HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Driver's License Number
Date: 14 Apr 92 13:41:14 GMT
Reply-To: volpe@bart.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <1992Apr13.223337.29429@colorado.edu>,
dyker@locutus.colorado.edu (Barbara Dyker,cs ops,22545,530-5275) writes:
|>In article <1992Apr10.215253.23439@crd.ge.com> volpe@bart.crd.ge.com  
|>(Christopher R Volpe) writes:
|>> But if you borrow your roommate's car, don't you have to be listed
|>> as a driver? They wanted the names of people who would NOT be listed as
|>> drivers, as well as those who would.
|>
|>If I borrow my neighbor's car, I don't need to be listed as a driver
on their  
|>insurance.

Really? Ok.

|>  A roommate situation does NOT imply a driving relationship.

My point exactly. They shouldn't ask me about my roommates who won't be listed
as drivers any more than they should ask me about my neighbors who won't be
listed as drivers.

|>
|>In article <Apr.13.13.53.20.1992.12205@romulus.rutgers.edu>  
|>vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes:
|>> Part of your car insurance includes coverage in case someone other
|>> than the regular (listed) driver(s) drives your car.  Therefore, I
|>> don't believe that the insurance company could deny payment no matter
|>> who was driving, unless perhaps they could prove that you fraudulently
|>> represented yourself (such as by not listing a driver of the car).
|>
|>Unfortunately the usual policy is everyone who is lives in a single
|>family dwelling must be listed as a driver even at 0% use or be explicitly  
|>excluded from the policy.  If a particular person is excluded from a
|>policy, and you loan your car to them, the insurance company can and
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and they get in an accident, right?

|>will deny payment.  If that happens more than once, they'll probably
|>cancel your policy.

So, if my roommate who is (explicitly) not listed as a driver drives my
car, that's a no-no, but if my neighbor who is (implicitly) not listed as
a driver drives my car, that's ok? That makes no sense.

|>
|>Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
|>Computer Systems Manager               Campus Box 430B, ECEE00-69
|>dyker@cs.colorado.edu                  University of Colorado
|>(303) 492-2545                         Boulder, CO  80309-0430
                            
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:1010 misc.consumers:10378
From: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:13:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: mailer.1992Apr7.141315.26601
Reply-To: otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Florida State University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

> In article <1992Apr07.073035.17856@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes...
>> In article <1992Apr6.175738.29491@mdd.comm.mot.com> gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>> Answering machine.... your best bet here...  [instead of caller id]
> No.  It's good, but it is not what I want.  Yes, an answering machine
> can screen my calls - but at inconvenience to me (because I still have
> to stop what I'm doing to listen to the recording, and then the person,
> *if* they don't hang up) and at inconvenience to the nice callers, because
> they have to listen to the recording, then risk saying, "are you there" and
> leaving a stupid message if I'm not etc.

Gee.  People always left me clever messages.  B-)  It worked fine for me.
I had the volume loud enough on the message-taker that I didn't have to
"stop whatever I was doing"; I kept my message short; and, if they hang
up, they must not have wanted to talk with me very much.

> The people who suggest that this is a suitable solution must not have the
> same desires from the telephone as I do.   That's fine, but what I suggest
> does not stop you from getting what you want from the phone.   Caller-id,
> implemented properly, helps me get what I want.

> I'm busy but I also like my peace.   I want to be available for emergencies
> all the time.  I want to be available to some people part of the time, at
> different times.   I don't want to be available to almost anybody when I
> am asleep or having fun :-).   There are some people I am never available to.  
> At different times I want to just have a message taken.

When I want my peace, the ringer and the speaker get turned off.  It
works great!  When I want to be available, I turn them back on.  Still,
for complete flexibility, a call filter combined with a call router is
the best I've heard - far better than caller LINE id.

> This is how I want to lead my private life.  When a call comes that is
> one I want, I want it now, at a minimum of inconvenience for me and the
> caller.   When a call comes that I don't want, or that I want a message 
> taken for, I don't want to even know that it's happening.

A message-taker sounds perfect.

> I want to be available when needed, but not ruled by the damn ringing 
> phone otherwise.   The right tools can do this for me.   This is the 
> protection of my own privacy.

Right.  And caller LINE id is just not the "right tool".  There are call 
filters & routers that do a better job of that, without violating most 
potential callers' privacy in the process.

I'd like to have a nice little kitty - say a bengal tiger - to keep
bureaubums from my door, but the acreage and the food bills would be
prohibitive.  Just so, the costs of caller LINE id are too high...jgo
John G. Otto   otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: rcarter@isis.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: Regulators seek opinion on US West's Caller ID [sic] reversal (C
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 20:57:33 GMT


Here is the latest on the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and
US West app and withdrawing same app for CID [sic] `services'...

Seems that the CPUC has asked the state attorney general to look
into US West's refusal to offer Caller ID [sic]. Among other reasons,
it appears that the PUC wants to find out if US West can refuse a
service after it raised rates to `improve' the network system so the
`features' could be provided.

US West doesn't want to go ahead with the implementation with the free
line blocking the PUC said would have to be included in a 1 year trial
period.

All in all, it doesn't seem like the CPUC is very impressed by US West's
decision to withdraw the app based on what appears to be purely financial
motives. It also appears that the CPUC might not be so impressed by
US West seemingly withdrawing Call Trace if it doesn't get CID [sic].

More as it comes in. Ron.

--
Ron Carter | rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu  rcarter GEnie  70707.3047 CIS 
  Director | Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
Denver, CO | Knowledge is power. Knowledge to the people. Just say know.
From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:57:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: das.1992Apr6.215728.204
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University

In article <1992Apr3.223000.27636@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Apr2.214930.27732@burrhus.harvard.edu>
>bb@generali.harvard.edu (Brent Byer) writes:

>> New England Telephone is extending you credit, and they have a
>> reasonable right to either determine your credit worthiness or
>> have their financial position protected in some other way.
>> You could either provide a deposit (which they must pay interest
>> on), or have your payment obligation "co-signed".

>I also refused to yeild my SSN to N.E.Tel., and in the end, after
>moving up the supervisor food-chain a notch or two, they agreed to take
>a deposit to be applied to my first bill(s).  They claimed that they
>had a delinquent account from a Joseph A. Francis of central
>Massachusetts.  I don't know if they made this up (hoping my desire to
>prove I wasn't the same "JAF" would motivate me to give my SSN), or if
>it was true and explained their reluctance.

They were threatining you.  Fact is, I *did* owe NET money at the time
I made this call... and they didn't notice that Adam Shostack owed
them a $100 (or so).  They gave me a line, I have dial tone.  (I also
sent them a check for the last bill on my old line, but they don't
know that yet...)

The more I hear about this, the more I think NET is really allowing
its local managers lots of power, and has no coherent policy...

Adam

Adam Shostack 					adam@das.harvard.edu

What a terrible thing to have lost one's .sig.  Or not to have a .sig
at all.  How true that is.
From: vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Per call blocking in New Jersey How?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:11:53 GMT
Distribution: nj
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr9.212043.815@eff.org> tc@eff.org (Dave Banisar) writes:

> In article <1992Apr9.163259.7646@njitgw.njit.edu> andrews@magstim.njit.edu (John Andrews) writes:
> >
> >Coul someone fill me in on how to utilize per-call blocking in New Jersey?
> >
...
> 
> No blocking is available in NJ. It was introduced in 1987 by Bell Atlantic
> with a PUC hearing. As we have seen in the last few weeks, when there
> is a free and open hearing on the merits of the service, per line is
> instituted in every case. Perhaps the citizens of NJ should ask for
> one.....

Actually, the reason that NJ got CLID without call blocking of any
sort is because they were the first.  All the issues surrounding CLID
came up *after* the service was in use.  Whenever NJB files for a rate
change of any kind (including a new service), there is a chance for
public input into the process.  It's just that no one had really
thought of it as a problem as yet.

As far as per line blocking goes, there are a number of states where
the issue has been argued "under the public eye" and per line blocking
was *not* the agreed upon solution.  For example, Delaware approved CLID
with optional per call blocking, for a fee of $1.00, I believe.
-- 

					-BVE
					(er..that's Bill Van Emburg)
					(vanembur@remus.rutgers.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Privacy of Email?
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1992 20:53:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.001340.6273@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>>People must realize something -- at most companies, there is a policy
>>(often very loosely enforced) that company resources are for company
>>business, and nothing else.
>
>And yet many don't mind if you take a call from home reminding you to
>pick up some milk on the way home. And the don't mind if you spend a
>few minutes at the water tank (or the designated smoking area)
>chatting with co-workers about the basketball playoffs.

Yes, most nice companies don't mind, which is why they'll probably let you
telnet to your personal E-mail machine, or even provide you with a free
personal e-mail machine and address on site, even if it's only done with
aliasing.

The reason is that while all these nice firms will let people transact a
little personal business at the office, they will NOT
	a) Let you write letters to congresscritters or newspaper editors
		on company stationary.
	b) Let you burn a customer complaint letter charging you
		with corruption.

My point is that it's so easy to get personal E-mail and net access even
today, and it will be close to trivial in a year or two, so what's the fuss?
People are thinking in a mindset generated by this short window that we're
living in today where we transact our net.life on company machines.  That
is not going to be the way of the future -- the companies just will have
no reason to permit it when anybody can get personal access for $1 a month.
It's not a privacy issue at all.

Facts are simple -- any mail a company gets from a customer or supplier or
business contact is NOT private.  The company has a right, sometimes a duty,
to have access to it.  Official policy, loosely enforced or not, will be
that all mail to you@company.com is company business, and thus not private.
The easy answer -- create you@outside.world, possibly aliased to your
main box, possibly easily reachable, and split your personal mail from your
business mail, because the former is private and the latter is not.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 20:33:07 GMT

In article <Apr.13.13.29.50.1992.11940@romulus.rutgers.edu> vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg) writes:

>> CLID is not legal proof of anything at all.  Don't take my word for
>> it... ask your local police.
>> 
>While CLID is not very good legal proof, it can be helpful. 

I repeat, it is NO legal proof AT ALL.

>               A "phone
>abuser" is much less likely to keep it up when he or she knows that
>you know who they are....

So, when they call, I would love to tell them that THE POLICE know who
they are.  I press the button for trap-and-trace, tell them the police
will get their number, verifiable from the phone company, and hang up.
Isn't that the same effect?  Or better?

And this point was raised in the context of identifying telemarketers
who ignore legal obligations regarding the "don't call" lists.
I doubt that anything but a LEGAL deterrant will work in this case.

John

-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
...!uunet!mdisea!gilbert
From: hnoble@polari.com
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: FREEWAY HALL Privacy Case Trial Starts
Date: 11 Apr 92 04:22:29 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944

After Eight Years, the Freeway Hall Case is Going to Trial Beginning
	Monday, April 13 9:00 am before Judge Ramerman
	Room W-312, King County Superior Court
	Third & James, Downtown Seattle

	More Information: Karrie Peterson 722-2453
Summary:
	In 1984, A dropout from the Freedom Socialist Party sued the
Party and nine local activists with smear charges he'd been unfairly manipulatedinto contributing to a party eviction fund.
	His politically motivated harassment suit against his former
colleagues is a battleground for the right to organize free from interference.
	Richard Snedigar contends that he should get his money back--with
interest--because the FSP did not buy a hall as fast as he wanted.  Using
redbaiting and vicious attacks on the feminist leadership of FSP, he's
asking the court to override the democratic decisions made by the group
when it coped with an eviction from it's home of 12 years.
	Snedigar and his attorneys have dragged out their groundless lawsuit
for 8 years by demanding the party name members and turn over private 
meeting minutes.  Refusing on constitutional grounds, the socialists risked
jail, fines, and losing the case by default to protect movement records.
In February of 1990, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in favor
of confidentiality and stopped Snedigar's fishing exxpedition for now.
	Scores of labor and progressive groups have endorsed this fight.

Henry
polari!hnoble@sumax.seattleu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:45:21 GMT


I quoted the first draft of the unoffical Statement on Computers and
Academic Freedom (which I wrote):

>Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
>files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
>protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
>office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
>desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
>protections as private communications via telephone."

jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan) writes:

>Carl, since the "case" before us involves a high school, rather than a
>university, would you quote or summarize any sections of the Statement
>dealing with high school students?

None of the draft CAF statement deals explictily with high schoolers.

[...]
>Furthermore, the last sentence of the draft Statement ("Private
>communications....") seems amorphous -- quite the broad
>policy generalization. Is it supposed to apply to high school
>students, prisoners, and other classes that the S.Ct. has decided
>have reduced/no privacy interests? 
[...]

No, only university students. On the other hand, it is a document
about moral rights, not legal rights, and since it is unofficial, we
can try to apply it elsewhere.

The gist of the last sentence, "Private communications via computer
should have the same >protections as private communications via
telephone", is that computer communications should be treated like
other communications with respect to privacy (or lack there of).

If high school bathrooms can now be bugged or if any teachers can tap
the telephones in the student council office (I hope thay can't, but I
don't know), then I wouldn't expect computer networks to be free of
spying.

If prison bathrooms can now be bugged or if any guards can tap the
telephones, (I understand they can tap most calls), then I wouldn't
expect computer networks to be free of spying.

- Carl




-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu, or (anonymous) ap.3619@layout.berkeley.edu=
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: jkogan@eff.org (Julia Kogan)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Originator: jkogan@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 07:21:06 GMT

In art. <1992Apr11.000627.23277@eff.org> kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
>
>In _New Jersey v. T.L.O._, the Supreme Court said:
>
>Public school officals can search a grade or high school student "when
>there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn
>up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the
>law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in
>its scope when the measure adopted are reasonable to objectives of the
>search are not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex of the
>student and the nature of the infaction.{6}"
>Quoted on p. 82 of the ACLU Handbook: _The Rights of Students_, 1988.
>
>Also from the Handbook:
>
>"States can set stricter standards, for example, Louisiana, requires
>full probable cause."
>
>[...]
>Here is the Privacy section of the unoffical, draft Statement
>on Computers and Academic freedom:
>
>"III. Privacy
>
>Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example,
>files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy
>protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an
>office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's
>desk). Private communications via computer should have the same
>protections as private communications via telephone."
>

Carl, since the "case" before us involves a high school, rather than a
university, would you quote or summarize any sections of the Statement
dealing with high school students?  I would hope that it recommends that
States swing to the left of T.L.O....

Furthermore, the last sentence of the draft Statement ("Private
communications....") seems amorphous -- quite the broad
policy generalization. Is it supposed to apply to high school
students, prisoners, and other classes that the S.Ct. has decided
have reduced/no privacy interests? 
-- 
Julia Kogan                     |  These opinions are not my employer's,
jkogan@eff.org                  |  nor are they legal advice.  Ask me _after_
Boston U., Law '92 -- May 27!   |  I pass the Bar, and I'll tell you the truth.
From: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:19:22 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zko.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Apr13.203307.9411@mdd.comm.mot.com>,
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:

>I repeat, it is NO legal proof AT ALL.

Calling-line identification combined with a person's sworn testimony
that the number they have given is indeed the calling number presented
to them is legal evidence just like any other testimony.

And why are you still ignoring the ways to use calling-line
identification that I have laid out?


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:1005 comp.org.eff.talk:3413 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1575
From: digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Digital)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Summary: Eff?  Literature
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:24:46 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana



Karl,  Is there any relavant literature pertainingf to this?  Anything available
for FTP that they could get in order to help their case?

-Glen


Digital@bsu-cs.bsu.edu

Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:27:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.085128.15834@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>Now I do support the right, believe it or not, of people to solicit
>business by phone.   However, that does not preclude the right of people
>to refuse such solicitations, and to deny such solicitors entry to their
>home, whether it is via physical or electronic means.    I can put up
>a sign that says "no solicitors" at the edge of my property and I believe
>the law respects that.
>
>And so is it so far to say that I can put up a similar sign on the phone
>lines coming into my home and expect it to be respected?

Sure.  But CLID is not a sign.  It is no indication at all to the calling
party of how you feel about telemarketing.

Now, put an answering machine on your line with a message including a
"no soliciting comment", and you have your sign.

John
-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
..!uunet!mdisea!gilbert