HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Driver's License Number
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:53:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <297@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:

 [Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted the author of this comment -BVE]

> >If your roommate lies about not having a roommate, and you happen
> >to be involved in an accident in his car, this could be grounds for
> >denying coverage for the accident.  On the other hand, it would probably
> >be possible to sign a waiver stating that you never drive his car,
> >in which case you had better never drive his car.  I feel that the
> >insurance company's position is reasonable in this case, as their
> >contention that you would be likely to borrow your roommate's car
> >seems well justified.  
> 
> I disagree.  This is getting much too complicated.  It is standard
> procedure to enumerate who will be driving the automobile to be
> insured.  If the roommate does not intend to let anyone drive his
> car then he states as such and that's it.  The insurance company
> should advise the roommate that he would not be covered in circumstances
> where he let someone else drive the car.  Beyond that I don't see
> where they get off presuming such a violation will occur, statistical
> or otherwise.  When I was in college, my roommate and I never once 
> bowwered each other's cars.  I would certainly not play ball with
> my roommate's insurance company. 
> 
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).
This is why insurance companies need to know all the members of a
family that live in the same house and are able to drive.

Personally, I was very annoyed when the insurance company wanted the
names and DL#'s of my housemates, because they are not my family, and
I do not share my car with them.  In fact, I would venture a guess
that most roommate/housemate situations are like this.  Therefore, I
would be very upset if my already-too-high car insurance was made even
higher by one of my housemates' bad driving records.

My solution was to go around it.  I simply told the insurance company
that we shared a multi-family dwelling, and they were satisfied.
Apparently, the cutoff point is whether or not you share a common
kitchen/living room/door/whatever....  To my way of thinking, this is
legitimate, because whether we were in separate apartments, or in
separate bedrooms, the fact would remain that they are no more likely
to drive my car than anyone else I know, i.e. not too bloody likely!
-- 

					-BVE
					(er..that's Bill Van Emburg)
					(vanembur@remus.rutgers.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:1050 misc.legal:9359 news.answers:1070 alt.society.civil-liberty:3496
From: vanembur@romulus.rutgers.edu (Bill Van Emburg)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:49:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.privacy
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Apr7.130947.24700@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (John Otto) writes:

> I don't care much for having the DMA, TPC, or the government, local,
> state or federal, keeping lists of people who value their privacy.
> "Ahhh  Here's one of those anti-social types we should put a tap on.
> And while we're at it, let's have the folks down at US Snail check for
> contraband."  It would seem more appropriate (but, of course a PITA for
> them) to have them keep lists of people who don't mind being snooped on
> or called...jgo   John G. Otto   otto@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu

Far be it from me to underrstand the motives of the government, but I
*really* don't think that many agencies would be particularly
interested in which people don't want to receive junk mail -- unless
they're looking for an unusually intelligent group....

(Of course, I am not part of that intelligent group ... I tend to pile
my junk mail up for about a year or two, and then throw it out all at
once -- silly, I know, but it keeps me from having the urge to fill
out any of the forms for those sweepstakes.  They all are expired by
then!  ;-)

					-BVE
					(er..that's Bill Van Emburg)
					(vanembur@remus.rutgers.edu)
-- 

					-BVE
					(er..that's Bill Van Emburg)
					(vanembur@remus.rutgers.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
From: hgpeach@ms.uky.edu (Harold Peach)
Subject: Re: Privacy on Novell Lans
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:00:23 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Bytes: 

00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser) writes:


>	Ideas?  Comments?

I think the circumstances under which the monitoring is occuring is what
makes the difference.  If you have an instructor who watches his students'
responses to his instructions during class for the purpose of determining
whether they are understanding his instruction or for grading their
performance, then I think such a tool has a legitimate purpose.  If that
same instructor just happens to log onto the system sometime during the
day and sees one of his students and starts monitoring him just to see
what he is up to, then that is not ok -- Nor do I think it would be ok
for instructors to ever monitor persons who are not a part of their class.

System Administrators, in my view, fall into the same group as telephone
repair personnel or operators.  It is sometimes necessary for them to 
monitor activities on their system in order to correct problems.  They
also have a professional obligation to keep any information they might
read or see in the course of performing such tasks strictly secret.  I
am not sure whether even the System Administrator has the right to monitor
your activities beyond the incidental invasions mentioned above.  Even
phone company personnel can not target a subscriber and monitor his 
telephone conversations without a warrant.  It is one thing to see what
software packages each user is running so as to detect a speed degredation
problem on a network.  It would be quite another to use your monitoring
program to track the specific text of a specific user for the purpose
of tracking his activities or determining his thoughts on a topic.

-- 
Harold G. Peach, Jr.       ><>       N4FLZ       _%       hgpeach@s.ms.uky.edu
From: kurt@think.com (Kurt Thearling)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: MIB experiences???
Date: 6 Apr 1992 21:53:46 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zetes.think.com


Does anyone out there have any experiences in obtaining their MIB (Medical
Information Bank) file?  MIB is an national repository of medical
information on individuals which is used by insurance companies to make
eligability decisions.  Unlike credit data, is not (as I understand it)
covered by the fair credit reporting act (it should be, IMHO).

I'm in the process of obtaining as many reports on my person (credit,
medical, etc.) and was wondering how I contact MIB to get my file.  Any
pointers/experiences/anecdotes will be appreciated.

- kurt

ps.  I got all three (TRW, Trans Union, Equifax) of my credit reports
recently for free.  TRW is free now.  Equifax asked me if I recently
applied for credit and I said "yes" (that must determine if they charge you
for a copy).  When I sent away to Trans Union I simply bluffed a copy by
saying that I had recently been denied credit using their report.  Luckily
I found no mistakes (it probably helps having a name that no one else in
the world has).

pps. Are there any other files that might be worth perusing?  I doubt I
have a FBI file on me so I'm not really interested in that avenue.
Anything else?
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: rcarter@isis.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: Re: US WEST disconnects plans for new Caller ID [sic] service
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 05:16:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.000928.9947@mdd.comm.mot.com> gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.c
m (John Gilbert) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.163313.7842@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcarter@isis.cs.du
edu (Ron Carter) writes:
>>
>>To quote Cynthia Evans, director of public relations for US WEST,
>>"We will not offer Caller ID and Call Trace under the terms and
>>conditions outlined by the (Colorado) PUC."
>
>Folks should get a good understanding here.  US West is witholding
>Call Trace, something which CAN help fight malicious phone calls,
>and would be the same deterrent as CLID, because they want to deploy
>CLID under their own terms.
>
>While they probably have every right, understand that they have tied
>a useful service for us to a profitable one for them, despite public
>opposition to the one they like.
>

Quite right, and well pointed out John...

A correction and update on my original post...
The CPUC statement was just that; a public statement with a press
release; not a `decision' as I had stated earlier; I will post details
from the press release as soon as I get a copy.
The update is that it doesn't appear like this process is all over
yet. These might have been first volleys; I will keep the area posted.

--
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.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: dyker@locutus.colorado.edu (Barbara Dyker,cs ops,22545,530-5275)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Number
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 22:33:37 GMT

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.  A roommate situation does NOT imply a driving relationship.

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

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
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Email Privacy?
Keywords: email, posting on the net, copy-right
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:08:32 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

I have been recently seeing a lot of private email being reproduced on the
net verbatim. While this may or may not be ethically correct, it gives rise
to the following questions.

	Is there any legality against doing this?  

	Is there any legal enforcement against public disclosure of postal
	mail which could also be applicable to email?  

	Is the copyright law applicable here?

Please follow-up to the net or email to me. I'll post a summary if there is
enough response.

-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(415)-226-2100 X3737
I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of
people waiting to abuse me.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: sybok@m4-035-17.MIT.EDU (The Terminator)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:37:48 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.232905.5769@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Laws regulating phone solitation would have few teeth without caller ID.
>Caller ID lets you enforce these laws.  Somebody calls you with a
>phone solicitation and they can't hide who they are (unless you take anonymous
>calls)   You can record who called and press charges.
>
>Any other method of enforcement is much more complex.  You have to make an
>appointment with a salesman (they won't tell you who they are any
>more -- they don't want the irate calls they get all the time when they
>do this.) etc. to make the conviction.

Why not strip away all the Bill of Rights? Then you could better
enforce the law!  I guess you support the War on the Bill of Rights!?!

If we eliminated search warrants, the police could be much more efficient
and stop lots of crime.  Too bad you wouldn't have any rights left, but
at least the trains would run on time.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: rcarter@isis.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: US WEST disconnects plans for new Caller ID [sic] service
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: Wed, 8 Apr 92 16:33:13 GMT


To quote Cynthia Evans, director of public relations for US WEST,
"We will not offer Caller ID and Call Trace under the terms and
conditions outlined by the (Colorado) PUC."

The basics of the CPUC decision are probably summed up best by
what Commission Chairman Arnold Cook had to say, "Privacy ought
to be free. US WEST wants the best of both worlds. The company
wants to make money by having the customer subscribe to Caller
ID and then wants to charge customers for line blocking."

Here are the basics (my reading):

 US WEST originally offered CID [sic] beginning at $5.50 a month
 There would have been free per-call blocking
 There would have been a charged per-line blocking
 Nonpub/nonlist numbers would have to pay for per-line blocking

 The CPUC agreed to a 1 year trial period of CID [sic]
 There would've been a free line-blocking signup period of 6 months
 After the six months, per-line block would be a one time $8
 There would have been free per-call blocking
 Nonpub/nonlist numbers would have free per-line blocking

I will get a copy of the CPUC decision and post details if the
interest warrants it.

--
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: 10u6579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Australia has caller id!! Is it illegal
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:09:02 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

Hi,
   I noticed in the Melbourne Age newspaper that there was an ad for a caller
ID device.  The AD said that the device would indicate the callers number,
screen calls etc.  These devices are surely illegal in Australia!  If you have
any info please E-mail.
Best Wishes,
Joe,
University of NSW,
Sydney Australia.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: US WEST disconnects plans for new Caller ID [sic] service
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:09:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.163313.7842@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rcarter@isis.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) writes:
>
>To quote Cynthia Evans, director of public relations for US WEST,
>"We will not offer Caller ID and Call Trace under the terms and
>conditions outlined by the (Colorado) PUC."

Folks should get a good understanding here.  US West is witholding
Call Trace, something which CAN help fight malicious phone calls,
and would be the same deterrent as CLID, because they want to deploy
CLID under their own terms.

While they probably have every right, understand that they have tied
a useful service for us to a profitable one for them, despite public
opposition to the one they like.

Thanks...

John
-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
..!uunet!mdisea!gilbert
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: dyker@locutus.colorado.edu (Barbara Dyker)
Subject: Re: Driver's License Number
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:27:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.134114.2542@crd.ge.com> volpe@bart.crd.ge.com  
(Christopher R Volpe) writes:
> 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.

Correct. It has to do with liklihood.  If you repeatedly
loan your car to your neighbor that's a no-no too.  They
recognize that everyone occasionally loans their car. 
They want to deal with other drivers that are "likely" to
use you car.  In their book, anyone who lives in the same single
family dwelling is likely.  Parents have the same problem when
they have a child living at home that turns 16.  They are forced
to put the 16 year old on the insurance for their cars even if the
kid has their own car - because of the liklihood.  When I got married,
I had to put my husband on the policy for my car even though we still
had separate insurance companies and never used each other's car.
I should have never told them.  They are better off simply not knowing.
Don't volunteer any information - if it's not relevant, lie if you
have to.

The problem is the insurance companies do things backwards...
they insure cars, not drivers.  I've been advocating for years
that automobile insurance be driver insurance instead.  You aren't
really insuring the car, you are insuring the driver
regardless of what car they drive.  For all but collision
insurance, the rates are dependent upon the driver, not
what kind of car they drive because they pay for
everything but your own car.  Collision insurance covers
your own car only if you are at fault, so it's still based on the
driver, not the car.  Since a lexus costs more than a
beetle, that could be a factor in collision *coverage*
not rates.  They have it all backwards.


Barbara J. Dyker                       Department of Computer Science
dyker@cs.colorado.edu                  University of Colorado
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:992 comp.org.eff.talk:3397 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:1560
From: 00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Subject: Privacy on Novell Lans
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:55:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr9.125538.5968

Location:
	The Indiana Academy for Science Mathematics and Humanities, a
	part of Teacher's College at Ball State University, Muncie, IN
	United State of America 

	This is a residential high school for gifted and talented students
	from the State of Indiana.

Computer System:
	Novell Network 386, 250 user license.  There are two public
	labs (for students) consisting of almost 60 computers.  Each
	faculty and administrator (and staff) has a computer with a 
	network connection, as well as 5 students who have access from
	their rooms.  

	Some faculty have a program on their office and hiome machines
	that allows them to access the network over a modem from their
	home.  This allows them to work from home.

Problem we're having:
	
	At least two faculty members have access to a program for the
	network known as LAN ASSIST.  This program allows them to do
	several functions, such as:

	CHAT:	brings up a chat window on the screen allowing them
		to talk to the other user.

	WATCH:  Exactly as it says, let's them watch another user,
		with/without them knowing it.

	ASSIST:	Same as watch, but intereactive assistance..

	
	What has happened came about when a faculty member did not come
	in to work one day, but left his students email telling them
	to come to class, he would be monitoring them from home with
	this program.  Several students were alarmed, and brought this
	to the attention of the student council, who is now investigating
	the legality and ethical implications of this monitoring.

	I can speak from personal experience that one faculty member
	consistently in his free time sits and monitors users over and
	over.  This alarms me because this user is ONLY a faculty member,
	he is NOT the administrator of our network.

	I will be contacting the EFF about the legality of this situation
	as related to federal and state (and even local?) laws.

	What do all of you think about this situation?

	From working with Computing Services here at Ball State University,
	I know that we have a similar program on our VaxCluster, but when
	we are watching someone IT SHOWS up on the screen and the user thus
	knows what is going on...  the only time it does not is when
	one of the system managers does it in order to monitor a KNOWN
	security violation...

	Ideas?  Comments?

	Please post, I would like to have a good discussion about it! :)

	-Bryan


-- 
Bryan Strawser			   |	  		Ball State University
University Computing Services	   |			     Muncie, IN 47306
00bestrawser@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu     |			 00bestrawser@bsuvax1
From: hibbert@xanadu.com (Chris Hibbert)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: MIB address
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:37:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xanadu Operating Company


 You can get a copy of your medical information file by writing to the
Medical Information Bureau.  Include your name, address, birth date,
and if you want to see any mental health records the name of a doctor,
and finally, your signature.

Their address is:
Medical Information Bureau
P.O. Box 105
Essex Station
Boston, MA 02112

(617)426-3660.  

I've written to them twice, and the only information they reported to
me was that I had requested info before.  I'm considering asking again
now that I've spent a year using standard insurance instead of an HMO.

Chris
-- 
hibbert@xanadu.com                      AMIX:    CHibbert
uunet!xanadu!hibbert                    MCIMail: CHibbert
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
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 18:16:36 GMT

00bestrawser@bsu-ucs.uucp (Bryan Strawser) writes:

>Problem we're having:
>	
>	At least two faculty members have access to a program for the
>	network known as LAN ASSIST.  This program allows them to do
>	several functions, such as:
[...]

As I general rule, I don't like people *secretly* watching other
people. I have no problem when an instructor walks behind a student
and looks over his or her shoulder. But when an instructor spies on a
student I think the instructor goes to far.

I would suggest, 1) switching to software that tells a person when he
or she is being observed 2) monitoring (even with notice) should be
done for educational (or sys admin) purposes, not just "for fun". 3)
secret monitoring should only be allowed on a case-by-case basis with
the approval of a higher up (like the Principal, or, of course, a
judge).

- 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=