Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 17 Nov 93
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 17 Nov 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 076
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Announcement of New Moderator
Re: California Driver License and SSN
Re: California Driver License and SSN
Software as Intellectual Property
Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#075
Re: Finding someone -- FOUND!
Re: Citizens Getting Credit Reports on Businesses
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: Wed, 17 Nov 93 15:11:17 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Announcement of New Moderator
I will relinquish moderator duties of the Computer Privacy Digest
in a couple of weeks. Prof. L. P. Levine <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu> will
take over as the new moderator of the Computer Privacy Digest
(comp.society.privacy) sometime in the next few weeks. Currently we
are working on the transition. A message will go out shortly on the new
addresses.
The primary reason I am leaving the group is time. In the last few
months I have not had the time to adequately perform the duties of being
a moderator.
I would like to thank all the people who have contributed to the digest
and those people who have provided me with pointers on making the digest
better. I have for the most part enjoyed moderating the group. I will
miss the off-line discussions I have had with many of you.
The CPD had it origins in the telecom-privacy mail list which I set
up in August of 1990. Telecom-priv started out to address concerns of
Caller Id. It was an outgrowth of a discussion that was started on the
Telecom digest. The telecom privacy maillist was merged into
the Computer Privacy Digest on 27 April 1992. According to the October
USENET readership report comp.society.privacy is read by about 44,000
people, 73% of USENET sites receive this and is ranked at 683. I have
about 500 subscribers/exploder lists. I think we have come a long way
since the first issue was published in April 1992.
I wish Professor Levine good luck in his new role. I plan to
assume a role as Official Lurker.
dennis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis G. Rears
MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Phone(home): 201.927.8757 Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683
USPS: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 20:51:36 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.74.6@pica.army.mil> Bob Sherman <bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu> writes:
>In <comp-privacy3.73.9@pica.army.mil> Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
[Deleted]
>
>Errrr, excuse me, but there are many ways for you to use the roads your
>taxes pay for without needing a drivers license. You can for example ride
OA>a bike, use public transportation, take a taxi, ride as a passenger in
>a car while someone else does the driving, run, jog, walk etc.. All of the
>above are better done on a paved roadway than through the woods..
However, if you use a Taxi, you are double paying for the privilidge of
using the roads: once for the taxi company (all costs are ultimately passed
down to the consumer) and once for your non-existant use. As for the
argument of riding a bicycle down the road -- This is not the same level of
use. A bicycle is slow and unsafe. More importantly, a person on a bicycle
weighs much less than a person riding in a car. Thus, a bicycle does less
damage to the road. Yet, I would be paying taxes as if I was driving a car
which does more damage to the road. Therefore, my taxes would be going to a
portion of a Privilidge(TM) that I was not using.
>
>By the way, if you own property, you'll also pay school taxes, even if
>you have no children in the schools. Is that any different???
>
There is a deep philosophical difference between problems that involve
children and problems that involve adults. An adult has made choices --
What kind of career they want, and they are responsible for their choices.
A child has no control over who their parents are. So, if children are not
offered an education because their parents cannot afford one, then they are
being penalized for something that they had no control over -- they did not
choose their parents to be poor.
Folks, wake up, the term "Privilidge" can have good uses. It can keep
deadbeats and those who can't drive off the roads. However, can also be the
root password to the constitution.
A scene from the future:
"Sir, the State wishes to search your house. Because of the recient Supreme
Court decision that asset forifiture violates the 4th amendment, Congress has
passed a new law stating that any state who wishes to get highway
funding must put a provision in their license agreement that you agree to
have your property searched and seized at any time. Because you have a
licence, they are already searching your house. Although nothing was found,
everything is being impounded indefinately because they want to do a more
comprehensive investigation. Oh, you will have to sue to get it back, prove
you were innocent, and pay out of your own pocket. Oh? They froze your
assets as well? I guess you just can't afford a lawyer to sue and therefore
your assets echew to the state as their action has gone unchallenged."
"Have a nice day, but don't feel bad, the government is just doing it for
The Greater Good(tm)"
--
--
PGP 2.3 Public key by mail | Richard E. Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>
Disclaimer-------------------------------------------------------------
| The opinons expressed above are those of a green alien who spoke to |
| me in a vision. They do not necessarly represent the views of NCSU |
| or any other person, dead or alive, or of any entity on Earth. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Chris Claborne <claborne@npg-sd.sandiegoca.ncr.com>
Subject: Re: California Driver License and SSN
Date: 17 Nov 93 04:05:39 GMT
Organization: NCR Corp., Network Products - San Diego
In <comp-privacy3.74.6@pica.army.mil> bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (Bob Sherman) writes:
>In <comp-privacy3.73.9@pica.army.mil> Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu> writes:
>>That's really neat. Does this mean that if I don't avail myself of the
>>"privilidge" of driving, that I don't have to pay any taxes that go to
>>support the highway system? Bzzz! If the highway system were supported by
>>user fees, I would agree with this logic. But, since it is supported from
>>my income taxes, I am paying for the road, but don't get to use the road I
>>pay for because it is a Privilidge(TM).
>Errrr, excuse me, but there are many ways for you to use the roads your
>taxes pay for without needing a drivers license. You can for example ride
>a bike, use public transportation, take a taxi, ride as a passenger in
>a car while someone else does the driving, run, jog, walk etc.. All of the
Go to the store and buy anything. It probably came over the road.
... __o
.. _`\<,_
chris.claborne@sandiegoca.ncr.com ...(*)/ (*). CI$: 76340.2422
PGP Pub Key fingerprint = A8 FA 55 92 23 20 72 69 52 AB 64 CC C7 D9 4F CA
<#include standard disclaimer regarding my opinion an not my company's >
<#include some philosophical comment >
------------------------------
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 15:53:03 EST
From: Carl Kuehn <CKUEHN@american.edu>
Subject: Software as Intellectual Property
Although intellectual property (IP) may not necessarily be a direct
issue of privacy, it is one of the most impacting societal computer
issues of today. Certainly, as a computer community in this country,
we are concerned with whether the increased litigation in the
industry and extensions to legal (IP) protection for investors will
stifle software development.
As a graduate student in Information Systems at the American
University in Washington DC, I have been researching how software
is protected as IP in the US. Currently, a combination of copyright,
patent, and trade secret laws are in effect. However, it seems
agreeable (in the literature at least) that present laws are
inadequate for protecting software. Laws and legal precedents are
simply lagging behind the technology.
Therefore, I am interested in feedback regarding how software may be
protected as IP in the future. Any direct expertise or reference to
such would be greatly appreciated. Also, if there are any suggestions
about other NETNEWS groups where this message may apply, please inform
me.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Kuehn
E-mail: CKUEHN@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Phone: (202) 606-6890 (work)
(202) 544-3734 (home)
------------------------------
Date: 16 Nov 1993 23:09:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dick Rinewalt <rinewalt@gamma.is.tcu.edu>
Subject: Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Organization: Texas Christian Univ Comp Sci Dept
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.
Unfortunately, if the info they give does not check out
you have little with which to pursue a complaint.
Dick Rinewalt Computer Science Dept Texas Christian Univ
rinewalt@gamma.is.tcu.edu 817-921-7166
------------------------------
From: Tom Evert <O1EVERT@vm1.cc.uakron.edu>
Subject: Re: Is there an effective way to stop junk phone calls?
Organization: The University of Akron
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 05:06:32 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.75.4@pica.army.mil>
pete ritter <cpritter@netcom.com> writes:
>In article <comp-privacy3.73.4@pica.army.mil> amyh@tc.fluke.COM (Amy Heidner) writes:
>>From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbsmith@world.std.com> writes:
>>
>>> Anybody know anything that WORKS?
>
>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.
>
>The next time I get a telemarketing call, I will ask for both. I will
>check out the info I am given. If the info does not check out,
>the telemarketer has violated federal law, and I will demand the that the
>FBI and the federal prosecuter pursue prosecution.
>
>I have not received a telemarketing call in oh, it must be 9 months to a year.
>I attribute this to the fact that when I do receive a call, I am extremely rude
>the caller, using words and phrases that I would use with only my best
>friends and then only in jest. After I began doing this about 5 years ago,
>the rate of junk calls dropped steadily. Prior to that, nothing worked.
>Not courteously requesting no more calls, not telling them that I won't
>do buisiness with their clients, not hanging up on them, not asking them
>to hold and then ignoring them, not writing to the Direct Marketing
>Association. I had considered buying an answering machine. But why
>should I have to spend money to protect something that I should have a
>right to anyway?
>
>I urge everyone who gets junk calls to ask to be removed from their lists
>and to ask for their firm's name, address and TN. Then check out that
>information and if it does not check out, or if you receive a second call
>from a firm you have asked not to call, demand that the feds pursue the
>criminals. Be sure to document all calls, requests for information and
>results of checking that information.
Good advise! This law is called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991. Interesting reading - especially the part under "Findings"!
Two ways I accomplished this was to have my name removed from the City
Directory published by R. L. Polk and the Criss+Cross directory published
by Haines.
Visit the library and ask for these books. Then write down the publishers
addresses and write them and demand they remove your name, phone number and
all other information from their directories. (R.L. Polks directory lists
all persons living at a particular address as well as occupations or places
of employment.) These books are also known as reverse directories.
By the time the next issue of these books came out my junk phone calls dropped
to almost zero!
One oversight of the law and the whole telemarketing industry in general is
their lack of respect of those of us who work nights. We may be sleeping when
they call. The few calls I do get I ask them if I can call them back when
their sleeping and tell them that I was. Then I ask them to add me to their
no call list.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 08:09:40 PST
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cmsa.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#075
On Tue, 16 Nov 93 15:44:49 EST you said:
>Seems that North Randal police could no longer afford the $60 for handwriting
>analysis to procecute a single bad-check case they had been providing free
>to merchants.
>
>Aside from the invasion of privacy of the 'victem' how much money is did
>this store hope to save by changing their policy?
>
>How much does it cost to have a computer run a thumb match?
>How much did this blunder cost the chain in lost sales?
>
>Anyway - at least it's somewhat of a victory for us privacy advocates!
Until the store stops taking checks in that store, or closes it, or takes
thumb prints in all stores. If this is a victory for blacks, give me a
tie or a loss.
Do you expect the store to run at a loss to acheive political correctness
objectives? Would you buy stock in a company with a policy like that?
(Just send us $5 per share per year so we can be easy on folks who try
to cheat us.) Give me a break!
Dave Gomberg, role model for those who don't ask much in their fantasy lives.
GOMBERG@UCSFVM Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU fax-> (415)731-7797
------------------------------
From: Rajiv A Manglani <rajiv@athena.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Finding someone -- FOUND!
Date: 17 Nov 1993 17:41:22 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The search was pretty simple... three credit bureaus.
I do not think I should say which service I use, but I believe any
of them would have been able to help me.
Rajiv
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me: Rajiv A. Manglani rajiv@mit.edu
La Maison Francaise Brilliant Image
476 Memorial Drive Seven Penn Plaza
Cambridge, MA 02139-4319 New York, NY 10001
617. 225. 7690 800. 727. 3278 x200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuyvesant High School Alumni EMail Address List Maintainer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Theodore L. Dysart" <dysart@parrot.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Citizens Getting Credit Reports on Businesses
Date: 17 Nov 1993 19:28:51 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
In article <comp-privacy3.75.1@pica.army.mil> "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> writes:
>> Are there any easy ways for private citizens to obtain credit
>> reports on businesses with whom they are considering doing
>> business? E.g., when I went to Borneo, I paid the tour company a
>> few thousand $$$ a few months in advance. I'd have liked to check
>> them out first. Also, would it be legal for me to obtain personal
>> credit reports on the company's officers?
>
>You can, if the company is large enough, check the printed records that
>Dun & Bradstreet put out. D&B generally also sells reports on companies;
>normally you have to subscribe, but I think they have a 1-900 number for
>getting reports; call your local office and find out how much it will cost
>for a report on a company. I'm sure that if someone wants to pay for a
>single report they will provide it.
D&B does provide this service. They charge it to your credit card, or you can
send them cash in advance. By the way, they are very explicit about their
terms you can't even Xerox the paper they give you. Nor can you show it to
ANYONE Else. Often times D&B misses stuff. The company I wanted to check
out was on its way to filing bankruptcy, had stiffed its vendors for over
$100K for well over 9 mo. According to the D&B report everything was rosy.
So the moral of this story is, if they are a private company, and they are
careful, there isn't much you can find out. BTW - I think it cost me $35 for
the report.
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ |Theodore L. Dysart| Also Student Conductor for
_/ _/ _/ _/ |dysart@wpi.wpi.edu| the WPI Glee Club and Head
_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ | Sales Rep. for | Chef for the WPI Baker's
_/ _/ _/ _/ | WIN Enterprise | Dozen - Available for
_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ | (508)753-1522 | Special Occasions 792-9119
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #076
******************************
Comments
Post a Comment