Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 20 Nov 93

 

Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 20 Nov 93              Volume 3 : Issue: 079

Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears

                 Re: California Driver License and SSN

        Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?

          Re: Computer Bulletin Boards should NOT be censored.

         Re: Graduate Program on Social Dimensions of Cmputing

         Re: Graduate Program on Social Dimensions of Cmputing

                       10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM

   The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the

  effect of technology on privacy.  The digest is moderated and

  gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy

  (Moderated).  Submissions should be sent to

  comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to

  comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.

   Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil

  [129.139.160.133].

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 13:07:58 PST

From: "Dick Murtagh (8-465-4916)" <dickm@vnet.ibm.com>

Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN

> From: Chris Claborne <claborne@npg-sd.sandiegoca.ncr.com>

> Go to the store and buy anything.  It probably came over the road.

Interesting point.  First, hasn't someone already paid their use fee to

get the products to the store ?  And get the raw materials to the factory

or cannery or meat packing plant ?  I consider multiple taxation immoral.

Second, how do I go to the store without using the roads ?

When I went to the store before there were roads (bear with me) I would

cross the fields and streams.  In legal terms, this created an easement,

- easement (noun 'e-z-m*nt) a nonprofitable interest in land owned by

- another that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or enjoyment

insuring that I would always be allowed to follow this path.  Then the

state came along and put a road in my path.  Further, they say that I

can't use their road unless I pay a use fee.  However, my easement should

and does override the states right to create a road.  Perhaps now I'll

sue and force them to rip up the roads between my residence and all the

places I regularly go.  But I might settle for free use of their roads.

> From: Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>

> A scene from the future:

Are you kidding ?  This has been happening for years.  Look at what the

IRS is empowered to do.  If they *think* you *might* have done something

wrong, they can seize all your assets and garnish your wages.  Then you

have to sue to get it back.  And since you're the plaintiff, the burden of

proof (of your innocence) is on you.

For another example, look at "administrative forfeiture" of property when

any drug-related charge is brought against you.  They (DEA, FBI, cops...)

can seize everything in site of the drugs, (your car, your house ...) and

then sell it BEFORE you're even charged.

I read a story in the Wall Street Journal where law enforcement officials

did a property assessment on a piece of real estate owned by the father

of a man suspected of drug charges.  They then flew over the property at

1000 feet and spotted something "that looked like a marijuana plant".  So

of course, they raided the property in the middle of the night.  During

the raid, the 65 year old owner was shot and killed.  No drugs where found.

Welcome to America.

Dick Murtagh

------------------------------

From: pete ritter <cpritter@netcom.com>

Subject: Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?

Organization: Brotherly Order of Odd Bellows (BOOB)

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 02:08:55 GMT

In article <comp-privacy3.76.5@pica.army.mil> Dick Rinewalt <rinewalt@gamma.is.tcu.edu> writes:

>In article <comp-privacy3.75.4@pica.army.mil> pete ritter,

>cpritter@netcom.com writes:

>> At long last, federal law now requires telemarketers to remove from

>their

>> call lists, anyone who requests it.  The law also requires them to give

>> the name of the telemarketing firm, its address and telephone number if

>> you request it.

>

>I would like more details. Specifically,

>    What is the citation?

>    What are the penalties?

>Citing the statute and penalties to a telemarketer has some threat value.

The law is called "The Telephone Consumer Protection Act".  It was passed

in 1991.  Sorry, I know no more than what I've said.  Anyone probably can

obtain a copy of the law from her/his US senator or representative.

>

>Unfortunately, if the info they give does not check out

>you have little with which to pursue a complaint.

I think you do!  Since a law was broken, law enforcement agencies with

jourisdiction can obtain the telephone company's records.  It is likely

that the call can be traced if you know the time it ocurred.  CID would

be helpful here, unless the caller has disabled it.

>Dick Rinewalt      Computer Science Dept       Texas Christian Univ

>rinewalt@gamma.is.tcu.edu                      817-921-7166

>

-- 

               ***************************************

               * Pete Ritter  *  cpritter@netcom.com *

               ***************************************

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 14:18:29 -0500

From: Dave Weil <dave@tso4a.can.cdc.com>

Subject: Re: Computer Bulletin Boards should NOT be censored.

My thoughts on the issue of freedom of speech on BBSs...  I've responded

to a couple of articles here and edited heavily.  I hope I have not done

so so as to offend the authors.

Donald Burr <picard@coyote.rain.org> writes:

> Hmm, this looks like something interesting to start a discussion on.

> Following are MY viewpoints on the issue -- feel free to keep the ball

> rolling.

> 

[ Lyle Lexier's <lexier@sfu.ca> proposal for a vote deleted... ]

> 

> Though I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech (for example, I strongly

> disagree with censoring of USENET, i.e. the alt.sex.* type postings, nudity

> and sex gifs, etc.)  however, BBS's are another matter.  I do not believe

> that external authorities (i.e. the FBI, FCC, etc.) should censor BBS's,

> because this would be in violation of freedom of speech.  HOWEVER, I do

> believe that the individual SYSOPS of each BBS should decide which is

> appropriate and which is not.

> 

I agree.  A sysop I know stated it well:  he said his BBS is his electronic

living room.  People drop by and hang out, discuss things, etc.  But it's

still his place, and he has to live with what goes on there, so his word is

law.  Post a get-rich-quick scheme and the posting and the user simply get

immediately deleted.  And he can do that - it's all his stuff, after all.

[ Discussion of BBS content and management thereof,

  restricted access to "adult" areas... ]

> -- 

> Donald Burr (aka Captain Picard, Picard, Picards, and SuperTribble)

> EMAIL: picard@rain.org; AMERICA ONLINE: CapnPicard

> A Trekker, and DAMN proud of it! -+- Want FREE Unix for 386/486? EMAIL ME!!

> "We're just two lost souls / Swimming in a fish bowl" -- Pink Floyd

and Bernie Cosell <cosell@world.std.com> writes:

> 

[ stuff about the usefulness of a vote deleted... ]

> 

> Repeating your thesis:

> 

> } Computer Bulletin Boards should not be censored.  People should have freedom> } of speech in saying or writing what they want to say, even if the material has

> } to do with sexual or racial matters.

> 

> I disagree.  I think that the folks that own and operate bulletin boards

> ought to be free to run them *precisely* as they please, just so long

> as they make the ground rules clear up front.  As long as you're using

> someone *else's* equipment, I think it is A-OK that they insist that

> you play by their rules, but that once you agree on the rules they

> should only be changeable by mutual consent [that is, treat such

> as matters of contract law].

> 

You were doing fine up until the mutual consent bit.  There is absolutely

no reason that the users should have *any* say in the governance of a BBS.

You can't map the way Usenet works onto a personal BBS - I could change

the rules *daily* ("Today I get rid of all users whose names start with

'T'.") and that's my prerogative.  Of course nobody will call my BBS, but

that's *their* prerogative.

> If you don't like their rules, as long as you're free to go to some

> other forum or start your own, I claim you've gotten all that

> you're entitled to in terms of "freedom of speech".

> 

Correct, except that there's no such thing as "squatters' rights" to

someone else's living room.  Just 'cause you've been calling a board

for 2 years you haven't got any right to a say in how the board runs.

[ legal situation in US, moral questions... ]

> 

>   /Bernie\

> -- 

> Bernie Cosell                               cosell@world.std.com

> Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358

One more point.  Although I think that a sysop can do whatever she

wants on her own BBS, I reject all external (official or not) censors

unconditionally.

                                                - Dave

                                                (Dave.Weil@cdc.com)

------------------------------

From: "Joseph Reagle Jr." <jreagl1@gl.umbc.edu>

Subject: Re: Graduate Program on Social Dimensions of Cmputing

Date: 19 Nov 93 15:57:26 GMT

Thanks for the CORPS information, would you happen to know of an

e-mail address that I could contact to have general graduate (masters)

information and application information sent to me?

Regards,

Joseph M. Reagle Jr.   | ST:  What's a self-locking stemp-bolt for?

reagle@umbc.edu        | SNL: You put your weed in there man.

jreagl1@umbc8.umbc.edu |

------------------------------

From: Rob Kling <kling@ics.uci.edu>

Subject: Re: Graduate Program on Social Dimensions of Cmputing

Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy

Date: 19 Nov 93 16:17:39 GMT

Hi ... You can obtain materials for applying to our PhD program

from Theresa Klonecky .... at

theresa@ics.uci.edu

Best wishes,

Rob Kling

 --------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 17:27:21 PST

From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@ide.com>

Subject: 10,000 Phonebooks on CDROM

I just bought a set of seven CDROMS which have most of the listed 

telephone numbers in the US.  Six disks cover the nation for both

residential and business, and a seventh disk has all the businesses

listed again, also broken out by SIC code, etc. so you can scan them

by industry.

I fired it up on my PC at home and showed it to my wife.  Pretty soon 

we were looking at disk after disk to resurrect people she had known

from college and junior high.  When I said, "Who's that fellow?" she

explained he was a former boyfriend in seventh grade!  Ah yes.   (Well,

she never actually *kissed* him...)  So pretty soon I'm looking up an old

girlfriend or two.  They're harder to find because women are likelier

to be unlisted, have a surname change or list by initials.  But that's

a separate issue.  ;^)

The index scheme is very user friendly; you get a subscreen with

query fields and another with the names, addresses amd phone numbers.

As you type in a name query, the list adapts immediately as you type.

Beautifully easy to use.

Interestingly, I wasn't in the list.  I believe this is because,

even though my telephone number is listed, it isn't in the reverse

street listing directory.  As you examine listings in closer detail it

tells you from what year the phonebook was taken.  Most of them were 

1991 or 1992 listings.

You can sort the entries and print them out to a printer or file,

in letter or label format, or delimited ASCII.  Finally, all you need

to do to call someone is hit F2 and it makes the call through your modem.

These disks were $85 for the set, 1993 edition, at my local computer

swapmeet.  I'd say this is one genie that's out of the privacy bottle.

But if you're doing a high school reunion it is just the thing.

Mark Bell

IDE Applications Engineer

bell@ide.com

------------------------------

End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #079

******************************