Computer Privacy Digest V1#063

 Date:       Fri, 17 Jul 92 17:15:12 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#063

Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 17 Jul 92              Volume 1 : Issue: 063

Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears

                         Re: Caller ID Decision

                    SSN Required to Buy Car in Calif

              Re:  Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal

   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: Thu, 16 Jul 92 18:20 PDT

From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>

Organization: Green Hills and Cows

Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision

"Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com> writes:

> This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.

I disagree. Cellular providers are not in the position to either make

or break "telephone tradition". As entities that are neither LEC nor

IEC, whatever a cellular provider does or does not do applies only to

itself. There is not even any consistency, standard, or tradition among

the hundreds of providers across the country. The rules and procedures

change on apparent whim. Cellular providers have a long way to go

before they can claim "telephone company" status.

So I will restate Mr. Forrette's position: tradition and usage dictates

that the party paying for the call knows the calling number. This is

true on 800 service, both in real time and on billing; collect calls;

and even on third-party calls where the billed party is not a

participant, the billed party has the numbers of both ends of the

conversation.

-- 

        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115

    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !

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

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 19:18:14 PDT

From: Mark Bell <idela!bell@uunet.uu.net>

Subject: SSN Required to Buy Car in Calif

Awhile back I posted on the SSN being required to renew Ca Drivers

License.  Well, I bought a car for our kid a couple of weeks ago and

was stunned to find that they wouldn't sell it to me without SSN!

The dealership manager was VERY sympathetic and agreed it was wrong on

the face of it, but that's how it was.  She had worked the DMV over

a few weeks before on behalf of a foreign national, consulate corps

member without an SSN.  She had to get some notarized letters to 

ALLOW the guy to buy a car!

I checked the section of the Cal Vehicle code that requires it.  To its

credit, it states that the SSN is not a public record and can be used

only for legitimate law enforcement and for tracking down non-payers

of child support.  So that's it, I guess.  The law went into effect

a few months ago.

Oddly, the Vehicle Code makes no exception for the foreigner without

an SSN, so I'd be curious how they got around it.

Is there anyone out there who can advise how to beat this?  I'd be happy

to guinea-pig a court case if someone has any ideas.

Mark Bell

Los Angeles

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

From: MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com

Date: 16 Jul 92 19:09   

Subject: Re:  Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal

                 PHONE TAP IN MURDER CASE RULED ILLEGAL

In 1986, Joe Otto, a 61-year-old electrician, became suspicious of his

wife, Brenda, a 39-year-old divrocee he had married a month earlier.  He

hid a voice-activated tape recorder which recorded all calls incoming

and outgoing.

He recorded a conversation between his wife and Marvin Mark, in which

Mark said "everything was wrong" and "I tried every possible way," but

then added:  "I got a better plan."

He played the tape to his daughter and a neighbor who was a police

officer.  In response to his daughter's concern, he began carrying a

gun.  He also gave his daughter a copy of his will in which he left her

virtually all of his $300,000 estate and gave his wife $1.

Three days later, another call was taped in the wife and Mark spoke

cryptically about the daughter being absent from the home that night.

Later in the evening, Otto was bludgeoned to death.  The body was

discovered after the wife appeared screaming and naked at a neighbor's

home, claiming robbers had killed Otto and assaulted her.

The two were convicted of murder, but filed an appeal claiming the tapes

could not be used against them, as they were taped in violation of

Federal wiretap law.

The California Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous ruling that the

tapes were improperly used, as federal law bars a family member from

wiretapping the family telephone and that tapes thus made cannot be used

as evidence in a criminal case.

The justices rejected the state's two key contentions in the case:

that the law permits domestic or "interspousal" wiretapping and that

even if illegally made, the tapes were admissible because the

government was an innocent recipient of evidence acquired by a

citizen.

"We may question the wisdom of Congress in adopting such a broad-based

suppression [of evidence] sanction," Justice Armand Arabian wrote for

the court.  "...We may not, however, substitute our judgment for that

of [Congress]."

Deputy State Atty. Gen. Morris Beatus said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme

Court will be considered.  If an appeal fails, prosecutors hope to retry

the two even without the tapes, described as the "linchpin" of the case.

"In an egregious case like this, it's really a shame that the tapes

cannot be used," said Assistant Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Joyce

Allegro.  "There was no government impropriety here."

Mark L. Christiansen of Sacramento, lawer for the male defendant in the

case, and Laurance S. Smith, attorney for the female defendant, praised

the ruling, saying it will strengthen legal barriers against wiretapping

by third parties.

"This is going to make home telephones much more secure," Christiansen

said.  "Even in the best of families, one spouse may prefer that the

other not overhear everything they say."

"If this decision had gone the other way, anyone in a household could

tape conversations by anyone else in the household," Smith said.  "And

if there was anything juicy, it could be turned over to the local

prosecutor."

[I can understand it being illegal to tap one's own phone, and also

that evidence received through government (police) misconduct should

be suppressed.  It also makes sense to me that if you illegally tap

your phone, you shouldn't be able to profit from it, such as by using

the tapes in a civil suit.  But if the government had no hand in

making the tape (didn't put you up to it, etc.), then the tape should

be usable in a criminal case. -- RCG]

[Moderator's Note:  I wonder if it would be legal for me to put a sign on

my door stating that entrance into my apartment implies consent for

recording of that person and a trap on my phone that states staying on

the line implies consent for me to record the conversation.  After

all the government does it with thier installations. _dennis]

  =====================================================================

  = sua cuique voluptas              (everyone has his own pleasures) =

  = Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com =

  = >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< =

  = Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself =

                          Randomly selected tag:

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.

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

End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #063

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