HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Monitoring
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:45:47 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec14.023013.8506@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson) writes:

>In article <1992Dec14.005102.7608@rose.com> robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman) writes:
>>
>>Date Entered: 12-13-92 19:40
>>Keystroke monitoring is simply one manifestation of a problem.  I have 
>>great difficulty with making telephone calls to various US Software 
>>houses and their support lines where I am told that the call will be 
>>monitored to ensure that I receive quality support... after I listen 
>>to the musak...
>>
>Borland did this to me just last week.  It was "to assure quality."

>>I do NOT want the call monitored, but if I want the support (help) I 
>>have to subject myself to it.  I also suspect the STAFF at the company 
>>end do not want the call monitored, but they have no choice.  I 
>>supposedly do, as I can hang up.
>>
>>My question is how do I get the support required WITHOUT permitting 
>>the call to be monitored?  

With one insurance company that does this to me I have simply 
shifted over to doing everything by fax and mail.  Of course, 
many of the topics that come up there are not as time-urgent
as calls to help desks.  I also do it with the local telephone
company.

It's better in many ways to proceed in writing since they have 
a harder time weaseling around in print than on the telephone.

With one company, I was told I would be recorded and I said
that was fine as long as they provided a transcript to me.
And they did.

Another one (the insurance company mentioned above) said they would
gladly make a copy for me of their recording, but it would
cost $30.  I stayed on the line long enough to get their fax
number, then hung up and send a fax.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519

Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Junk mailers dirty tricks
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:31:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <1992Dec11.022744.29303@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:


>As a self-proclaimed soldier in the war against information abuse,
>I decided to try to see how junk mailers get my address.  

First of all, my hat is off to you.  I wish more people would pursue
this.

>What I did
>was I got a box at one of those "Mailbox USA"-type places, and then
>gave everyone a slightly different variation on the address.
>(The address assigned to me was of the form "100 Main St. Suite 123",
>so I would add a letter, e.g., "Suite 123-J" -- the staff there said
>it would be OK.)

>What I found was that most junk mailers got my address via magazines
>that I subscribe to, e.g., Data Communications and Business Week.

Well, many of those magazines will, upon request, flag your name
in their database for no disclosure to others.  My experience is
that many magazine publishers actually do this as promised.

>However, the most annoying types of junk mail (e.g., "YOU MAY HAVE WON
>A PRIZE - CALL 1-900-976-JUNK") did not have any suite number on the
>address at all.  

Well, there are some well-known companies - e.g. Advo systems --
that maintain lists of households with no suite number.  So
somebody with a valuable list, say a magazine subscription list,
could cross-check with another list (e.g. Advo's list) and cull
out the identifying information.

>My guess is that they are using a database that strips
>the address down to the minimum needed for delivery.  So much for my
>experiment.

>What would be ideal is if there were a scheme by which 100% of the mail
>I receive is identifiable in terms of how the sender got my address.
>The "suite number" method failed.  I thought of giving out variations
>on my name, but in most of my dealings, I need to give my real name
>(e.g., to employers, credit card issuers, other financial accounts).
>Does anyone out there have a clever method (that WORKS)?  If so, please
>send your reply to me directly.

Well, I do get aggressive with misspellings in names given to 
magazine companies.  They certainly do not need the correct spelling.
I do quite extreme and quite obvious misspellings (R D Surname for
Readers Digest would be an example).

Also, keep in mind that if you fill out a forwarding order with the
Postal Service, the contents of the post card fall into the hands
of all kinds of snakes.  The Postal Service sells this information.

So, when you use a forwarding card, do not put your actual new
address on it.  Use a PO box or whatever.

Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:2680 misc.consumers:20836
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: Junk mailers dirty tricks
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:47:32 CST
Distribution: na
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

> I'd venture to say that your local tax collector, being a government entity,
> is prohibited from *selling* your name and address to any mail distributor.
> Rather, that information is considered open for public access.  Some

True, however they are generally allowed to charge for "reproduction costs."
This means it is free to sit in the license collector's office and write
down all the names by hand.  But if you want reproductions (either on a Xerox
machine, or maganetic media, etc) they will charge you for that service.
Also you are generally not allowed to remove anything from the premises,
so you are stuck using their equipement.  The "reproduction costs" rarely
resemble "fair market value."

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl)
Subject: Re: Store settles suit on privacy
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:38:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

In <BzC78G.LuM@cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

>In <1992Dec16.013515.6624@panix.com> oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>>An article in a recent issue of the New York Times describes a lawsuit
>>in which Mervyn's Department stores in California may be 
>>eligible for nearly $6 million worth of vouchers.  The store had been
>>requiring customers to reveal their telephone numbers when using 
>>charge cards, but state law says customers did not have to. 
>>Four customers sued, and now the store is settling.
>>
>>Keep up the good work, I say.

>Do you recall any more details of this case?  Like, don't the
>plaintiffs need to show that they were harmed in some way by having to
>provide the phone numbers?  Or can they just ask for money since the
>store broke the law?

The article was not very specific about this, but my cynical sense tells
me the vouchers to be given away are probably only discounts on 
purchases that are much larger.  So the store probably merely makes 
less money, rather than losing money, on the sales made with vouchers.
That helps to explain why the store will give out vouchers to anybody,
regardless of whether they can show actual old sales slips with phone 
numbers on them.  (Only if you claim it happened more than three times,
as I recall, do you have to prove it;  this entitles you to extra 
vouchers or something.)


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Job paperwork stuff
Date: 19 Dec 1992 12:36:34 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
Keywords: invasion, privacy, ssn

Others said:
# So today we got a visit from there personel department.  The stuff that
# the personel droids wanted was outragious.  
{}
# Race :  Human (somewhat)

Anyone else remember the posting from the fellow that said:
	Race:  Mongrel
on his security clearance forms?

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Re: Selling your name
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:14:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

In article <78Fi03LGc3jI00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> letter for their middle initial.  Given that your employer and those
|> holding your financial accounts aren't in the habit of selling mailing
|> lists, 
|> 
|> --James Preston
|> 
	Who told you that? If you interpret "financial accounts" as your
	home mortgage, they sure do "sell" your name to Equifax and other
	mailing list companies, it's right there in the paper work you
	sign. They acted both surprised that I knew thar and matter of
	fact about how I could stop it("like of course everyone knows this") 
	when I told them I didn't want them to sell my name. Scan those 
	documents and if nothing else get them to sign something that says 
	they won't sell it.("ie revokes their right to do it").

	-dewey
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: Monitoring
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:51:00 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-13-92 19:40
Keystroke monitoring is simply one manifestation of a problem.  I have 
great difficulty with making telephone calls to various US Software 
houses and their support lines where I am told that the call will be 
monitored to ensure that I receive quality support... after I listen 
to the musak...

I do NOT want the call monitored, but if I want the support (help) I 
have to subject myself to it.  I also suspect the STAFF at the company 
end do not want the call monitored, but they have no choice.  I 
supposedly do, as I can hang up.

My question is how do I get the support required WITHOUT permitting 
the call to be monitored?  I have, on occasion, told the support 
person who eventually answered that I expressly do NOT WANT THE CALL 
MONITORED.  Yet I have no assurance that my wishes are regarded.

Anyone else having a problem with this practice please feel free to 
jump in.  Also note that in my case this is almost always an 
INTERNATIONAL telephone call, and it may in fact be a violation of the 
law of the country where the call originates to monitor the call in 
this fashion, even if it is NOT a violation in the US.

Maybe we should demand the extradition of the members of the FCC board 
to answer to us for this violation of our privacy.

Bob Heuman
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: Junk mailers dirty tricks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 09:43:27 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Distribution: na

rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:

>>Ever since the Yippies started doing this in the 60's, Post Offices
>>have been throwing out bricks, etc, taped to Postage reply cards.  If
>>you want to take advantage of this trick, get a large buisness reply
>>envelope, and fill it with newspapers or something.  Anything larger
>>will probably be discarded.

>Ahh...but what if the brick is carefully wrapped and labeled 
>"Handle with care - geological core sample" (works best when
>mailing to oil companies!).

doesn't matter.  The post office will still can it.  There are several
pages of stuff in the postal code about this but a summary might be
"if it looks inappropriate, can it."

You need to realize something.  2nd and 3rd class make the post office.
The post office looks out for them first and to the extent permitted by law.
Your piddly letter or two a week doesn't mean squat to them compared
to what even medium sized junk mailers generate in revenue.  The post
office gets to push off most of the work onto the mail houses and still
gets a large portion of what 1st class costs.  An example.  I heard
a comment at my local, small bulk mail reception PO that a 
smallish chiro-quack-tic college nearby runs through over $100k a month in
BRM.  Another example.  When I pull up to the bulk mail depot with 
my piddly few thousand pieces at a time, a *lovely* and polite
postal worker comes out, unloads my truck, helps me with the paperwork
and even loads my truck with empty bags and crates.  Let's see you
get THAT kind of service at the window with your 1st class letter :-)

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
From: glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: not so anonymous cash
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:43:01 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

>
>1. Radio Shack which has always tracked its customer's names, but as
>far as I can tell has used this only to mail me their catalog.
"as far as I can tell" being the important bit of that sentence. To their
credit, they do not press the issue if you refuse such information. (at
least the one I go to doesn't)
A


-- 
"A horse! A horse! Somebody give me a horse, man, because|glazier@ 
I come to bury this dirtball, not to praise him. Whaddya |harvard.isr.edu
think I am? Whether it's nobler for the mind to make people suffer with all
these totally outrageous arrows arrows for a fortune, or what!" -- D.R.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: drug dealers on the h
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:26:57 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 12-18-92 02:15
williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) wrote:

W > Maybe that nation doesn't want that type of enforcement? Canda
W > has a much more relaxed attitude towards drugs.  They aren't quite
W > as fascist and brain-dead.  For the US to step in and enforce their
W > facist laws in international waters when the boat in question was
W > not intending to make port in the US nor originate from there is sticking
W > our mighty nose where it doesn't belong -- again.  And at my expense!
W > I don't want our government wasting my taxes fighting a 'war' that
W > the Governments own accounting office says is losing us money for
W > little or no benefit.  I doubly don't want us spending my taxes to
W > enforce these same pinbrain attitudes and laws on other nationals.

1. Please spell Canada correctly.
2. Canada does NOT have a much more relaxed attitute towards the 
import of Cocaine or other drugs from Latin America (or the US). 
Recent seizures of drugs here go to prove that.  We recently had a 
plane captured, including its crew, carrying over a tonne of cocaine. 
Believe me, it made the headlines....  Do not attack your neighbors 
without the facts on hand. [Tonne is the 1,000 Kilogram measure...]

Bob Heuman <robert.heuman@rose.com>
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:2596 alt.society.civil-liberty:6884 misc.legal:21314
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty,misc.legal
Subject: Re: New Magazine - A Sign of The Times
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:05:06 GMT
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

feustel@netcom.com (David Feustel) writes:

> The Columbia River is now the most radioactive river in the world.
> 
> This environmental/nuclear nightmare, one of a series, brought to you
> courtesy of General ("We Bring Good Things to Life") Electric.

I think you meant Westinghouse, primary contractor for Hanford and
Ranier.

--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks)
Subject: Re: dirty tricks
Organization: UNC Office of Information Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 00:02:28 GMT

>Excerpt from "Clinton/Gore Consumer Bill of Rights": 
>"To not have information provided by consumers for one purpose used for
>a separate purpose without the consumer's knowledge and consent."

Which simply means "I acknowledge and consent to the use of this
information for separate purposes" will become a condition for any
organization to do business with you. This statement is six words
too long.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: Junk mailers dirty tricks
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 13:30:58 GMT

In article <r0ar63k@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>
>Third class requires 
>only that the offering not be fraudulent, that you properly zipsort, 
>that the size is correct, that you bundle properly and that your check for 
>the postage not bounce.

My wife works in the circulation of a free weekly newspaper that is
heavily dependent on advertising and has almost weekly hassles with
the USPS over the mailing charges.  In addition to that, there are
audits at least twice a year to verify that the circulation counts
add up to what is claimed (no fraudulent addresses.

Getting *that* information from the USPS is a hassle, also since the
papers are addressed

To our Friends and Neighbors
Address
City, State Zip

Dave

-- 
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
From: johnsomr@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Mark R Johnson)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: cell phone privacy
Summary: Canada creates Telecommunications Privacy Agency
Keywords: cell phones, encryption
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:09:52 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Nova Scotia, Halifax, N.S.

In today's paper, I see that Canada is considering jail terms for
anyone who divulges what they overhear on a scanner tuned to cell
phone frequencies.  INHO, this is not sufficient protection.
----------------------------------------------------------

I posted this a couple of days ago, but I don't think it worked.
Please, Let me know if you saw this before.

-- begin summary of news article

Canadian Communications Minister Perrin Beatty has announced the 
creation of a Telecommunications Privacy Protection Agency.  The 
story was in Halifax newspaper on Tuesday.  It also noted that Canada
has ~1,000,000 cell phones and an estimated 900,000 scanners capable
of eavesdropping on cell phone calls.  The Minister stated that one 
should assume such calls are being listened to and possibly taped.  It
was also stated that one consumer electronics catalog listed several
pages of scanners, with the slogan "keep in touch with what's going
on in your neighbourhood."

-- end summary

In other words, spy on your neighbour.  I have written to the minister
to express my hopes that the Agency will adopt recommend the strongest
possible encryption of cell calls.  There are a few advantages:
1. privacy.
2. such a policy is self policing and does not need large government
expenditures to enforce, since there is no publicly known method of
breaking a good encryption scheme.
3. police could use such a system without being overheard by drug dealers.
4. It would not interfere with legally obtained wiretaps, because the
landlines can still be tapped.

I am urging all Canadians reading this to write to the minister and
express their desire for the best possible privacy.  The address is:
The Honourable Perrin Beatty
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0A6

--
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
; Mark Johnson             ; msdos has 6 types of RAM - dos ram,
; My views are my own and  ; upper memory, high memory, extended memory,
; nobody else's.           ; expanded memory, and video ram.
;                          ; YUCKKK!!!!!!!!!!!
; flames >/dev/null        ;
;---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: Junk mailers dirty tricks
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:10:25 GMT

lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) wrote: 
->....  My guess is that they are using a database that strips
->the address down to the minimum needed for delivery.  So much for my
->experiment.

it is possible that the mailbox service is selling your name around
... they wouldn't (naturally) append a suffix).

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
#     for information on the league for programming freedom, 
#                     write to lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles)
Subject: Re: Miracle at Radio Shack
Organization: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Adminstration / Boulder Labs
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:57:11 GMT

In article <neilg.724322252@sfu.ca> neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy) writes:
>epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
>
>>Not to justify the policy, but most stores I know of ask for address
>>information when you make a return (even with receipt).
>
> Um, well, my point was that I was told that they maintained two
>separate databases - one for returns and the other for junk mail. This
>was likely either a lie or the guy just made up the story to get my
>address. I did not appreciate this.

The clerk probably told you the truth.

I would bet your name was transfered by someone at RS headquarters
who ran a consistency check to verify that everyone who returned an item
had purchased the item as well, copying unmatched names into the mailing
list.

My advice:  write the President or CEO of Radio Shack, by name (you can
get this information from the business section of the library) and tell
him that you had no problem simply declining to give your name at the
time of purchase... but that you resent them globbing onto your name
when you had to make a return.  Henceforce, no more business with them
and you are expressing your displeasure with others.

-- 
Bear Giles
bear@fsl.noaa.gov/cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: neilg@fraser.sfu.ca (Neil K. Guy)
Subject: Re: Miracle at Radio Shack
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:37:32 GMT

epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

>Not to justify the policy, but most stores I know of ask for address
>information when you make a return (even with receipt).

 Um, well, my point was that I was told that they maintained two
separate databases - one for returns and the other for junk mail. This
was likely either a lie or the guy just made up the story to get my
address. I did not appreciate this.

 - Neil K. (n_k_guy@sfu.ca)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA