Computer Privacy Digest V3 #049

       

Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 27 Sep 93              Volume 3 : Issue: 049

Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears

                       Re: John misses the point
                   Constitutional Privacy Amendment?
                      Query:  Privacy and the CPR
       Right to Privacy vs. Employer's Right to find out what is
                            Re: Health card
                 Call for Papers: Gender and Computing
                       Re:  Caller ID/ANI Thread
                    REQUEST FOR INFO: SmartCard, PTN
                       Clinton's Health Care Plan

   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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David H. Close" <dhclose@cco.caltech.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy,mlist.telecom-priv
Subject: Re: John misses the point
Date: 25 Sep 1993 22:22:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

My latest PacBell billing insert states, "If you call a 900 number
outside California, the phone number from which you're calling may
be provided to the information provider."

This doesn't actually say, but implies, that your number is NOT
provided to 900 suppliers INSIDE California.  How's that?

--
Dave Close, BS'66 Ec "A difference has to make a difference
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu in order to be a difference."
dave@compata.attmail.com Wendell Johnson

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 02:51:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Constitutional Privacy Amendment?

From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
 -----
David Heck <O1DSH@vm1.cc.uakron.edu>, writes:

> It seems to me, with the dozens of legislative attempts to
> secure privacy for citizens, instead of dealing with the
> symptoms, why not go the source of the problem and provide a
> constitutional guarantee as a Privacy Amendment `to the
> Constitution?

If I was cynical, I'd say the laws are written so as to quiet those who
complain about a problem, since ordinary laws can be quietly repealed,
changed, or ignored.

There is no constitutional provision for the setting of standards for what
constitutes wetlands on private property and the ability to declare
someone unable to develop their own property as they see fit, and
effectively have their property confiscated without payment, and there
are no laws to authorize this, yet people are being hit with heavy fines
and imprisonment for violating federal wetlands regulations that have no
statutory or constitutional backing.

> It sure as heck would have an uphill battle in both houses,
> but with citizens clamoring loudly to all congressional
> representatives on a variety of issues the risks of not
> responding to critical constituent concerns seem to outweigh
> individual congressmen's concerns with their party leadership
> and campaign financing.

I think most people do not know how bad the situation is and don't
see threats to privacy as serious enough to threaten their congresscritter
with defeat at the next election.  If you want to do something, when the
new taxes kick in, find out the members of congress who are unfriendly to
privacy and target *those* members for defeat, using the new, heavier
taxes that they voted for as the reason.  People are going to be mad about
these new taxes Clinton has forced on them when they see how much more
they are going to be paying.  It makes me mad enough to consider running
against my local representative, Steny Hoyer, who never saw a government
handout or tax increase he didn't love.

> What about establishing an ad hoc citizens committee to
> produce a draft copy then initiate national petition drive in
> all 50 states then force congress to act....any comments?  Has
> anything like this been proposed/attempted in the past?
> Privacy is not currently guarateed in our constitution, why
> not guaratee it?

I believe that privacy is implied by 3rd & 4th Amendments: The third deals
with putting troops in private houses during peacetime.  The 4th reads
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches shall mot be violated..."  It is not
that the rights are not _guaranteed_ but that the rights of the people are
routinely _ignored_.

A number of people in government have the nasty habit of ignoring the
rights of individuals, or of doing things that any village idiot with
even the smallest amount of intelligence would see are clearly wrong and
violative of constitution.

The Civil Forfeiture laws - a government agency can sieze any property you
own claiming it was purchased using the proceeds of a crime, then you must
not only prove they are wrong but were negligent, or the agency that
confiscated keeps whatever they siezed - are a clear and obvious violation
of the constitution, yet they have been approved even when used against
people who have not been convicted of a crime or even arrested.

The sordid mess involving Alvarez Machain (a Mexican National, in direct
contravention to the terms of a treaty, is kidnapped out of Mexico to
stand trial and the Supreme Court says that's okay), and the Los Angeles
Police Beating case (Officers are acquitted of the crime in a state court,
so the Federal Government turns around and retries them for the same
thing), despite the provisions against double jeopardy.

Those who argued in favor of those cases were raising a sham and a farce
to justify what even a village idiot would see is unjustifiable, and not
permitted.  It is not that the protections are not there, it's that the
provisions that do exist are ignored and the Supreme Court sanctions their
violation.

---
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
 -----

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1993 14:32:41 EDT
From: RSTALLI@american.edu
Subject: Query:  Privacy and the CPR

I will be writing a paper regarding privacy and the Computer-based
Patient Record next month.  Does anyone have any recent information
(1993) regarding legislation and CPR privacy?

Thank-you,

Bob Stallings

RSTALLI@American.edu

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

Subject: Right to Privacy vs. Employer's Right to find out what is
From: bj@herbison.com (B.J. Herbison)
Date: , 26 Sep 93 19:50:47 GMT
Organization: Herbison Consulting, Leominster, MA 01453-523218 +1 508 534-1050

In article <comp-privacy3.47.7@pica.army.mil> lexier@sfu.ca writes:
 >    What do you think of the Right to Privacy versus the employer's right
 > to find out what is happening in their company?

I have many thoughts on this topic, but my thoughts are not well
organized.  Below are a few of my thoughts.

Employers do have a right to know what is happening in their
company.  An individual's right to privacy is not `no one can
ever know anything about you', but `you have a right to control
what is known about you'.  When going to a restautant, running
for political office, taking a job, or performing most any other
activity, an individual loses some privacy.

The paragraph above doesn't mean that employers have a right
to know everything about employees, or even their actions in
the workplace.  In particular,

    o  employers have no right to monitor employees on
       breaks (both regular breaks and bathroom breaks), and

    o  employers should inform employees about the extent
       and type of monitorig -- in other words, the employment
       contract by which the employee gives up some rights
       in exchange for a job should be explicit about the
       rights that the employee is giving up.

In addition, employers will generally find that they end up with
a happier and more highly motivated set of employees if the
employer requires the employees to give up fewer rights.  A
trivial example:  allowing employees to make some personal
phone calls during office hours will make it much easier for
the employees to perform the tasks their private life requires,
and therefore reduce the stress of employees.

The issue of employer/employee rights is one reason that I now
have a network connection from home.  As I write this message
from my living room on my personal PC, to be sent over a phone
line I pay for, there is no question of wasting work time,
of using the resources of my employeer, of monitoring by
my employeer, and no need for disclaimers.  I have a personal
network connection for separation of identity, not out of
necessity.

B.J.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 21:16:40 EDT
From: "George T. \"14K F/D\" Talbot" <ugtalbot@king.mcs.drexel.edu>
Subject: Re: Health card


Winston B Edumond <wbe@northshore.ecosoft.com> writes:
  It'd be nice if its use as a national unique identifier were as least as
  protected from abuse as the SSN.
   -WBE

Why not use the SSN?  (0.5 * :^) + 0.5 * serious)

 George T. Talbot
 <ugtalbot@mcs.drexel.edu>
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Finger my account for PGP public key.  |  This is very political software.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 93 22:57:59 EST
From: Diane Kovacs <DKOVACS@kentvm.kent.edu>
Subject: Call for Papers: Gender and Computing

CALL FOR ARTICLES

EJVC: ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ON VIRTUAL CULTURE

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

Special Issue:  Gender Issues in Computer Networking

Issue Editor:   Leslie Regan Shade
McGill University
Graduate Program in Communications
                (czsl@musica.mcgill.ca; shade@well.sf.ca.us)

EJVC is a new peer-reviewed electronic journal dedicated to
scholarly research and discussion of all aspects of computer-
mediated human experience, behavior, action, and interaction.

This special issue of the EJVC will be devoted to gender
issues in networking. Despite the abundance of various private
networks and the meteoric growth of the Internet,this rapidly
expanding user base does not include an equal proportion of men
and women. How can women become equally represented in the new
"electronic frontier" of cyberspace?  Issues to be discussed
can include, but are not limited to, the following:
*Access issues--to hardware, software, and training. What
barriers do women face? What are some success stories?
*How can women be given the technical expertise to become
comfortable and versatile with computer networking?
*Interface design: can there be a feminist design?
*How can networking realize its potential as a feminist tool?
*How can woman scholars exploit networking's technology?
*What information technology policies could be developed
to ensure computer networking equity for women, as well as
minorities?
*How does one define computer pornography and "offensive" material
on the net? Should it be allowed?
*How should sexual harassment on the net be treated?
*Are women-only groups necessary?
*How do women interact on MUDS and MOOs?
*What net resources exist for women?


Deadlines:     December 1, 1993   submission of abstracts
               April 1, 1994 submission of contributions

Abstracts will be reviewed by the issue editor for appropriate-
ness of content and overall balance of the issue as a whole.
In turn, authors will then be invited to submit full-length
contributions, which will be peer-reviewed by the journal's normal
editorial process before final acceptance for publication.
The issue editor encourages correspondence about proposed
contributions even before submission of an abstract.

Potential contributors may obtain a more detailed statement about
the focus and range of this special issue by sending electronic
mail to the issue editor with the Subject line: EJVC Issue or by
anonymous ftp to byrd.mu.wvnet.edu, directory /pub/ejvc, get
ejvc.shade.call.

Further information about EJVC may be obtained by sending
e-mail to LISTSERV@KENTVM.BITNET or LISTSERV@KENTVM.KENT.EDU
with one or more of the following lines in the text:
SUBSCRIBE EJVC-L YourFirst LastName
GET EJVC WELCOME
INDEX EJVC-L
Also, the file is available by anonymous ftp to
byrd.mu.wvnet.edu in the pub/ejvc directory.

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

From: Hans Lachman <lachman@netcom.com>
Subject: Re:  Caller ID/ANI Thread
Organization: Netcom
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 12:11:11 GMT

OK, this is my last post on this topic (I hope!).

This is directed to those of you who are in favor of consumer
privacy:

As you've probably surmised, there is nothing wrong with having
the ability to block ANI.  This ANI issue is really just one
specific sub-issue in the larger debate over consumer privacy.
The debate seems to be between those who want to increase the
consumer's control over his/her own information, and those who
want to defeat any efforts toward that goal, for whatever
reason.  People in the latter category will confront you with
questions like, "What harm has ever been caused by ANI
delivery?", or, "Why do you feel threatened?", or, "Why should
the consumer have more control?", or "What do you have to
hide?"

My advice:  Don't answer these kinds of questions.  They
presume that you need to justify any change in the status quo
that gives the consumer more power.  You don't.  We have seen
in this newsgroup extensive attempts at justification for
allowing ANI blocking.  Then the anti-privacy freaks criticize
those justifications as weak or hypothetical (which some are).

Instead, turn the questioning around, and ask the anti-privacy
freak for proof of any danger resulting from the increase in
consumer power.  That puts them in the defensive position.  I
asked for this proof in the ANI debate (earlier article), and
got deafening silence from the other side.

In conclusion, I believe that consumers should have maximum
possible control over the collection, dissemination, and use of
information about themselves.  Below is an excerpt of a past
article in this newsgroup, indicating that the current
administration is simpathetic to privacy concerns.  I hope it
wasn't just campaign rhetoric, and that something will be done
to give consumers more power.

Hans Lachman  <lachman@netcom.com>


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

Newsgroups: alt.privacy,sci.electronics,comp.society.futures,comp.society.privacy
From: Jim Seward <jseward@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: REQUEST FOR INFO: SmartCard, PTN
Keywords: Smart-Card, telephone
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 17:04:03 GMT


I would like some information on the Smart-Card, i.e. What is it, who gets
it, and any implications of its use.  I am also interested in any
information about "personal" telephone numbers technology (basically
expanded paging service) and their implications.

Any information on where I could get more info. on the above would also be
greatly appreciated.

E-mail is fine and preferred.

Jim Seward
InterNet: jseward@andy.bgsu.edu

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Seward (jseward@andy.bgsu.edu)  I Today's quote: "Give it back, it's not
Bowling Green State University      I  yours!" -The Power, Twilight Zone
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date:  Mon, 27 Sep 93 15:10 EDT
From:  WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Subject:  Clinton's Health Care Plan


Beuse it is paid for by third parties, it is rife with fraud.  Most of
this fraud is perpetrated by care providers against third party payers.
Ms. Clinton's program will be no exception to this rule.

The bureaucrats response of choice in this situation will be a personal
identity number and a massive data base.  This data base will contain
our most intimate personal information.  It will be in the
hands of government bureaucrats.  If bureaucrats simply do what
bureaucrats do, these tools will result in huge loss of personal and
family privacy.  While safeguards, may mitigate this to some small
degree, and whether or not there is abuse, the impact will be major.

This is a natural and unavoidable cost of this program.  Before we adopt
this proposal, we should understand this cost which we cannot avoid.

William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840              
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL

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


End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #049
******************************