HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oracle!us.oracle.com!dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dargo)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:05:32 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corp., Redwood Shores CA
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 010, Message 8 of 11

Craig.Wagner@p2.f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Craig Wagner) writes:


>  ER> [Moderator's Note:  You're underlying assumption is that breaking
>  ER> speed limits is dangerous.  This is not necessarily true.  

>While it's true that it's "not necessarily true," it's _not_ the case that a
>driver can _know_ that it's _not_ dangerous, and therefore shouldn't be doing
>it.  He may see no other cars on the road, and the driving conditions may be
>perfect, but he has no way of knowing precisely the road conditions ahead of
>him, or whether or not there's a driver waiting to turn onto the road, and
>expecting any oncoming traffic for which he may be looking to be no further away
>than could be expected based upon the posted speed limit.

This assumes that the government's posted speed limit is the correct
speed limit to be able to observe such things based on the road 
conditions.  The current max of 65 (still 55 in most places) has 
nothing to do with road conditions or reaction times but rather
with some vague in-defensible (IMHO) federal government policy.

You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
if they were actually set based on local road conditions and 
necessary reaction times.  Many roads with which I am familiar
would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH.
Which leads me to the opinion that speed limits are designed to
further revenue enhancement policies than allowing the free
movement of individuals. IMO, if you want to cut back on traffic
accidents and allow free movement you should remove most speed limits
and replace them with drastic fines for unsafe lane changes,
tailgating, etc.  I doubt that you will find many accidents caused
solely by excessive speed, but rather by some other contributing
factor such as whipping in and out of lanes or following two closely
for the speed being driven.

Just my $.02 worth.

Dave Dargo   (ddargo@oracle.com)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:30:29 GMT
From: "Michael D. Adams" <StarOwl@uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
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 011, Message 6 of 11

oracle!us.oracle.com!dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Dargo) writes:

>You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
>if they were actually set based on local road conditions and 
>necessary reaction times.  Many roads with which I am familiar
>would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH.

This is really beginning to stray from the purpose of this group, but...

In some states, the law is written in a way such that exceeding
the speed limit is merely apparent evidence of unreasonable
or imprudent speed.  A driver can demonstrate that he/she is 
innocent by proving that his/her speed was reasonable and safe
with respect to road conditions, traffic, and visibility.
(Of course, that's something that may be difficult to do....)

These states (to the best of my knowledge) include:

AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, ID, MA, MI, MN, NH, OH, OR, RI, TX, and Utah.

>Just my $.02 worth.

and I'm just adding my two zlotys' worth to the pot....

[Moderator's Note:  OK.  Let's end this thread.  It really doesn't belong
here.  I will allow posts until Tuesday at which time I will summarize.
 ._dennis ]
--
Michael D. Adams	|"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?"	   -- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	|"Computer, end program!"  -- Lt. Barkley at the end
Standard Disclaimers    | 	of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle"
From: elevine@world.std.com (Eugene Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Is the List Still Operating
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:52:43 GMT
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 010, Message 4 of 11

Dennis - is the list still up? I haven't heard from you or it in awhile
and miss the conversation.
--Gene Levine
elevine@world.std.com

[Moderator's Note:  I think the digest might have been dormant for a week.
I am clearing out about 30 articles today.  BTW, if someone does not
recieve anything in a 10 day period please send me email as something
might have gone wrong. Even if I don't receive submissions I will at
least try to put something out at least once in a 10 day period.
 ._dennis ]
From: wrf@speed.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Innocent man jailed 9 days by computer match
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: wrf@ecse.rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 010, Message 3 of 11

Here's theq latest reason why I'm suspicious of database matching.  This
makes innocent people guilty by default unless they can prove their
innocence.  In contrast to pre-computer days, it is now much cheaper for
the system to cost an innocent person a lot.

This information is from clari.news.law.crime.violent, Message-ID:
<jeffersonU3JF250pe@clarinet.com>, 15 Jan 93.

A woman was abducted and robbed in Michigan in Nov 91.  One criminal was
arrested and her car impounded.  A man called "Larry Jefferson" tried to
pick the car up.

Police did a nationwide search for people with that name with previous
court appearances.  (The article said "appearances" not "convictions".)
In Florida they found a real Jefferson, who had been imprisoned for
contempt for not paying child support.  Although he had an alibi and had
never even been to Michigan, he was arrested and held for 9 days while
Michigan tried to extradite him, based only on this match.  Luckily for
Jefferson, Florida refused to let Michigan have him w/o more evidence.
Finally Michigan agreed that Jefferson was not the man.

-- 
 ---------------------
Wm. Randolph Franklin,  wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077;  Fax: -6261
ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA
Date: 20 Jan 93  7:35:26 EST
From: J.Clemens/D17-1@g-ate.uscghq.uscg.mil
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: RE: 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 009, Message 10 of 10



> Mike Brokowski <brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
> It seems government have been registering births of children at least
> since the Roman times (given the reason for the census at Christs'
> birth).

Actually, Jesus' birth was incidental to the census.  Joseph was the
one who had to register, with his family. (Luke 2:1-5)

Jonathan
From: neilshnn@mse.cse.ogi.edu (Neil Shannon)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Any more News on Akron BBS troubles?
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:32:34 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute, Material Science & 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 010, Message 11 of 11

On the December 2nd an article was posted telling about the legal
troubles of teh Akron BBS titled "Dangerous precedents in Sysop 
Prosecution".  It indicated that the sysop would be going to trial
for Kidde Porn on the 4th of January.

Is there any new information?

Neil Shannon
neilshnn@mse.ogi.edu
Date: 15 Jan 93 23:31:44 EST
From: x91nikorawal@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Listening to cordless telephone conversations
Organization: Western Michigan University
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 009, Message 2 of 10

Hi,
   I understand that listening to radio signals via a scanner, etc 
is legal. However, is it legal to listen to a telephone conversation
taking place on a cordless telephone and if so, can it be done using
a scanner ???

   Any comments/suggestions will be welcomed.

   Thank You in adv.

Percy.

[Moderator's Note:  Last I heard it was legal to listen to but illegal
to disclose the contents of the conversation or profit from it. ._dennis ]
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 13:04:30 GMT
From: Matt Bishop <bishop@windsor.dartmouth.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: CFP Special Issue on Security [Change in Due Date]
Reply-To: Matt Bishop <Matt.Bishop@dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Purdue University
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 009, Message 5 of 10

[NOTE CHANGE IN SUBMISSIONS DUE DATE: IT IS NOW JUNE 1, 1993]

Matt Bishop will be Guest Editor of a special issue of the journal
"Computing Systems" to be published in 1993.  The issue will be
devoted to "Security and Integrity of Open Systems."  Papers on all
aspects of policy, issues, theory, design, implementation, and
experiences with security and integrity in open systems are solicited
for the issue.  The deadline for submissions is June 1, 1993; papers
submitted after this deadline will not be considered.  Prospective
authors should send five copies of their papers to:

    Professor Matt Bishop
    Mathematics and Computer Science
    Dartmouth College
    6188 Bradley Hall
    Hanover, NH  03755-3551
    (603) 646-3267
    Matt.Bishop@dartmouth.edu

Submissions should not have appeared in other archival publications
prior to their submission.  Papers developed from earlier conference,
symposia and workshop presentations are welcome.

"Computing Systems" is a journal dedicated to the analysis and
understanding of the theory, design, art, engineering and
implementation of advanced computing systems, with an emphasis on
systems inspired or influenced by the UNIX tradition.  The journal's
content includes coverage of topics in operating systems,
architecture, networking, interfaces, programming languages, and
sophisticated applications.

"Computing Systems" (ISSN 0895-6340) is a refereed, quarterly journal
published by the University of California Press for the USENIX
Association.  Usenix is a professional and technical association of
individuals and institutions concerned with breeding innovation in the
UNIX tradition.

Now in its fifth year of publication, "Computing Systems" is regularly
distributed to 4900 individual subscribers and over 600 institutional
subscribers (libraries, research labs, etc.) around the world.  Some
special-topic issues are often distributed more widely.

The editor-in-chief of "Computing Systems" is Mike O'Dell of Bellcore.
Gene Spafford of Purdue University is Associate Editor, and Peter
Salus of the Sun User Group is the Managing Editor.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:29:54 GMT
From: Geoffrey Kuenning <geoff@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 011, Message 5 of 11

In article <comp-privacy2.9.9@pica.army.mil> gordon@spot.Colorado.EDU
(GORDON ALLEN R) writes:

> As one aside from this thread, the radar detector I had in my car was
> stolen.  When I informed my insurance company, I was informed that they
> are illegal and therefor not covered by my comprehensive policy.  I
> told them that there is no law in colorado regarding their illegality.
> I was then informed that their purpose was to break the law and was not
> covered...

Let me guess:  you're covered by GEICO, right?
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning	geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu	geoff@ITcorp.com
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:39 PST
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Unlisted Phone Numbers
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 011, Message 9 of 11

In the ongoing and unending debate about Caller-ID, the whine keeps
coming up over and over: "I have an unlisted number and I intend to
keep it that way", or words to that effect. While there are legitimate
reasons for having an unlisted number, the avoidance of telemarketing
calls is not one of them.

A minor case in point: I have four lines that ring on telephones that
can be picked up by a human. One of them is listed; the other three are
unlisted. I have had this arrangement for many years. Almost nightly,
there is someone calling to sell something. On my listed line? Almost
never does my listed line ring unless it is a legitimate call.

No, virtually 100% of the annoying, random, dinnertime telemarketing
calls come in on the private lines. While wrong numbers outweigh the
sales pitches, it is the private lines that drive me cookoo. If you
have a number that can be dialed, someone will eventually call it and
bother you. And here in sunny California, the crank-caller's paradise,
we have to pick up the phone to find out that it is a worthless call.

Sometimes I think people overrate the value of an unlisted number.

-- 
 John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
Date: 15 Jan 1993 19:58:25 GMT
From: Jim Haynes <haynes@cats.ucsc.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN as a red herring
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 009, Message 1 of 10


In article <comp-privacy2.7.9@pica.army.mil> cme@ellisun.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) writes:
>
>To me, the SSN is just one of many IDs which would allow some record about
>me to be correlated with some other record.  However, I assume that there
>are many such identifiers or characteristics -- either alone or in
>combination with others.
>
>Has anyone considered how to conduct one's life in order to avoid all such
>correlation of records?  [This strikes me as possibly a cryptographic
>problem, thus the cross-post.]

Well, according to some recent items in comp.risks in which people's drivers
licenses are being revoked mistakenly, it seems that you must have a name
which is unpronounceable and doesn't spell anything like anybody else's,
and a birth date which nobody else could possibly have.

So, yes, it does have something to do with cryptography - you get your name
and birth date from a true one-time pad.
-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:15:01 GMT
From: Paul Scheidler <crpaul@sony1.sdrc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Ohio requires SSN for children to go to school?!!!?
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 011, Message 11 of 11



Hello fellow privacy seekers,

  With all the privacy related problems with almost every organization
using your SSN, I decided to delay getting a SSN for my kids until they
are have income and need a SSN for tax purposes.  Now I am starting the
process of getting my oldest registered for kindergarden and I am
informed by the school that the state of Ohio requires a SSN for the
child to go to school.  If you don't have one, they will assign you a
temporary number until you get your official SSN. I have not fully
investigated the actual law, but I plan on fighting this law.

What are my options here?  Can they deny my child an education because
she is not numbered?

Any hints or comments are welcome.

Thanks in advance,
Paul Scheidler.

[Moderator's Note:  Ask them what they will do if you refuse to get a SSN
for your kids.  I think they will back down as there is a requirement for
your kids to go to school.  There is a small movement of parents who
would rather teach their kids at home rather than send them to school.
The public school establishment is against this movement and have been
fighting it.  If refusal to provide SSNs is all it takes to be able
not to register kids in school it going to make life easier for those
parents who prefer to teach their kids at home.  Take a stand and force
the issue. ._dennis ]

paul.scheidler@sdrc.com
From: dnmiller@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David Neal Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Calling Number ID
Date: 27 Jan 93 04:37:02 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 010, Message 7 of 11

The situation is even worse in Columbus, OH, where Caller ID is
soon to go into effect.  Here, there is _no_ way of sending one's
ID at at number where all-call restrict is in effect, i.e. no
reverse code. This effectively raises the stakes for those who,
like our family, plan to opt out of the system.

-- 
David Neal Miller

Internet: miller.3@osu.edu
Bitnet:   miller.3@ohstmail
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 5:58:44 PST
From: "Richard M. Hartman" <hartman@ulogic.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: worries about privacy could tone down success of caller ID
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 009, Message 7 of 10



I don't really see what the problem is.  If you have a peephole
in the door, you can see me when I knock before letting me in.

If I cover the peephole with my thumb, you cannot see me.

It is then your option to not open the door.

What is the problem with having both Caller-ID (peephole),
and Caller-ID-Blocking (thumb)?

		-Richard Hartman
		hartman@ulogic.COM

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"If we do not succeed, we risk failure."			-D. Quayle
[Moderator's Note:  Would anyone out there be willing to put together a
FAQ on caller-id?  This faq should be bias free and mention arguements
for and against caller-id, line blocking, per call blocking, ANI vs
Caller-id, etc.  ._dennis ]
Date:  Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:13 EST
From:  WHMurray@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:  Speed Limits
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 011, Message 8 of 11


>You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
>if they were actually set based on local road conditions and
>necessary reaction times. 

For most roads that is exactly how they are set.  The highway engineer
collects information on the actual speed travelled and the speed limit
is set at the 85 percentile rounded to the nearest 5 MPH.  The exception
to this rule is when the speed limit is set by law; i.e., when it is set
for political reasons.

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
From: banisar@washofc.cpsr.org (Dave Banisar)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Request to Post Office on S
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:47:48 GMT
Organization: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, Washington Of
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 2, Issue 010, Message 10 of 11


  Request to Post Office on Selling of Personal Information
   In May 1992, the US Postal Service testified before the US House of
Representatives' Government Operations Subcommittee that National Change of
Address (NCOA) information filled out by each postal patron who moves and
files that move with the Post Office to have their mail forwarded is sold to
direct marketing firms without the person's consent and without informing
them of the disclosure. These records are then used to target people who
have recently moved and by private detective agencies to trace people, among
other uses. There is no way, except by not filling out the NCOA form, to
prevent this disclosure.

   This letter is to request information on why your personal information
was disclosed  and what uses are being made of it. Patrons who send in this
letter are encouraged to also forward it and any replies to their
Congressional Representative and Senators.


Eligible requestors: Anyone who has filed a change of address notice with
the Postal Service within the last five years.



Records Officer
US Postal Service 
Washington, DC 20260                        PRIVACY ACT REQUEST


Dear Sir/Madam:

	This is a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC 552a).
The Act requires the Postal Service, as a government agency, to
maintain an accounting of the date, nature, and purpose of each
disclosure of information about individuals. I request a copy of the
accounting of all disclosures made of address change and mail
forwarding information that I provided to the Postal Service. This
information is maintained in USPS System of Records 010.010.

	On or about (date), I filed a change of adress notice
requesting that my mail be forwarded from (old address) to (new
address). The name that I used on the change of address form was
(name).

	This request includes the accounting of all disclosures made by
the Postal Service, its contractors, and its licensees.

	I am making this request because I object to the Postal
Service's policy of disclosing this information without giving
indviduals an option to prevent release of this information. I want to
learn how my information has been disclosed and what uses have been
made of it. Please let the Postmaster General know that postal patrons
want to have a choice in how change of address information is used.

	If there is a fee in excess of $5 for this infomation, please
notify me in advance. Thank you for consideration of this request.


Sincerely,



CC: Your Congressional Representative
    US House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20510

    Your Senators
    US Senate
    Washington, DC 20515