HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 03:06:33 GMT
From: Daniel Burstein <dannyb@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Organization: Panix, NYC
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 003, Message 5 of 10


regarding "moving" an "800" number from one carrier to another.  This is a
VERY special situation that just started.

history:  In the OLD days, the first three digits of the 800 number (after
the 800, that is) defined where the call was supposed to wind up.  So, for
example, 800-225-xxxx was the Boston area.
  (Oh, the fun we used to be able to have with that...)

More or less 15 years ago, ATT modifed their system so that each 800
number dialed was "looked up" in a central system, and "converted" to a
more normal number.  This allowed any 800 user anywhere in teh country to
get whatever number they (or ATT) wanted them to have.  Lots of other
advantages to this as well, such as time of day routing, call originiation
routing, etc.

Once divestiture took place (i.e, the breakup of ATT), the original
procedure used with 800 numbers was to give certain prefixes to ATT,
others to MCI, Allnet, etc.  So, for example, ATT might have the 800-225
exchange, but 800-950- would belong to MCI.

Move a few years forward.  The various carriers all complained that they
couldn't swap numbers, which meant that a customer with, say,
1-800-225-9901 was an ATT client, and could NOT switch carriers while
keeping hte same number.

The FCC listened to this, saw that computer technology had (somewhat)
improved(?), and ordered that just about all 800 exchanges be opened to
every carrier.  So.... more or less the following now happens when you
"dial" an 800 number.

1) The call is "held" at the local central office, while
2) a query is made to some sort of centralized data base (I have -no- idea
who figures out who runs this, or charges for it).
3( the info as to who owns the number, which lines to push it through,
etc., are relayd back to the CO, and the call is connected.

danny (how can they call it a video dial tone?) burstein

dannyb@panix.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 15:50:50 GMT
From: "T. Archer" <ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: University of Tennessee 
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 005, Message 4 of 8

In article <comp-privacy1.120.4@pica.army.mil> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
>
>JD> No, not at all.  The states base their law on their right to 
>regulate
>JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle.  Virginia got burned early on by
>JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
>JD> the vehicle.  Thus the use of radar detector detectors.  
>JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
>JD> flashing light bans.  Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court 
>JD> test is anyone's guess.
>
>Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US.  In Canada 
>the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them 
>illegal.  No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge... 
>just plain made them illegal...
>
>Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it 
>possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course, 
>for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would 
>love it, wouldn't they?  Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this 
>way.  US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.
>
It never ceases to amaze me how differently US and Canadian citizens view 
their governments.

Whether or not speed kills is irrelivant.  Radar detectors do not kill, and 
should not be regulated unless the present a danger to the public.  Wanting 
to know where radar emitters are is not a crime.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:08:37 GMT
From: John Keating  <casemo!keating@cs.umd.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Organization: Cray Communications, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 001, Message 7 of 10


In article <comp-privacy1.120.8@pica.army.mil>, ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey@ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:

> 	I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
> 	"extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
> 	other than "where to send the mail"?

I don't think that it gives too much information, other than a closer
approximation as to your residence.  For example, my street has two +4
zips, 8420 and 8421.  The even numbered zips are for those whose house
number is even (presumably everyone on one side of the street has even
addressed, and the other odd) and the odd zips are for those whose house
number is odd.  A local post office should have a listing of +4 zips, and
what they mean.  (I believe that some +4 zips reference post office boxes).

John Keating
-- 
      John William Keating, III      /-----------------------------------------
 -+=< Cray Communications, Inc. >=+- | If you do something stupid after reading
 formerly: Dowty Communications Inc. | this message, it is your own fault, not
   keating%casemo@mimsy.cs.umd.edu   | mine nor the company I work for.  -me-
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:05:10 GMT
From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" <dpbsmith@world.std.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Mass. driver's license S numbers -- really different?
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 005, Message 6 of 8

Last time I had my driver's license renewed, I was pleasantly surprised
to see a sign posted indicating that you could request a non-SS number.
I was even more surprised, when I made the request, to find that it
was "sure, no problem."  (I expected a baffled look, 'gee I dunno nobody
has asked about it, please wait here ten minutes will the people behind
you get angry while I consult my supervisor').

So now that I have an "S number" -- the non-SS numbers all begin with S --
I keep wondering.  My S number is not exactly an anagram or transposition
cipher of my social security number -- but there are some distinct similar-
ities.  Probably just a coincidence, but it does make me wonder.  Any
other S-number holders out there?  Are the S numbers really assigned
freshly, e.g. if mine were S01234567 and the next person behind me
requested one would they get S01234568?  Or are they derived from the
social security number by some simple algorithmic process?

The other thing I wonder about is whether the S number subjects me to
any subtle discrimination.  I _haven't_ noticed any.  But I wonder if
people assume I must be some kind of deadbeat evading skip-tracers ....

Just a little recreational paranoia, folks, nothing to be concerned about.

-- 
Daniel P. B. Smith
dpbsmith@world.std.com
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 7:18:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN and New Baby
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 7 of 12

In Computer Privacy Digest V2 #005
Hans Lachman <lachman@netcom.com> writes:

>In article <comp-privacy2.1.10@pica.army.mil> johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
>>>What experience have people in this group had in keeping the SSN of a newborn
>>>private?  I have heard that some hospitals insist on submitting the paperwork
>>>to the Social Security Administration to obtain the number.
>
>
>It would seem reasonable to decline their offer to set your kid up with an
>SSN since he won't need one until he starts working.  I was born in '63,
>and didn't get an SSN until around age 10, and the world didn't come to an
>end.  I suggest you just act like not having a number is the most natural
>thing in the world, and maybe we'll infect others with that attitude.

Since the Infernal Revenue Service requires a SSN for all dependents over
the age of one if a person is claiming that dependent for tax purposes, it
seems to me to be an easy thing to do when a baby is born.

That ruling went into affect a few years ago and the original limit was
two years old but the IRS dropped it to one about two years ago.  Check
your previous year's federal tax returns to obtain the exact date.

Dave
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: 10 Jan 93 18:54:35 GMT
From: John McGing <jmcging@access.digex.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Reply-To: jmcging@access.digex.com
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 8 of 12

SSN's and newborns.  Now that IRS wants one for any child over age 1, you
can't wait till 18 anymore :(

Also, you don't fill out the SSN forms at the hospital per se, what you
aree to is the use of the birth certificate data (which you gotta have) to
be used by SSA to get the SSN.  It's called Enumeration at Birth and works
with the hospital getting the BVS data, permission to share it with SSA
and SSA getting periodic updates from state BVS and issuing the card based
on the BC data.  It's not like you fill out an SS-5 at the hospital.  

John

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
jmcging@oss724.ssa.gov  or jmcging@access.digex.com    
SSA, your FICA tax people    woodb!oss2cc!jmcging@soaf1  
J.MCGING on GEnie  70142,1357 on Compuserve
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 23:38:38 GMT
From: "M. Adams/StarOwl" <StarOwl@uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 5 of 12

Hans Lachman <lachman@netcom.com> writes:

>It would seem reasonable to decline their offer to set your kid up with an
>SSN since he won't need one until he starts working.

According to the IRS, if you wish to claim a child over age 1 as a
dependent for tax purposes, that child *must* have a SSN.

True, the kid doesn't need a SSN for hirself, but the parent(s)/guardian(s)
might need the kid to have a SSN.....

-- 
Michael D. Adams	      | Bigotry not being founded on reason cannot be
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | removed by argument.  -- Samuel Johnson
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned 
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | lies, and statistics.  -- Benjamin Disraeli
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 11:10:21 EST
From: Alton Jay Mitchell <ajaym@ihlpe.att.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Detector Detectors (WAS Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions)
Organization: AT&T
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 003, Message 1 of 10

> 
> These "radar detector detectors" probably operate by looking for
> spurious microwave local oscillator radiation from the detectors.  Any
> superhet or synchrodyne detector is going to have a local oscillator,
> and shielding it sufficiently is probably too expensive. Too much
> leaks back through the mixer to the antenna.

Does anyone have any information as to how close the detector detector
has to be for an positive identification?
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:17:31 GMT
From: Esther Lumsdon <esther@verdix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Organization: Verdix Corp
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 003, Message 7 of 10

Dick Grady <grady@world.std.com> writes:

>In article <comp-privacy1.120.8@pica.army.mil> Dewey Coffman <ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey@ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>	I'm a big fan of using my Zip+4 on my mail, does giving out this
>>	"extra" +4 of zip code give out any more info about yourself
>>	other than "where to send the mail"?

There is a small problem related to Zip+4.  After you decide to possibly 
give away some privacy by filing an address forwarding order with the
Post Office, you need to fill it out carefully.  Do not use the Zip+4
on your old address, or only mail with that Zip+4 will get forwarded to
you.  Yup, I did this once.
-- 
 ------ Esther Lumsdon  Product Support Engineer, Verdix Corporation
  205 Van Buren St  Herndon, Virginia, USA
  esther@verdix.com  or  esther%verdix.com@uunet.uu.net
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:41:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Ron Bean <nicmad!madnix!zaphod%astroatc.UUCP@cs.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Zip+4 Problems?
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 003, Message 10 of 10

Ed Ravin <eravin@panix.com> writes:
 
>As you may have guessed already, because of these databases, it doesn't
>matter a whole lot whether you supply your ZIP+4 to someone who wants it--
>they can always look it up themselves.  The databases software allows you
>to supply a street address and city name or ZIP code and it spits out
>the corrected street name (standardized spellings, etc) and the ZIP+4.
 
   This can also cause them to generate the wrong zipcode
(including the 5-digit part) if there's another street with a
similar (mis)spelling. And I frequently recieve mail with the
right zip+4 but the wrong city, because I live near the boundary
between two cities that have overlapping zipcodes.
 
==================
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean)
uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:01:13 GMT
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Reply-To: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Organization: Leave the %$##@#$ Bylaws ALONE !!!
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 003, Message 6 of 10

There is also a product on the market from uniden that
you plug your detector into and when is senses a radar
detector shuts off your radar unit, a Detectors, detector,
detector so to say (Just saw one in truckstops of america
last wednesday for $90.00).
Wonder how long it'll be before chip registration is required
and eprom programmers are licensed by the govt.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:43 EST  
From: Paul Olson <olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 001, Message 1 of 10

In article <comp-privacy1.120.4@pica.army.mil>, robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes...
> 
>Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US.  In Canada 
>the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them 
>illegal.  No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge... 
>just plain made them illegal...
> 
Yea, interesting considering that my Beltronics detector is manufactured in
Mississauga, Ontario.

>Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it
>possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course,
>for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Geeze, and after all these years of people bashing the U.S. for "exporting
death", it's finally discovered that Canada has unleased it's industry of death
on the U.S.  Guess you guys finally got fed up with us south of the border folk
affecting the Labatt's taste test polls! ;-) (This paragraph mumbled because my
tounge is in my cheek.  I grew up in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, about as
Canada as folk in the U.S. become.  I even pronouce "about" the way Peter
Jennings does!)

> 
>Bob
>---
>   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
>   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285

       __  Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict 
  C=  ///  Voice -     301/286-4246, 301725-5501                       
 __  ///   DECnet-    DSTL86::OLSON                                    
 \\\///    Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov                       
  \XX/     Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.   
  AMIGA    "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation         
            of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 17:40:20 GMT
From: Kevin White <kwhite@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN and new baby
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 12 of 12

In article <comp-privacy2.5.2@pica.army.mil> Hans Lachman <lachman@netcom.com> writes:
>
>It would seem reasonable to decline their offer to set your kid up with an
>SSN since he won't need one until he starts working.  I was born in '63,
>and didn't get an SSN until around age 10, and the world didn't come to an
>end.  I suggest you just act like not having a number is the most natural
>thing in the world, and maybe we'll infect others with that attitude.
>
>Hans Lachman
>lachman@netcom.com

  Ouch!  Bad advice for this tax season!  From the 1992 1040A, page 21:

  "Any dependent age 1 or older must have a social security number.  You
must enter that number in column (3).  If you do not enter it or if the
number is wrong, you may have to pay a $50 penalty."

It goes on to describe the procedure for applying for the required SSN
and what to do while waiting.  The world won't come to an end if you don't
have it, but it will cost a few dollars...

Kevin
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:11:22 GMT
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 3 of 12

In article <comp-privacy2.3.6@pica.army.mil> Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com> writes:
:There is also a product on the market from uniden that
:you plug your detector into and when is senses a radar
:detector shuts off your radar unit, a Detectors, detector,
:detector so to say (Just saw one in truckstops of america
:last wednesday for $90.00).

This sounds like a con to me; how can you detect a radar-detector?  Surely
they're passive devices?  Also, why would anyone except the police want one?

Or do we have one too many 'detectors' in the description above?

G
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:08:08 GMT
From: "Bryan D. Boyle" <bdboyle@erenj.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Reply-To: "Bryan D. Boyle" <bdboyle@erenj.com>
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 001, Message 2 of 10


In article <comp-privacy1.120.4@pica.army.mil>, robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:

>Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US.  In Canada 
>the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them 
>illegal.  No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge... 
>just plain made them illegal...
>
>Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it 
>possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course, 
>for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would 
>love it, wouldn't they?  Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this 
>way.  US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.

Interesting point-hope we (south of your border...) don't do the same.

Factoid: since 1973, when speed limit was lowered to 55 from 60, highway
death rate in absolute numbers has not changed significantly.  It seems 
to be remaining constant at 50K persons per year.  Speed doesn't kill, 
loose nuts and drunk drivers kill.  It is absolutely insane that 6-lane, smooth,
flat interstates have a limit of 55 MPH.  But down here, it is not a 
speed issue, but a monetary issue.  In NJ, 42% of the tickets written 
for speeding are for the range of 56-65MPH.  Raising the limit to 60
would eliminate a lot of these, thus depriving the slimepuppies in 
government of their revenue.

Second point: some of us down here like to think that we can manage our 
lives quite nicely, thank you, without the heavy handed bureaucratic 
intervention of the government mongrel.  With full awareness of our
social contract, and need to constantly recognize our responsibilities
to our fellow citizens.  We don't need some government dweeb lecturing
us or shaking a pointer or tsk-tsking what we do.  

(but, then, I am somewhat of an anarchist....)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:11:48 PST
From: Rhonda Landy <rhondala@microsoft.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: zip+4 codes
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 006, Message 1 of 12

Michael D. Adams writes:

>And going to the extreme...I currently live at a unique address that is
>served by not one, but two zip+4 codes -- one for this address, and one
>for this block.
>
>Of course, that might be because I live in a church.... ;)


Not so extreme...My apartment building corresponds to two zip+4-digit 
zip codes: 5445 and 5402.  And the one I lived in before that *also* 
corresponded to two zip+4 codes.

If the codes overlap, they can't be all that specific...

rhl