22/95]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SpyKing <spyking@novalink.com>
Date: 16 Jan 1996 00:53:41 -0500
Subject: New Pro Privacy Web Site
A wealth of privacy information and a ton of great links to privacy
related resources and utilities. It's definetely worth checking out.
URL: http://thecodex.com
Check out our WEB SITE - The Codex Privacy Page
WWW: http://www.trcone.com/tsa.html
The Codex Surveillance & Privacy Newsletter
CounterSurveillance Equipment & Privacy Devices
Technical Surveillance CounterMeasures (TSCM)
Forensic Audio Restoration & Audio/Video Tape Enhancement
------------------------------
From: fyoung@oxford.net (F Young)
Date: 16 Jan 96 10:12:59 EST
Subject: Re: Computers See ALL Your Postal Mail
TOM ALCIERE <73151.3051@CompuServe.COM> said: DCO's file for a
period of time. All that's necessary to monitor Aunt Matilda is to
command the RBCS to generate similar copies for anything keystroked
123MAIS12345. Bring a letter with your return address ON THE BACK
to a post office window and ask the clerk for a stamp. S/he will
tell you to put the return address ON FRONT!!!
I believe the reason for the Post Office wanting us the put the return
address on the front is for processing of returned mail, not to monitor
our mail, since it is easy enough to take pictures of both front and
back of the letters. However, I can see a privacy issue if the Post
Office keeps archives of pictures or records of mail going through
their system.
Currently, the Canadian postal code system assigns one unique postal
code for every four houses in urban residential areas, one unique
postal code for rural routes/substations. A few years ago, there were
discussions on introducing a 10-digit postal code giving each address a
unique code - I believe that plan is either on hold, or abandoned.
------------------------------
From: WELKER@a1.VsDeC.nL.nuwc.navy.mil
Date: 17 Jan 1996 08:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Computers See ALL Your Postal Mail
A matter of semantics concerning the post about USPS doing traffic
analysis of Aunt Mathilda's mail: I was always taught the the front of
the envelope is the side with the flap, and that the intended
recipient's address was therefore on the back of the envelope. Thus if
a postal clerk instructs you to put your return address on the "front"
(s)he is telling you to write it on the "unscanned" side.
Nonetheless (not being an expert) I know of no _requirements_ that the
return address appear on the same side as the stamp, but I presume USPS
would like to make returned mail easier to handle by doing so.
------------------------------
From: donna@mildred.houston.tx.us (hyper-creatrix)
Date: 16 Jan 1996 05:05:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Unsolicited email Advertising
Organization: hyper-creatrix
References: <comp-privacy8.2.3@cs.uwm.edu>
wmcclatc@nyx.net says... If so, then what have you done, or what
are you planning to do? I do three things: 1) I read the two net
abuse groups and regularly add sites that either spam or allow
thier customers to do so to my bozo filter to prevent myself from
ever seeing them in my inbox.
can i add america online for allowing their clueless lot to do such
things? i got a post recently from someone on aol whose screen name i
didn't recognise, and i also didn't recognise any of the 30+
addresses/screen names in the remainder of the to: field. the sender,
an aol looney, was asking me and the other recipients to effectively
mailbomb a third party who's screen name i also didn't recognise. i
complained to the postmaster and abuse daemons at aol. haven't heard
anything since, but also the bozo hasn't sent any more junk mail to me.
:)
I also encrypt the entore messsage body and reply to the twits
(sending the encrypted mess back) and tell them I am unsure what
the mess is - but I don't want anything else from them.
that's a great solution; i'll add that to my retaliation! :) thanks for
the tips!
--
donna@mildred.houston.tx.us
spam me and you're history!
http://gensys.com/~olotcf/
------------------------------
From: "anonymous" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 96 08:16:29 CST
Subject: Employer Request for Kids SSN
[moderator: a request for anonymity was made by the author.]
I am employed by a major medical center (non profit). My employer
provided health insurance is self-insured through a separate (for
profit $$) company which is a wholly owned by my employer. This
separate company also manages the health maintaince contracts that the
major medical center has with area businesses.
Each year the insurance company sends us a verification sheet
containing our primary/secondary insurance information. My signature
on this form indicates that the insurance information is correct.
My signature on this form also permits release of my medical
information from my employer (the major medical center) to this
separate ins co (for billing). I then sign no releases when I go to
see the doctor. There is also a place on the form for my spouse to
sign releasing medical information from the medical center to his
insurance company.
We no longer sign this form (several years). We believe that we have
the right to know what information about use is being sent from the
major medical center to our insurance companies. Itemized statements
containing ICD-9 codes must be mailed to us and then we submit the
claim to our insurance companies.
This year's form contains a request for my children's social security
numbers. There is no explaination for this request. I have several
times in the past complained because this company had released my
social security number to organizations (in one case a direct
marketer!) without my consent. When I wrote for the policy on keeping
this info private, I got the reply "all employees sign confidentiality
agreements". This is not a policy at all!
Can my health insurance be dropped after 5 years simply because I
refuse to provide my children's social security numbers? Where can I
write to find out what my rights are?
Also, they have taken my spouse's ssn (from our secondary ins) and put
it to use on thier own system. In this new use my spouse's social
security number will not be private. How can I effectively complain
about this?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: fyoung@oxford.net (F Young)
Date: 16 Jan 96 09:53:19 EST
Subject: Re: Spy Viruses
daveb@iinet.net.au (Dave) writes: Sounds like another good reason
to use an external modem. If my modem dials out, I get to hear it
do so, and see the status lights twitch, in time to kill it if need
be. I defy any software to defeat that.
I always prefer external modems; if in doubt, just turn off the power
to it.
Although, your comm software can issue a command to turn off your
external modem's speaker. In case of the "virus" in our discussion, if
you are not looking at the modem or if you are away from your computer,
it may still dial out without you noticing.
------------------------------
From: Susan Evoy <evoy@pcd.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Jan 1996 23:16:39 -0800
Subject: Privacy Conferences and Events
CPSR Members and Friends, If you are planning to attend one of these
conferences, or another that may be related to CPSR's work, please
contact CPSR at cpsr@cpsr.org or (415) 322-3778 for easy ways for you
to be a presence for CPSR.
CONFERENCE /EVENT SCHEDULE [somewhat abridged, moderator CPD]
Security, Privacy and Intellectual Property Protection in the Global
Information Infrastructure, Canberra, AUSTRALIA, Feb. 7-8. Contact:
http://www.nla.gov.au/gii/oecdconf.html
A Nation Connected: Defining the Public Interest in the Information
Superhighway, Annenberg Center, Rancho Mirage, CA, Feb. 20. Contact:
barb.macikas@ala.org 800 545-2433 x3201 312 280-3201
Assoc. for Practical and Professional Ethics, St. Louis, MO, Feb.
29-March 2 Contact: appe@indiana.edu 812 855-6450 812 855-3315
Ethics and Technology Conference, Chicago, IL, March 9, 1996.
Contact: lsalche@luc.edu 312 915-7061 312 915-6118 (fax)
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA, March 27-30,
1996. Contact: web.mit.edu/cfp96 cfp96-info@mit.edu
Rewiring our Networks: Cultural Equity in the 21st Century, Berkeley,
CA, March 30-Apr 1. Contact: 510 451-2717
ACM's Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction, Vancouver,
BC, CANADA, April 14-18, 1996. Contact:
http://www.acm.org/sigchi/chi96/ chi96-office@acm.org 410 263-5382
410 267-0332 (fax)
Technological Assaults on Privacy, Rochester, NY, April 18-20, 1996.
Paper drafts by Feb. 1, 1996. Contact: privacy@rit.edu 716
475-6643 716 475-7120 (fax)
Security and Privacy, IEEE Symposium, Oakland, CA, May 6-8, 1996.
Contact: sp96@cs.pdx.edu http://www.cs.pdx.edu/SP96
Visions of Privacy for the 21st Century: A Search for Solutions,
Victoria, BC, CANADA, May 9-11, 1996. Contact:
http://www.cafe.net./gvc.foi
Business Ethics Conference, The Waldorf-Astoria, New York, NY, May
22-23. Contact: 212 339-0345
Graduate Research Ethics Education, A Workshop at Indiana University,
Bloomington, IN, June 5-9, 1996. Contact: appe@indiana.edu 812
855-6450
Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy, New South
Wales, AUSTRALIA, June 24-26. Contact: jennie@cs.uow.edu.au
The Privacy Laws & Business, Cambridge, ENGLAND, July 1-3. Contact:
44 181 423 1300 44 181 423 4536 (fax)
Conference on Computing and Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon Univ,
Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 8-10. Deadline for submissions: Feb. 19th.
Contact: rc2z@andrew.cmu.edu 412 268-7643
http:/www.lcl.cmu.edu/CAAE/CAPpage.html
Advanced Surveillance Technologies II. Ottawa, ON, CANADA, Sept. 17.
Contact: pi@privacy.org
Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners, Ottawa, ON, CANADA, Sept.
18-20. Contact:
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 15 Jan 1996 18:40:39 -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 V8 #007
******************************
.