HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: 20 Nov 1992 04:03:08 GMT
From: Jacob DeGlopper <deglop@donald.eeap.cwru.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Alleged Rights
Organization: EEAP, CWRU, Cleveland
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 102, Message 10 of 10

In article <comp-privacy1.101.9@pica.army.mil> TDARCOS@mcimail.com writes:

>Would someone have believed 50 years ago that the government
>would confiscate property from people who had not committed
>a crime or been arrested or accused of any crime, yet when the
>property was siezed, the person whose property was confiscated
>would have to prove - and have to pay the costs of the trial

I expect someone 50 years ago would believe that exactly such
a thing could happen.  50 years ago was November 1942.

Just one year earlier, the US Government had not only confiscated billions
of dollars in property from some 80,000 American citizens (who had no hope
of getting it back) but also had imprisoned these same people without
giving them a chance to defend themselves.  These people had not been
arrested, commmited a crime, or been accused of any crimes.


-- 
         Jacob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton (MD) Volunteer Rescue Squad
            -- CWRU Biomedical Engineering - jrd5@po.cwru.edu --
"Well as through this life I've rambled I've seen lots of funny men
 Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen." -- Woody Guthrie
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 7:49:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Cellular Misinformation
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 1, Issue 101, Message 3 of 11

In Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 14 Nov 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 099
Monty Solomon <monty@proponent.com> writes:

>Excerpt from RISKS DIGEST 14.03
>Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:58:48 EST
>From: "Barry C. Nelson" <bnelson@ccb.bbn.com>

>What I found more interesting was a discussion about the Coast Guard preparing
>to adopt *CG as a maritime cellular distress number.  A local official was
>quoted as saying that the existing broadcast channels will remain in operation
>because anyone nearby will hear you and the CG operates Direction Finding
>stations to pinpoint your location. Okay...
>
>But then he went on to say that cellular calls "only give you a point to point
>channel", leading one to the wrong belief that they couldn't DF a cellular
>user, and that nobody else could listen if they wanted to.

I'm not a boater but I do know many people who own them and have worked
part-time as a mate of a commercial fishing boat and my feeling is that I'd
much rather rely on a radio in an emergency situation than cellular.

Boaters are *supposed* to stay tuned to the emergency channel at all times
unless actively engaged in a conversation with other boaters.  The purpose
is that if a boater is in trouble, those nearest to him/her can assist,
probably faster than the Coast Guard.

Cellular phones wouldn't work in many areas where there is the ability
to do off-shore fishing (East and West Coasts and the Gulf of Mexico)
and some boats are out over 100 miles from shore.

They might work in the inland waters, but then again, I'd rather go with
something more reliable in maritime communications.

Dave
Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:49:18 GMT
From: Esther Lumsdon <esther@verdix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Risks of Cellular Speech
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 1, Issue 102, Message 8 of 10

"Wm. L. Ranck" <ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu> writes:

>: wrote:
>: >3.  Why in the world did our government accept the
>: >sniveling and pass the Electronic Communications
>: >Privacy act...most agencies of the government understand
>: >the problem...many of them have implemented digital
>: >scrambling.

>Well, a US Senator's aide somehow came into posession of a tape of the 
>Governor of Senator's state talking to someone and basically bad mouthing
>the Senator.  This tape, or a least parts of it got into the papers and
>caused quite a political stir.  That tape was of a cellular phone conversation
>that the Gov. was having in his car.  Legislation was introduced to make 
>listening to cellular frequencies illegal a short time later. . .

Senator Robb is up for re-election in 1994.  Look for even more widespread 
misinformation about cellular phones from both parties then, in Virginia,
a state known for mudslinging campaigns.  Ah, the risks of political
staff exploring technology when their bosses have had a longstanding
political feud!
-- 
-- Esther Lumsdon, not speaking for Verdix.   esther%verdix.com@uunet.uu.net
Q: How many user support people does it take to change a light bulb?
A: We have an exact copy of the light bulb here and it seems to be
   working fine.  Can you tell me what kind of system you have?
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 03:36:42 CST
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@cybrspc.uucp>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: RE: Re: Blockbuster announces plan to use data from video rentals
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 101, Message 4 of 11

Richard Thomsen <rgt@beta.lanl.gov> writes:

> mellon@ncd.com writes:
> >Needless to say, Blockbuster does not get my business.   If you don't like
> >their business practices, whether they have to do with privacy issues or
> >censorship issues, I suggest that you vote with your pocketbook. :'>
> 
> This is an interesting comment.  Because a company does not rent out movies
> that you want to see, this is "censorship?"  I thought this was a newsgroup
> about privacy.  What about the privacy of the company, and its right to
> rent what it wants?  Why does it have to rent what you want?

An earlier note in this thread mentioned a video store that had been
taken over by Blockbuster.  In that case, certain types of movies
disappeared from the rental stock.  That forms the basis of the
association between Blockbuster Video and censorship.

Your message does bring up an interesting point, though.  While we are
all understandably concerned about our privacy, the very organizations
we decry for violating our privacy must have some reasonable expectation
of privacy, as well.  Since the two imperatives obviously conflict, how
should this conflict be resolved?

I ask this because I see the predominate tone of privacy arguments as
leaning toward the individual.  Personally, I tend to agree, but I'm
interested in how the situation is dealt with from the other side.
--
    Roy M. Silvernail   | #include <stdio.h>                 | "press to test"
 roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu | main(){                            |     <click>
 cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu |  float x=1;                        | "release
                        |  printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} |    to detonate"
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 10:47:11 PST
From: Joseph_Anthony_Truitt@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
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 1, Issue 101, Message 5 of 11

In message <comp-privacy1.100.5@pica.army.mil>,
Tom Wicklund <wicklund@opus.intellistor.com> writes:
>In <comp-privacy1.97.8@pica.army.mil> Jim Budler <jimb@silvlis.com> writes:
>>Of course, since my drivers license now has a mag stripe on the back,
>>how long is it before the grocery store starts swiping it through the
>>cash register to validate a check?
>
>This seems rather dangerous.  The store clerks will quickly get into
>the habit of swiping the license through the register without looking
>at the picture or signature.  It's one step further to being able to
>steal a checkbook and wallet and use them in relative safety without
>worrying about an ID.

A "Lucky" grocery store in San Jose, CA, is already swiping the new drivers
licenses for check validation.  I didn't notice my checker looking closely
at the picture or me.  I guess I shouldn't have been surprised, but I had
not considered until that time that anyone but the DMV or law enforcement
would read the mag stripe.  Duh.  

Does anyone have a comprehensive listing of the information encoded in the 
stripe?  I guess I don't mind too much, if there is no more info than is 
already visible on the card, but I have to wonder about "bonus" info.
Date: 17 Nov 1992 02:14:20 GMT
From: John G Dobnick <jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: magnetic strips on driver's licenses
Reply-To: jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 101, Message 6 of 11

> In <comp-privacy1.97.4@pica.army.mil> Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu> wri\tes:
> 
>>The state of California is now issuing laminated plastic drivers licenses
>>with a magnetic strip on the back. [...]
> 
>>Of course, since my drivers license now has a mag stripe on the back,
>>how long is it before the grocery store starts swiping it through the
>>cash register to validate a check?

So, what if one happens to "accidentally" rub a magnet across the mag stripe?
Or store the license in an eelskin wallet? :-)

-- 
John G Dobnick                          ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
Computing Services Division             INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee     UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:33:58 EST
From: "Anthony J. Rzepela" <rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Unfair Trade Practices
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 1, Issue 102, Message 7 of 10


In the November 2, 1992 issue of InfoWorld, a front-page article
appeared about an FTC investigation into unfair trade practices  by
Microsoft.  The investigation centers aroung MSoft's dealings with
vendors who market  Windows applications  that compete with
applications published by Microsoft.

Many of the details of the allegations originally made by these
competitors are typical software-related gripes:  competing vendors
were not given equal access to innards of the  product, MSoft had a
monoply, Msoft abused privileged information,  blah, blah...

However, the first allegation enumerated in the article states that
Microsoft withheld lists of registered Windows users from competitors.
Competitors allege that Msoft did not share the list involved in a
large 1990 mailing,  and that "followup" mailings (Microsoft
eventuially DID release  the list) are not as effective.

Originally, I thought the issue was only marginally related to
technology issues (and hence, inappropriate for the group),  and that
it was an old-fashioned flame-instigator (who owns the  information?
what *real* privacy is there in ownership of the  product, etc.) but it
occurs to me that if this particular charge  sticks as unfair trade
practice, it is probably strictly due to the nature  of the technology
involved: no dressmaker can demand competitors'  mailing lists, for
example. Nothing in the article states that the  mailings went out on
behalf of the Msoft products in direct competiton with others' apps.

So, is this good news or bad?  Will businesses lay off mailing lists
and junk mail, since all efforts and time developing databases just
means a resource they have to share? (Yay!) Will businesses deny such
entities exist, hiding errata in a dark cellar to fester? (Boo!)  Will
a technology-challenged business practice government agency be fooled
into making everyone share so much data that the economic  value will
depart from this insane data collection craze? (Yay!)  Can I write a
"Hello World" app, call myself a MSWindows developer, and get my hands
on the mailing list? (?)

Other issues? Comments? 

 ----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Rzepela
<rzepela@cvi.hahnemann.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 18:48:17 CST
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@cybrspc.uucp>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Technical addiction
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 102, Message 3 of 10

Michael Gersten <michael@stb.info.com> writes:

> Is this a strawman, or what? This is an extreme view, with many logical  
> fallocies.

Personally, I think it's either a prank or an exercise in hyperbole.  I
found it rather amusing, but mostly because I have a friend who likes to
chide me with the same arguments.  (BTW, he never turns off his
electricity, and the TV is _always_ running)  This same friend, though,
doesn't seem to mind when I can answer his computer questions without
researching for weeks.

As, I imagine, many (most?) of this digest's readers, I make my living
through the exercise of technology.  I know a lot of "computer geeks",
and nearly all the good ones agree that your edge is proportionate to
your level of immersion.  And I, personally, have never experienced a
difficulty I could attribute to ignorance of the moon's current phase.

> Where do you draw the line? If I understand you correctly, you are  
> advocating a technology level that cannot support more than a few hundred  
> thousand people, which means that about 1 in a million will survive, and the 
> other (million - 1) people will die. Thats extreme. But yes, it will solve al
> overpopulation produced problems.

Perhaps this is the vanguard of the New Luddites.  There was a thread of
that subject recently in alt.cyberpunk.

I think this may be leaving the realm of privacy, though... until those
Neo-Ludds decide I'm too immersed for my own good.  (0.25 smiley)
--
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu - OR-  cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu
#! /usr/bin/perl
   open(I,"$0");@a=(<I>);close(I);$x = shift(@a) until $x =~ /^#!/;
 unshift(@a,$x);open(O,">>$ENV{'HOME'}/.signature");print O @a;__END__
           <perl signature virus - do 'perl -x articlename'>
Date:  Fri, 20 Nov 92 9:19:05 EST
From:  Computer Privacy List Moderator  <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:  Administrivia
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 1, Issue 102, Message 1 of 10


   I thought I would take a second and share some random thoughts
with you:

	o  A few months ago I stopped the automatic reciept daemon for
submissions due to problems with endless mail loops with some improperly
configured mailer.  I hope to try it again soon.

	o  As part of the above I do not acknowledge submissions.  I
have acknowledged some submissions I have not published but normally do
not acknowledge rejected submissions.  If you suspect you have mailer
problems and *REALLY* want an acknowledgement, I will give you one if you
request it.  

	o  I will be closing out the threads on Social Security Numbers on
driver licenses and SSNs when posting grades.  

	o  There has been an interesting thread in sci.crypt on
registering crypto keys.  You all might want to read some of it.

	o  I am looking for someone to compile a FAQ for this group.
There are a couple of topics that really should be there.  Any one
interested should contact me.


Dennis
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
			Dennis G. Rears
		Moderator: Computer Privacy Digest
			   comp.society.privacy
MILNET:   drears@pica.army.mil     UUCP:  ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears
Phone(home): 201.927.8757    	   USPS:  Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:14:46 GMT
From: elee@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: (n
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 1, Issue 103, Message 2 of 7

To: comp.society.privacy
From: Eric J. Lee
11-19-92
This is part of the ICS 131 bboard posting requirement.

	In following the discussion by Tom Wicklund on this bboard, I
read his comments on the advantages and disadvantages of using the
magnetic strip on driver's license cards as identification.
	True, this will make it very convenient for grocery market
clerks to validate personal checks, and they may indeed become careless
about it.  However, I believe that it is still a good idea.  There must be
some level of responsibility placed on workers, and a level of responsibility
placed on citizens.  If someone loses his or her card, he or she should
be responsible for (as with credit cards) cancelling it immediately.  This
way, cards can be assumed valid, and check-outs at markets can be sped up.
Competent users (those who don't lose their cards) shouldn't have to wait
up for services to insure less competent users' security.
	The other interesting point being discussed on the bboard was that of
exactly what information is stored on the magnetic stripe that isn't
visibly printed on the card.  I would sure like to know, and who exactly
is capable of reading and using this information.  Could the strip contain
information such as a person's credit record?  If so, a person with bad
credit could conceivably be denied access to certain privileges that he
would not have been had the magnetic stripe not been issued.  In this case,
I believe that authorities that can read the stripe should not make any
disqualifications based on it, because this would give anyone who has an
older license that doesn't have the stripe on it an advantage.  Another
possibility would be to ensure that everyone has the new driver's license
or I.D. card with stripe; though this could take years to implement.

Eric J. Lee
John Tillquist's section, M 9:00 - 9:50
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:28 GMT
From: Robert Ellis Smith <0005101719@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Comp Priv Digest
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 1, Issue 103, Message 7 of 7

Date:  Nov. 23, 1992

FROM:   Robert Ellis Smith

On 11 Nov 92, Chris Nelson and the moderator asked for
a source for the different privacy laws on the books
in each state.  PRIVACY JOURNAL, PO Box 28577, Providence,
RI 02908, has published COMPILATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL
PRIVACY LAWS since 1974.  The 1992 edition costs $29.

The book includes 600 laws, on Social Security numbers,
electronic surveillance, credit records, health, financial,
schools, Caller ID, personnel, criminal records, and much
more.  There's a state-by-state chart on each
category.

Our monthly newsletter, PRIVACY JOURNAL, answers
virtually every question that comes up on the
Computer Privacy Digest.  It's available for a
special rate of $65 a year for Digest participants
-- from PRIVACY JOURNAL, 401/274-7861.

Reach the publisher via MCI mail at rsmith,
510-1719.

The newsletter is also available on NEWSNET
(800/345-1301 for an hourly fee.

Call or write for a sample and a list of
available books and special reports.


Robert Ellis Smith

[Moderator's Note:  Thanks.  When I get around to it, I will 
order it.  If no one beats me to it, I will publish a review of it.
 ._dennis ]
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:42:01 GMT
From: Rod Keller <rkeller@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Technical addiction
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 1, Issue 102, Message 2 of 10


Is any type of rambling on and on communication?
Do unconnected thoughts listed one after another constitute conversation?
Whoever 'he' is should be asked these questions as well.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:39:00 GMT
From: DRWIER@SCSMTA.SWITCH.CH (DRWIER)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Technophiliacs - cont.
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 1, Issue 102, Message 9 of 10

No, technophiliacs is not a joke.  It is an attempt to become
aware of the "hidden side effects" of all technology on both
a personal as well as social level.  I'm not anti-technology.
But it seems to me that the technology rush has had some
disastrous side-effects.  I think good engineering requires
anticipating side-effects, especially the hidden dangerous ones.
I think we are all technophiliacs, hooked on it, real bad.
And I am not anti-technology!

Here are two additional ways to recognize if you are a
technophiliac:

1. You are in a rush.  You are stressed because you are trying
to keep up with a machine (of some sort).  More and better
technology seems to be the answer to solving stress.

2. You are focused on details to the exclusion of really feeling
what is happening.
	"We have decided to cut your head off with an ax."
The technophiliac answers:
	"What kind of an axe?  Single or double blade?  And
by the way, axe is spelled 'a-x-e'."
And another technophiliac replies:
	"Actually, it depends on where you are from..."
And another says:
	"No, actually, the more primative type of "axe" originally
came from Northern Germany in the early 12th century..."
And another says:
	"But wouldn't lethal injection be more humane?"
and so on.  It's humorous.  Maybe absurd.  Bizarre.  But the
bottom line is that it is an escape.

The intense focusing on technical DETAILS for extended periods of
time for a technophiliac becomes an escape from life and helps
to ruin personal relationships.  It is also BAD engineering.

IMHO we have to SLOW down A LOT, and get away from the details,
and get away from the technology we create to get a more global
and balanced and more humane perspective.

Or are there other ways?
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:32:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Joseph Demasi <jd4o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Electronic devices
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 1, Issue 103, Message 5 of 7

I wonder if anyone out there can tell me where I can find files on how
to make electronic bugging devices, for phones mainly.  Ill be happy
with any files that deals with construction of such devices.  Thanks.

 --------------------------------------------------------------
It's 104 miles to Chicago, we've got a full tank of gas, half a pack
of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.  Hit it.
						-The Blues Brothers
 --------------------------------------------------------------
						Joseph DeMasi
						jd4o@andrew.cmu.edu