Computer Privacy Digest V1#037
Date: Fri, 29 May 92 15:59:13 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#037
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 29 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 037
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Perot Campaign and Telecom Privacy
Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ?
My view on Caller ID
Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Re: All my AmEx cards had no marketing release options with them.
Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Re: Cordless Phones
Re: AmEx Settlement
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
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 May 92 22:56:32 -0400
From: John Q <slip-q@access.digex.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
In article <comp-privacy1.29.12@pica.army.mil>
>2. Even if I had nothing to hide, the real-life data-collectors are very
> inacurate. How many folks have been sending in to TRW lately to see
> just how much stuff the had to have removed from their credit records?
> Either by accident or malice, false information can be very damaging.
Hear hear. I recently obtained a copy of my credit report and found a HUGE
number of incorrect entries. Seems that someone else is either using my
name, or has a similar one. In any case, the attempt to get the incorrect
stuff removed has been hellish! The credit reporting bureaus flagrantly
ignore the FTC regulations. Even worse, the FTC has told me that there
is really nothing they could do about this, and forwarded me a copy of their
interpretations of the regs. which differ markedly from what is on the
paper.
So, has anyone had a similar situation and been successful in getting the
incorrect cruft removed? If so, PLEASE tell me how you did it!
Frankly, I believe we should have laws similar to the German ones whereby
the consumer can demand that their credit file be erased. Granted, nobody
then will give you credit, but it's your option. Damnit, these people are
selling information which belongs to US. The least they could do is be held
accountable for getting it right!
Q
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 May 92 12:37:11 PDT
From: peter marshall <lorbit!rocque@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Perot Campaign and Telecom Privacy
Another side to "1-800 Democracy" and "Electronic Town Halls" re: the Perot
campaign is suggested by a DALLAS MORNING NEWS article appearing in the
5/24 SEATTLE TIMES/SEATTLE PI.
As political uses of communication tech goes, this article quotes
Christopher Arterton, author of TELEDEMOCRACY and ELECTRONIC COMMONWEALTH,
as saying "No previous use of technology has been 'nearly as extensive' as
the one Perot seems to be preparing."
According to the article, "Numbers from incoming calls to the petition
committee have already been shipped to a database company called Telematch,"
who "can check phone numbers and addresses against other databases to get
details about...hobbies, purchasing habits and other electronically
available histories, if the Perot team so chooses. These profiles could be
used to generate lists of Americans who have not called the...campaign, but
whose background suggests they might be disposed to vote for him."
The article notes Perot had founded Electronic Data Systems Corp., now a GM
subsidiary, along with Perot Systems Corp.
--
Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp)
"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Grodberg <jgro@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Isn't personal privacy a little overrated ?
Date: Tue, 26 May 92 00:31:07 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.33.10@pica.army.mil> jartz@bassoon.mitre.org (John Artz) writes:
>It is with great reservation that I even suggest this topic, but
>it seems to me that our notion of a right to privacy has been
>vastly exaggerated and possibly to the long term detriment
>of society.
>
>If you limit privacy to the "right to be left alone" including such
>fundamental rights as the protection against unlawful search and
>seizure, I can certainly understand why people feel so strongly
>about privacy.
>
>However, once we leave our houses and participate in a series
>of social interactions we leave a trail of evidence which cannot
>be considered as private. Thus when I buy groceries or use my
>credit card, or make a phone call I create information about myself
>which belongs (IMHO) to someone or something (e.g. a corporation)
>other than myself. If I have a right to control that information, then
>I should also have a right to prevent people from gossiping about
>me, since that also includes disclosure of possibly incorrect private
>information. Controlling the dissemination of information about
>ourselves just doesn't work in the long run.
[stuff deleted]
I think you have framed a very good topic for discussion.
Let me begin by asying I am glad you agree with the Fourth Amendment.
As for you example of use of the credit card, I believe that such information
should be considered both your property and the credit card companies property.
Marc Rotenberg (sp?) of CPSR likes to say that such information should not
be used for other than the purpose for which it was given, without the
consumer's affirmative consent. For example, when I apply for a credit
card, I am willing to give the credit card company detailed information
about my finances, solely for the purpose of having them evaluate my
credit-worthiness. I am going to be very, very unhappy if they decide
to take out an ad in the New York Times and fill it with all the information
I gave them. (Such and ad is not inconceivable: suppose my financial
picture was really bad: bankruptcy, missed payments, unemployed. If they
were to give me credit anyway, they might run an ad saying "Look at how bad
this guy's credit is, and we gave him a credit line of $3000. Don't you
think we'd do at least as good for you?")
Similarly, when I buy a piece of furniture and charge it on my card, I am
giving the credit card company information only for the purpose of correctly
transferring money around; I don't at all like it that they then sell the
information that I have spent a lot of money on furniture to anyone who
wants to know.
[An important component of the current debate is the disparity of
information, and profit from it. If everyone could freely find out
everything about anyone, then the privacy issue would be quite
different. However, the people running businesses hide behind the
business entity, and are thus shielded from the people whose privacy
they are invading. The businesses sell information about individuals
without their consent and often without thier knowledge. There is no
way to buy an expensive (> $10,000) item without the government
finding out about it one way or another. So people feel that their
privacy has been infringed more than would be necessary as a normal
course of living a part of your life in public.]
A business might know all sorts of things about me, like how much
I can afford to pay for a certain item, and how much I might like to have it,
just from my credit card data. They might use that information as part
of their negotiation with me over how much to charge me for the item. I,
however, will have little ability to find out how much the item really
costs them, or how low a price the can sell it for and still make a profit,
so they have a great advantage in the barganing.
There are hundreds of similar, practical ways in which individuals are
hurt by their lack of privacy. Since privacy has been reduced in
recent years, and since humans have an innate desire for a certain
amount of privacy, the debate has been focused on restoring the status
quo ante, rather than eliminating all privacy. I believe that people
should be able to retain as much privacy as is possible, within the
realm of reason. Certainly, Marc Rotenberg's limitation is a good
starting point.
As for your comment about gossiping, there are some things you can do.
Presumably, you can limit the information you can give to people. To the
extent people are saying untrue things about you that you are hurt by,
you can sue them for slander. You can stop telling people things you don't
want everyone to know. And, if Marc Rotenberg's sentiment became law,
you could probably take legal action against them. You already have a case
if you doctor or lawyer discloses information you gave them in confidence.
This country is founded on the premise that we can find a balance among
competing interests that will do the most good for the greatest number
of people. A strenthening of personal privacy laws would clearly (to me)
--
Jeremy Grodberg Commited to developing user-friendly products,
jgro@netcom.com Because technology is supposed to make life easier
------------------------------
From: "Darren E. Penner (Dokken" <dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: My view on Caller ID
Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 09:34:10 GMT
I must say that as a subscriber to Caller ID I can see NO reason in the world
anyone has a Right to keep their phone number a secret from me. These people
are using a resource which I PAY to have installed in my house and as such,
I believe that they should be forced to identify themselve to use this
resource.
The only situations I can see that may offend some people are the cases of
the Husband/Wife being at the bar and then phoning home and being caught
red handed by the system. But still, they made the choice to call home,
and they made the choice to install the system in their homes.
Oh well, if they implement that system in Alberta I guess that my answering
machine will be taking a lot more of my calls for me. (As it is with the
only partially complete net up here I get more than enough Unknown Number
signals than I like, but surprisingly few people have paid the $0.75 to get
411 to call me anonymously... So I don't think the MAJORITY of the people want
this service destroyed.... As free call blocking would do.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren E. Penner | dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca | Opinions are my
KWM Consultants Limited (Work) | alberta!bode!dpenner | own unless stated
U of A, Edmonton, (University) | Phone No. (403)-481-8785 | otherwise.
------------------------------
From: "James W. Melton" <flash@austin.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..."
Date: 27 May 92 03:30:00 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.33.12@pica.army.mil> gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Life...) writes:
>ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>
>>Would anyone care to provide a concise explination [sic1] of WHY the
>>previously mentioned rational [sic2] is wrong?
>
>The statement makes the incorrect assumption that if you are hiding
>something, that something is in some way illegal, or related to illegal
>activities. Since the assumption is false, the conclusion is invalid.
>
>--
> /// ____ \\\ | CAUTION:
> | |/ / \ \| | | Avoid eye contact. In case of contact, flush
> \\_|\____/|_// | mind for 15 minutes. See a psychiatrist if
> \_)\\/ | irritation persists. Not to be taken
>gberigan `-' cse.unl.edu | seriously. Keep out of sight of children.
>
>[sic1] explanation
>[sic2] rationale
My two cents (for what it's worth):
The premise is invalid because we all have something to hide. This
is the basic concept of privacy. Knowledge of a someone's personal
details is called intimacy, and intimacy must always be given,
never taken. The presumption of intimacy is called the invasion of
privacy.
Years ago, intimacy was more closely guarded by society: Use of
first names was not assumed by every casual acquaintance (or sales
person); the marketplace was always formal. The dropping of these
societal barriers against personal intrusion has, I suppose, led
some to believe that they no longer have the right, much less the
ability, to control who has access to their private lives.
Feeling this loss of control, many people have reacted to the
intrusion into their personal lives by government, business,
strangers. I presume that is the purpose of the newsgroup.
Maintaining privacy and functioning in today's society is a
delicate balance.
Several years ago, I needed verification that I had registered with
the Selective Service (Draft Board). I was given an 800 number. The
lady I spoke with asked me for my Social Security Number. As I told
her the last digit, she immediately called me by name. Scary, huh?
----
--
Jim Melton, novice guru
email: flash@austin.lockheed.com | "So far as we know, our
voice mail: (512) 386-4486 | computer has never had
fax: (512) 386-4223 | an undetected error"
------------------------------
From: Bob Weiner <rsw@cs.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: All my AmEx cards had no marketing release options with them.
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 20:22:43 GMT
For the last 6 years, any AmEx card I've gotten came with a form
which gave me a simple and clear choice whether or not I wanted my
name to go out to Amex-related or for-sale marketing lists.
So what is new in the Seattle Times report mentioned?
Bob
--
Given that much of society can't now deal with the pace of technological
advancement, should we continue purposeful technology acceleration trends?
------------------------------
From: Bob Weiner <rsw@cs.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: Call waiting and Caller ID
Date: Thu, 28 May 1992 20:29:29 GMT
Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net
In article <comp-privacy1.35.7@pica.army.mil> dpenner@ee.ualberta.ca (Darren E. Penner (Dokken)) writes:
>
> Just a note to the uninformed people spreading all sorts of rumers about
> call waiting and caller ID.
>
> You WILL NEVER see the number from a person if you are using the line. This
> is becuase the callers ID is sent between the First and Second Rings.
This seems to imply that someone will never use caller-ID on an ISDN
circuit, in which the separate D channel (data channel) is used for call
setup and tear down control. Whether one or more B channels were in use
would then be irrelevant as to whether one could be presented with the
caller-ID info for another call.
I see no reason why someone should presume that caller-ID (a generic
service feature that can be implemented in many ways) be discussed only
within the context of today's prevalent analog circuits.
Bob
--
Given that much of society can't now deal with the pace of technological
advancement, should we continue purposeful technology acceleration trends?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones
Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN
References: <comp-privacy1.35.3@pica.army.mil>
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:24:32 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.35.3@pica.army.mil> ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes:
>TOTAL COMPLETE ABSOLUTE NONSENCE! I own a panasonic two channel
>cordless telephone. There is an AT&T cordless on another line in the
>house and our neighbors own their own cordless phone. The AT&T and
>our neighbors phone each have only one channel. Guess what? The AT&T
>is my channel 1 and the neighbors are on my channel 2. If I want to
>listen in on either I just turn my phone on! when the AT&T phone
>rings I can hear the ring through my handset (it doesn't actually
>cause my phone to ring). If my phone is on channel two and my
>neighbors phone rings, SO DOES MINE! The only reason they can't call
>through my handset is because panasonic uses a code between the
>handset and the base which tells the base that this handset is
>authorized to call out. In addition, if I forget to change my phone
>off channel 2 I often can't even answer a call from the handset
>because of interference from the neighbors. I have to run upstairs
>and touch the antenna from my handset to the base in order to answer
>the call. So don't tell me about statistical probabilities. Either I
>just hit a probablity so low that I'd have a better chance of
>winning the lottery or your just plain wrong.
>
> The Jester
Well, Jester, you are correct in stating that the probabilities of
two cordless phones being on the same channel is somewhat higher
than a previous poster suggested, however I think that your case IS
a little unusual.
Basically, since you have a two channel phone, and each of the other
phones nearby are (presumably) 1-channel, each of the other phones
has a 2-in-10 chance of having a common channel with your set. With
two other phones, that would be .2 * .2, or .04 chance of both phones
having a common channel with your set. The odds of one being on each
channel or your set are somewhat lower. The math is left as an
exercise for the reader (READ: I don't feel like doing it).
So, yes, you did hit an off chance, but remember, the lottery is won
by somebody :-) (Actually your odds of this occurrence are somewhat
better than winning a lottery. I don't think you are a "black hole"
of luck!)
I would recommend that you head to your nearest Panasonic dealer and
trade in your 2-channel set for one of their 10-channel sets. Then,
even if there were 10 other cordless phones in your area, the odds
of you being able to find at least one clear channel at any time would
be extremely good.
My fiancee lives in a high-rise in Chicago, and on the (rather frequent)
occasions that she finds interference, she is quickly able to find a
clear channel with her Panasonic 10-channel cordless. I also have the
same model, and I almost never find interference (but then I live in a
small town in Indiana).
Disclaimer: I have no association with Panasonic other than as a
satisfied customer.
--
Rob Schultz At Home: At work: +1 219 262 7206
rms@andria.miles.com rms@miles.com
{uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms
------------------------------
From: rms@miles.Miles.COM (Rob Schultz)
Subject: Re: AmEx Settlement
Organization: Miles Inc., Diagnostics Division, Elkhart, IN
Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 15:26:33 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.35.9@pica.army.mil> lorbit!rocque@uunet.uu.net (peter marshall) writes:
> The POST suggested that the AmEx settlement is thought to be
>the first of its kind involving a credit-card issuer, and that AmEx
>seems to be one of the most advanced users of such technologies. NY AG
>Abrams stoated that he's proposed a new law requiring credit grantors
>to disclose marketing uses of information and providing an "opt out"
>choice for such customers.
Citibank has provided this option for their VISA and MasterCard customers
for over a year (I think). At one point I received a notice with my
statement that discussed (in very glossed-over terms) the use/sale of
customers' purchase patterns and provided a box to check if you did not
want to be included in this "service". It required extra work (reading
the blurb, checking the box, stuffing the notice in the envelope, mailing
the envelope), but the option was there.
>
>--
>Peter Marshall(rocque@lorbit.uucp)
>"Lightfinger" Rayek's Friendly Casino: 206/528-0948, Seattle, Washington.
--
Rob Schultz At Home: At work: +1 219 262 7206
rms@andria.miles.com rms@miles.com
{uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!andria!rms {uunet|iuvax}!nstar!miles!rms
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #037
******************************
Comments
Post a Comment