HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cansler@milpnd.enet.dec.com (Robert Cansler...)
Subject: mail drops
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 12 JAN 93 15:27:15    


Does anyone have a list of mail drops on the net or could I be directed to 
an ftp site for this information.

thanks in advance

bob c
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.consumers
From: jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson)
Subject: Re: Cat Paws
Followup-To: misc.consumers
Organization: AC Nielsen Co., Bannockburn IL
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 21:12:51 GMT

------------------------------------------
NOTE FOLLOWUP!!!  I've removed alt.privacy
------------------------------------------

In article <1992Dec28.201558.21399@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>n36c@pnet16.cts.com (Rm1 Straight) writes:
>
>>I was just wondering if there is anyway I can keep cats from lounging on
>>my car.
>
>There is a product available called "Indoor/Outdoor NO" that is highly
>offensive to pets.  DO NOT SPRAY IT DIRECTLY ON YOUR CAR!  You might try
>spraying it in the area _around_ where you park your car, or spray it on
>some rags to tie on or near your car.
>You will probably find it in the pet section of your local grocery store,
>and pet shops are likely to have it too.  I believe it is made by Hartz.
>It does stink (the closest I could stand to sniff it made me think of the
>smell of new plastic, only *much* stronger).

Before you rush out and buy this, let me add a few words.  I have been
trying this product for about a week (attempting to teach my kitten the
difference between his litter box and my dining room).  I have practically
_poured_ it on my dining room carpet.  Not only has it _not_ persuaded the
kitten to stop using the corner as his bathroom, I came home Sunday to
find him _sleeping_ in one of the treated corners.  Today I am off to the
pet store to get my money back.

+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|      John Kapson      | "Americans have a right and advantage of being  |
| NRA               ILA | armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries |
| jkapson@nis.naitc.com | whose governments are afraid to trust the       |
|                       | people with arms."      - James Madison,        |
|                       | The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.        |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
|                  PGP Public Key available via email                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: Bad trade policy (Was
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:04:06 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-09-93 22:56
rstevew@deeptht.armory.com (Richard Steven Walz) said:
in Message-ID: <1993Jan09.100548.25650@deeptht.armory.com>

>                     But if people did make an effort to buy American and
> then there was a drop in sales, the various manufacturers would have to
> drop their prices and we could see a rapid deflation and increased power to
> buy American goods, which you neglected to mention, which would be good for
> the value of the dollar as well as putting Japan in the dumper! They depend
> so crucially on our market that they could wind up in a civil war or the
> most severe depression the world has ever seen one nation experience.

I say buy Canadian, for the same reasons. The US-Canada Free Trade 
Agreement has seen mucho thousands of jobs transferred to low cost 
southern US states from Canada, resulting in massive unemployment, so 
you Americans owe it to we Canadians to make up for this dastardly job 
transfer activity by buying our manufactures, instead of continuing to 
use various US trade restrictions to continue to try to exclude 
Canadian products from the US.  Support your supporters, and get rid 
of this Buy in America program.  Replace it with a Buy in North 
America program! :-) :-(

Bob
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Subject: Re: Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, and their SSNs
Organization: Information Services, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:13:24 GMT

sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
:The magazine thought it
:would be cute to publish and analyze the 1991 tax returns of Bill
:and Hillary Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore.

Wait, are the income tax returns publicly available?  Can anyone just call
up the IRS and ask to see anyone's tax return?

--
hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)    :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Unix Geek for Swarthmore College        :     :    :   :  : :: ::: :::: :::::
Information Services, Swarthmore, PA, US.       Copyright 1993 by Eiji Hirai.
I don't speak for Swarthmore College.                    All Rights Reserved.
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy)
Subject: Re: IP#s of anon.penet.fi and pax.tpa.com.au
Followup-To: alt.privacy
Organization: Yale University--Genetics
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:53:30 GMT

In article <C0CJE7.FAE@cmcl2.nyu.edu>, reader@of.all.this wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Could someone please post the IP#s of
> anon.penet.fi and pax.tpa.com.au? My mail
> resolver can't find them.
> 
> Thanks.

I'm batting 500.  I used nslookup and got one:

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    anon.penet.fi
Address:  192.26.119.33

Because my nameserver labelled the answer as
"non-authoritative" I then {/usr/etc/ping}ed them to
confirm that it works.  My two echo packets *did*
come back, so someone out there does respond.

For the other address you give,
my nameserver could find nothing.  Try emailing to
an Australian guru if you know anyone down there...

Matt Healy
"I pretend to be a network administrator; the lab
 net pretends to work!"

matt@wardsgi.med.yale.edu
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:2821 misc.legal:22002 alt.society.civil-liberty:7229
From: sean@cobra.dra.com
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: 1992 only: CA DMV workaround for SSN
Date: 4 Jan 93 01:54:48 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data Research Associates, Inc.

In article <1993Jan04.062704.26556@clarinet.com>, brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> What do they do in the SSN == DLN states if you do not have a social
> security number?

I don't know about other states, but Missouri Law has two exceptions.  You
can obtain a court order from a county judge saying your religious beliefs
forbid numeric identifiers.  I don't think you are allowed to only object to
certain types of numeric identifiers (its any or nothing).  You can also
obtain a court order for a license without a picture, same reasoning.  They
will issue a license with the words "NO NUMBER" in place of the driver's
license number.

The second reason, you can present a letter from the Social Security
Administration saying you don't have a SSN.  The license burea will then
assign a driver's license "number" (the ones I've seen start "DL").

-- 
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Domain: sean@sdg.dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: 1992 only: CA DMV workaround for SSN
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 22:22:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.085058.4717@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
>there is grounds for a class-action suit against the state of
>California for discrimination against foreigners in its
>granting of the privilege to drive.

"Discrimination against foreigners?"   I have to laugh.  That's not
forbidden, in fact it is ensconsed in the law in numerous ways.
We are subject to taxation but given no vote, for starters.   Those without
a green card (which, by the way, no longer has a speck of green on it)
are in the USA at the pleasure of the INS.

If the USA is willing to do taxation without representation to foreigners,
the thing it supposedly fought its war of independece to stop, I doubt
you can complain much about discrimination.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: 1992 only: CA DMV workaround for SSN
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 06:27:04 GMT

What do they do in the SSN == DLN states if you do not have a social
security number?

For example you are a non-working foreigner, green carded because you
are living with a working U.S. resident.   I guess that many of these
get SSNs because I think they're needed for some deductions, and so many
others want them.   I've lived in the USA for short periods without an
SSN, short enough that I never needed a driver's licence, but is income
earning (the thing that legally requires an SSN) a requisite for driving?
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
From: trsnyder@mcs.drexel.edu (Bob Snyder)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:54:34 GMT
Organization: ASCI

In article <76129@apple.apple.COM> anarch@Apple.COM (The Anarch) writes:

   Here's a recent SSN anecdote: I went to the emergency room yesterday and
   was asked for my SSN as pasrt of the admission procedure.  I gave
   it, unfortunately--I was a little stressed and didn't think about
   it.  A few minutes later I realized what I had done and asked the
   person responsible some questions.  She refused several times to
   explain why they wanted the number and what it would be used for.
   I told her that it was illegal to require the number, and she said

Public or private hospital?  I don't believe it's illegal for private
companies to require a SSN, for any reason.  There may be an exception
in this case where the hospital can't refuse emergency treatment, but...

   that the hospital was willing to do without if an admittee didn't
   want to give the number.  However, she refused to delete mine.
   They also wanted my employer and position, even though I do not
   have insurance provided through my employer, and she wouldn't
   explain that, either.
	Scary!


Of course.  What if you don't pay?

It's awfully hard for me to hide my SSN, since it is my Insurance #. :P

Bob
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman)
Subject: Re: 1992 only: CA DMV workaround for SSN
Organization: Netcom
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 08:50:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.073938.28848@netcom.com> tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:
>In California, the DMV supervisor said:  If you want a driver's license
>OR A STATE IDENTIFICATION CARD you will just have to go and get a
>social security card -- period.  No ifs, ands, or buts.   No exceptions.

Since some foreign nationals do not participate in the Social
Security insurance system, and may not want to, then perhaps
there is grounds for a class-action suit against the state of
California for discrimination against foreigners in its
granting of the privilege to drive.

Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Keywords: Social Security Number, SSN, privacy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 07:48:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.233919.19450@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Private Enterprise uses SSN as a unique identifier for each individual,
>more for purposes of eliminating problems of common names like
>'John Smith' occuring twenty times or trying to see if 
>the name 'Jack Smith' applies to 'John Smith.'  The government
>provided a means of uniquely identifying people and many database
>systems have grown to rely on it for accuracy throughout private
>enterprise.  If you had maintained good credit and apply for a loan
>without your SSN, you could be confused with a record of another
>individual with otherwise similar data but bad credit or information.

First, the SSN is (a) not unique, and (b) technically an incorrect
identifier.  There are multiple people with the same ssn, and without
any check digit, there is no built-in way to verify that the number is
correct.

As to credit checks, how less unique do you think it is to look up
"John Smith" *with* an address.  There is very likely to be only
one at the same address, unless it's another family member which
can be dealt with.  When a company does a credit check on me, they
use my name and address -- no ssn.  When I get medical insurance
coverage, THEY assign a number or use my name and perhaps address.
No problem.  Credit checks do NOT need your ssn.

> ...

The whole ssn problem is actually TWO problems.

First:  Should the ssn be used as freely by government and
industry the way they are attempting?

Second: Should we have a unique, permanent, citizen identifier -- period?


I believe the clear answer to #1 is NO.  If it had check digits, and
it was verifiably unique, then we could go on to considering it.  The
way it is, no way.

I think we need to separate #2 from the disucssion.  I don't like it either,
but it is much more a philosophical question.



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
From: anarch@Apple.COM (The Anarch)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Keywords: Social Security Number, SSN, privacy
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:23:29 GMT
Organization: Secular Humanists from Hell


     Here's a recent SSN anecdote: I went to the emergency room yesterday and
was asked for my SSN as pasrt of the admission procedure.  I gave it,
unfortunately--I was a little stressed and didn't think about it.  A few
minutes later I realized what I had done and asked the person responsible
some questions.  She refused several times to explain why they wanted the
number and what it would be used for.  I told her that it was illegal to
require the number, and she said that the hospital was willing to do without
if an admittee didn't want to give the number.  However, she refused to
delete mine.  They also wanted my employer and position, even though I do
not have insurance provided through my employer, and she wouldn't explain
that, either.
     Scary!

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-anarch@apple.com-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   "The Walpurgisnacht has become synonomous with any general revelry, and
     particularly for the breaking out of demonic lewdness and disorder."
D I S C L A I M E R :   E V E R Y T H I N G   I   W R I T E   I S   F A L S E
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, and their SSNs
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:57:16 GMT

I'm fed up with the use of Social Security numbers by people and
organizations that have nothing to do with Social Security.  A SSN
and an address can be a very dangerous thing with unscrupulous and
criminally-minded people out there.

My outrage was furthered yesterday when I received the latest issue
of Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine.  The magazine thought it
would be cute to publish and analyze the 1991 tax returns of Bill
and Hillary Clinton and Al and Tipper Gore.  They published what 
appears to be a true copy of the Clinton's actual return, COMPLETE
WITH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!  Even 12 year old Chelsea's SSN is there.

Now I doubt someone is going to apply for credit in Bill's name, using
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the address, and then hang out by the
White House mailbox waiting for the cards to arrive.  But it would be
a fairly trivial matter for some people to pull credit reports, medical
histories, etc. using the combination of name and SSN.

This casual attitude toward private and confidential personal 
information exhibited by Kiplinger's and others MUST be changed.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott D. Brenner                  AT&T Consumer Communications Services
sbrenner@attmail.com                          Basking Ridge, New Jersey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: reader@of.all.this
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: IP#s of anon.penet.fi and pax.tpa.com.au
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: reader@of.all.this
Organization: New York University


	Could someone please post the IP#s of
anon.penet.fi and pax.tpa.com.au? My mail
resolver can't find them.

Thanks.
Xref: sparky alt.privacy:2830 talk.politics.misc:66212 alt.sex:40919
From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Censorship vs. Boycott
Date: 4 Jan 1993 22:19:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <C0BEzr.5uI@boi.hp.com> alien@boi.hp.com (Tom von Alten) writes:
>Dances with Drums (williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>Boycotting is a different means of coercion than censorship.  Your own
>post spells this out pretty well.
---
	Coercion is the means by which censorship is done in this case.  If
the censor has no power, then they cannot censor.  In this case, they
create their power to censor by organizing a boycott through which 
they gain the power to coerce.


>What I read in your postings is that one person making a decision about
>what to read/watch/listen to, is "ok," but as soon as one (tries to)
>persuade another to make the same decision, that is a form of censorship
>and therefor reprehensible.  Is this really what you mean to say?i
---

	When one person make a decision, it is their personal decision.  When
they organize a boycott, they are creating a power base which is necessary
for censorship.  Without the power, it isn't censorship.

    As for whether or not it is `reprehensible', I don't recall anywhere
in my posts anything that says (to the effect) 'because a boycott is
censorship, it is reprehensible'.  I have simply have been pointing out
that the boycott is a means of censoring and is a form of censorship in
this case.  What appears obvious is that those who are organizing the
boycott do not like censorship and therefore do not like what 'they' are
doing being labeled as such.  Oh well.  A rose by any other name...

	Note that a boycott is not inherently censorship -- it is just a way
of coercing the target to do your will.  It is being used in this case
to silence the opinions of someone who I do not know and who is apparently
unpopular to some.

-wat-
--
1935 will go down in history.  For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration.  Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient,
and the world will follow our lead into the future.
                         --Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Keywords: Social Security Number, SSN, privacy
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:39:19 GMT

Private Enterprise uses SSN as a unique identifier for each individual,
more for purposes of eliminating problems of common names like
'John Smith' occuring twenty times or trying to see if 
the name 'Jack Smith' applies to 'John Smith.'  The government
provided a means of uniquely identifying people and many database
systems have grown to rely on it for accuracy throughout private
enterprise.  If you had maintained good credit and apply for a loan
without your SSN, you could be confused with a record of another
individual with otherwise similar data but bad credit or information.
	This is more of a problem than one would think, since
the only other ways of uniquely identifying someone might be
by their parents(which can also be common to others with the same name),
by address(which does not have a fixed format and can thus be
confusing to a simple search routine, as well as the fact that
people move) and by age(which might also be considered confidential),
or by some other ambiguous hard to record or keep track of means.
	The best solution would be for a private enterprise to
maintain a unique code for each individual which the individual
could voluntarily customize so long as it remains unique, which
would be separate of the SSN databases.  The enterprise would
be responsible for keeping track of the accuracy of its data.
In effect, the agency would be identical with the small-operations
credit bureau which once existed but has been superceded by the
large regional databases(Equifax and friends) which now rely on
rigid compact identifiers such as SSN.
	There can be no way such a private enterprise can exist
as long as SSN is so readily usable by private industry. If
a business had a choice between paying for accuracy and getting it
free, naturally they would go the free route.  
	Also, it must be emphasized that no precise identifier can
be substituted for the 'in-person' consent of a human. Otherwise,
we will get problems such as one finds in modern day credit card
number(stolen) scams.  

				John
				wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
From: jmcging@access.digex.com (John McGing)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy
Subject: Re: Social Security Number FAQ
Date: 10 Jan 93 03:17:35 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt MD USA
Reply-To: jmcging@access.digex.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Social Security Number, SSN, privacy

dvsg0223@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Salamon) writes:

>tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes:

>>First, the SSN is (a) not unique, and (b) technically an incorrect
>>identifier.  There are multiple people with the same ssn, and without
>>any check digit, there is no built-in way to verify that the number is
>>correct.

>How do multiple people end up with the same SSN?  I understand the problem
>of check digits, because people can simply make up a number that is fake
>and there is no way to tell.  But what about multiple people with the same
>number?  Is this just due to fraud?

>David

I work at SSA, and yes, in the old days, when cards were handled at the
local office, we made clerical errors and issued duplicate numbers.  We
also had printing errors on cards, when they were preprinted but issued at
the local level.  We also have people with multiple SSNs, at least until we
tightened up the identity requirements around 1980 which made it more
difficult to wander in and get a new number.  Now we try and figure out
what you existing number is, and avoid letting people have more than one.

Multiple people may still be assigned the same number (often happening
when names and other ID data are close enough for our tolerances, so we
issue a number to a person not knowing that they aren't the person we
thought they were, and so now 2 people have the same SSN.

And yes, we spend a lot of time straightening our earnings records of
people who have been screwed up by others who simply made up an SSN, used
it and the real owner has to try and deal with the problems.

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
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty