HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Mark Shanks)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Day of the Gizmoid
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:20:11 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division

In article <1992Dec15.000701.3211@pcnntp.apple.com> sac@apple.com (Steve Cisler) writes:
>The Day of the Gizmoid, by Stanley Bing 
>American Way. Nov. 15, 1992
>Reprinted with permission of the author 
>OCR'ed by Steve Cisler<sac@apple.com> 
>
>Hello from the twenty-first cerntury!

  *plonk*

mss
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:56:10 CST
From: Brad Whitlock <bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
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 114, Message 4 of 10

In <comp-privacy1.112.4@pica.army.mil> Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu> writes:
>I am real sorry guys.  If the idea is use my DL number, not my SSN, so I
>can evade my obligations, I am against it.  There is enough evasion of
>obligations already.

The point is, there is nothing legal you can use the SSN for that DL
can't provide.  Just how do you use my SSN, hmmm?  I've never gotten
a good answer to that question before; presumably you can fill me in?
And by the way, do you demand to see the original SSA-issue SSN card?
No?  How do you know the person is giving you their real SSN, and not
someone else's?

> If not, prepare to cough up everything if you want $$$ from me.
Fine.  There's probably someone else who *does* want my business.

Brad Whitlock     bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:10:38 GMT
From: Ed Ravin <eravin@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: UPS Digital Clipboards
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 114, Message 7 of 10

In article <comp-privacy1.111.8@pica.army.mil> roy@cybrspc.uucp (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

>As you might expect, UPS has conveniently forgotten that they demanded
>I _sign_ the pad.  I print, he accepts it and we go on about our work.
>So far, nobody's clipboard has been hijacked and I haven't seen my
>purloined siggie attached to any incriminating faxes.  Perhaps the risks
>were overstated in the beginning.

Do what many of us techno-troublemakers are already doing with junk mail
lists -- sign an extra middle initial or two, or otherwise alter your
moniker so that you can identify "the signature I use on UPS clipboards".

I do this for most new groups that I join, just to see how far and wide
they will scatter my name.  For example, the amount of mail I receive
from other groups when I joined the Sierra Club is frightening -- fortunately,
the stream of mail withered away when I renewed and scribbled "STOP SHARING
MY NAME WITH OTHER MAILERS" on the renewal form.

>But UPS hasn't started dumping the clipboards' contents by radio, yet.
>Wonder if they're familiar with the terms 'encryption' and 'scanner'?

Don't worry, be happy, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it
illegal for anyone to "listen" to the stuff :-) :-)

-- 
Ed Ravin            | I like to think (it has to be!) of a cybernetic ecology
eravin@panix.com    | where we are free of our labors and joined back to nature
philabs!trintex!elr | returned to our mammal brothers and sisters,
+1 914 993 4737     | and all watched over by machines of loving grace
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 10:07:46 -0500
From: Doctor Math <root@sanger.chem.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Blockbuster Video
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 115, Message 4 of 9

In Digest: Volume 1, Issue 113, Message 7 of 9,
	BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu (Jerry Bryan) writes:

>I just had my first encounter with Blockbuster Video.  They wanted
>my driver's license number, my SSN, a credit card number, where
>I worked, and my boss's name.  I balked on the SSN, they would not
>give in, and I walked out.

A friend of mine had an experience with Blockbuster that went like this:
Jealous ex goes to Blockbuster, convinces staff that he has permission
to check out tapes using her account, never returns the tapes, she gets
stuck with a large bill (it just appeared on the credit card statement).
Complaints to Blockbuster management (both verbal and written), while
not ignored, did no good whatsoever.

Conclusion: Blockbuster's concept of 'security' is: "We have authorization
to charge your credit card." It would seem to be all the security they
need - this way, they're never out any money :) :( :(

It could be argued that there are other video rental stores, but it can
also be said that Blockbuster would rather this not be true, and is likely
doing everything they can to eliminate the competition.

As it happens, the University put a video rental place in the Student
Center. You use your student or staff ID, which has your SSN embossed on
it along with your name... Back to square one, almost; since the
University already KNOWS your SSN, it's not like giving it out to a
third party, which is at least a minor bonus.
Date:  Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:21:38 EST
From:  Computer Privacy List Moderator  <comp-privacy@pica.army.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:  Problems with V112
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 112, Message 1 of 10

  Some of you might have gotten 2 or 3 aborted attempts at Issue 112.
That's what I get for putting out an issue while doing 12 other things at the
same time.

dennis
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:11:21 GMT
From: "Michael T. Palmer" <palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: More on SSNs as used by VA DMV
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 115, Message 8 of 9

In the Sunday, December 13 issue of the (Hampton, VA) Daily Press, the
front page of the business section had a long article (complete with cute
graphic showing a masked thief "entering" a computer) about how much
easier it is to commit fraud when you know someone's SSN.  A couple of
case histories were provided, along with comments by legislators, the
VA State Police, and business leaders that using the SSN as the driver's
license number is both unnecessary and potentially harmful.

If anyone is interested, I will type it in over the weekend and provide
it in a posting.  I plan to make photocopies of it to send to my state
delegate and state senator, along with a (polite) letter explaining how
I expect them to quickly pass legislation to protect their constituents.

P.S.  Yesterday I got my new VA license (renewal).  Not only is it the
worst picture EVER taken of me, but now the SSN is emblazoned in large
red letters across the front, right next to my digitized picture and
just above my digitized signature.  YIKES!!  And does anyone have a mag
stripe reader so I can find out what's on that black area on the back?

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
RIPEM Public Key available soon --- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:16:56 EST
From: Matthew B Cravit <cravitma@student.msu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detectors
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 114, Message 9 of 10

In comp.privacy.digest #112, Paul Olson <olson@dst186.gsfc.nasa.gov> writes:

> Yea, it is possible to detect radar detectors.  Apparently, some detectors giv
e
> off a small amount of microwave activity themselves.  The VSP have a box to
> detect changes in the level of ambient microwaves, and can tell if you're

In fact, I was in Radio Shack recently, and they had two radar detectors
sitting on the counter and beeping away periodically.  I asked the manager what
they were detecting, and he replied "each other."

An interesting tidbit - I am from Canada, and where I lived, if the police
found a radar detector in your car, they could confiscate it, fine you, and
potentially charge you with obstruction of justice.  And this applied even if
the detector was turned off, unplugged and in a glove compartment.  Of course,
who knows how they could find it in that case, but if it is plugged in, and
visible, it is illegal even if it is turned off AND if you are not speeding.

I've also heard rumours that the police periodically auction off these
confiscated detectors.  Hmm... the cops giveth and the cops taketh away... :->

/Matthew
cravitma@student.msu.edu
Date: 9 Dec 92 21:00:00 GMT
From: Ed Boston <ed.boston%phant@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Privacy in VA
Reply-To: Ed Boston <ed.boston%phant@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: Phantasia BBS - Boise, ID - 208-939-1350
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 112, Message 6 of 10

MLS>Also, any truth to the rumor that the cops can tell if it is on or not.

By monitoring the frequencies of the IF section of the detectors, it is
possible to detect if one is on or not.

Ed
---
 . OLX 2.1 TD . A loaf of bread, a jug of wine and <occupant>.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:02:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "L. Jean Camp" <lc2m+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: PA DMV
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 115, Message 6 of 9



The Pennsylvannia DMV requires that you ontain a SS# if you do not have
one to get a license. Then your SS# is printed on your lincense, not as
your license number, but in addition to. It is very common for people to
ask for your DL and start to write down your SS#. I just pull it away
from the clerk. At that point, the check is written, they have my
license number. Noone has yet refused my check. 

If I lose my DL anyone who finds it could commit credit fraud with no
difficulty. All it would take is a simple form. Why do they want my SSN?
Because they can get it; and there are so many hurdles to jump through,
people are exhausted when the license finally hits our hot little hands
we will not fight it. I'm not paying a lawyer!

Jean
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:38:14 GMT
From: Carl Oppedahl <oppedahl@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Comm Week article omits PGP
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 115, Message 2 of 9

An article in the December 14, 1992 Communications Week describes 
an encryption arrangement said to be used by "many users", namely
using a public-key method to encrypt a DES key which is then used
to encrypt the message.

The article goes on at length but somehow manages to miss PGP, which 
I suspect is the most widely used software that does this.

The article mentions RSA, of course, and quotes Prof. Hellman.

The article then mentions that RSA's encryption is used in Novell
Netware Release 4, in Lotus Notes, and in Microsoft Windows for
Workgroups.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 00:28:25 EST
From: news@mtu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:      Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1#110
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 112, Message 5 of 10

Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: cescript@mtu.edu (Charles Scripter)
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Michigan Technological University
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 05:28:18 GMT

In article <comp-privacy1.110.7@pica.army.mil>, David C Lawrence
<tale@ten.uu.net> writes:

> In <comp-privacy1.107.7@pica.army.mil> dileo@brl.mil (John DiLeo, CSB) writes:
> 
> > Actually, I'm not so sure about DC.  However, radar detectors are
> > illegal in Connecticut, and the presence of one in the passenger
> > compartment of a vehicle (including under the seat, unplugged) can
> > (or at least once did) carry a pretty hefty penalty. If one was
> > permanently installed in another state (the variety where the
> > transceiver is behind the grill, and the control unit is in the
> > dash) you could only be ticketed if they believed it was operating.
> 
> This isn't directly a privacy issue, but ...

Isn't use of electronic surveillance devices illegal under federal
law? (from the days of Watergate).  Wouldn't that make the use of
police radar illegal, without a warrant?...

-- 
Charles Scripter   *   cescript@phy.mtu.edu
Dept of Physics, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
With your one remaining eye, please do NOT look back into the laser
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:18:56 GMT
From: Mark Gellis <f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Computers and detective work
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 114, Message 8 of 10

I've become interested in the use of computers for detective and police
work.  (Mostly, if you must know, because I write and I want the informa-
tion for background material.)  Unfortunately, there do not seem to be
many good books on the subject--on the actual nuts-and-bolts, how-they-
do-it stuff.  Does anyone have any information on this subject, either
sources you would recommend, or any interesting stories/folklore/etc.
detailing procedures?

Thanks in advance.

Mark
f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 92 12:09:04 CST
From: "Len E. Elam" <lelam%kuwait@sun.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says
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 112, Message 2 of 10

I spotted this in the Monday, December 7, 1992 morning edition of the
{Fort Worth Star-Telegram} on Section A, Page 10:

-Start-of-newspaper-article-
Department of Energy gains spy power, paper says

From Wire Reports

  HOUSTON -- The U.S. Department of Energy has won approval of
procedures that allow the agency to spy on citizens, a newspaper
reported yesterday in a copyright story.
  According to documents obtained by {The Houston Post}, U.S. Attorney
General William Barr granted permission Oct. 7 for the DOE to "collect,
retain and disseminate information" on Americans, expanding a 1981
executive order.
  However, the agency said the new procedures don't neccessarily mean
the agency is spying on citizens.
  "DOE may collect information only through overt means, and is severely
restricted as to the use of any special techniques, such as electronic
surveillance or physical surveillance, which are generally reserved to
other agencies," the department said in a written response to the
{Post's} questions.

-End-of-newspaper-article-

Does anyone have any more information on what the DOE is doing, what
kind of information they are collecting, what steps are being taken to
insure that the information is accurate (especially before they
"disseminate" any information) and the reason they feel the need to do
this?
--
Who Am I?: Len E. Elam              | Disclamer:
Email: gdfwc3!lelam@central.sun.com |  I speak only
   or           lelam@gdwest.gd.com |   for myself.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:30 GMT
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Seizure (was Re: Digital Licenses in NY State)
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 112, Message 11 of 10

In the latest issue of Comp-Privacy, "Hoops McCann" tells about
his experience with some agents of the Internal Revenue Service
seizing some of his property.  I suspect either he fails to
state the whole story or he did not tell whichever lawyers he
talked to the whole story:

1.  If the bank actually acted upon an order to sieze funds
    where the order carries an obviously non-matching signature,
    the bank is liable, and not just for the $2,000.00, but
    perhaps $2,000,000.00 for _negligence_.  All it takes is
    for someone to compare the order with the signature card
    on file at the bank.  If the two signatures do not match,
    where an ordinary person can see that they do not,
    I think negligence becomes fairly obvious.
    In the absence of a hold harmless clause (where someone at
    the IRS claims to have the authority to do this act and can
    indemnify the bank for obeying the order) the bank may have
    liability where any ordinary person could see that the paper
    carried a non-matching signature.

2.  There is a federal case - I may not have the exact title,
    but it is almost exactly the same issue, and it is on
    the order of something akin to _Bivens v. Six unknown agents
    of the treasury_  in which someone got damages against a
    federal agency where he could not identify the people who
    unlawfully broke into his property, but they were federal
    agents.

3.  I think that forging a ficticious order which took his
    property represents an intentional violation of his rights
    under the _Civil Rights Act of 1869_, 19 USC 1984, which
    provides for civil suits against someone who deprives
    someone of their civil rights while "acting under color of
    law."

4.  He should write his congressman, as well as the ACLU, the
    local newspapers and television stations and major national
    news shows.

If his comments are correct, a lawyer should easily have seen
a very juicy and potentially _very lucrative_ civil rights case.

---
Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Date: 11 Dec 92 01:41:18 GMT
From: Christopher R Volpe <volpe@bart.nosubdomain.nodomain>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Digital Licenses in NY State
Reply-To: volpe@ausable.crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Corporate Research & Development
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 113, Message 5 of 9


In article <comp-privacy1.111.8@pica.army.mil>, "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@cybrspc.uucp> writes:
|> 
|> When UPS started that, everybody in my office refused to sign it except
|> the boss.  He didn't really understand our reservations, but was
|> temporarily willing to sign all packages in.  Eventually, practicality
|> and business sense won out over principle, and we all do something to
|> the pad.  I elected to print my name.
|> 
|> What really bothered me was UPS's attitude when they first introduced
|> this marvelous new gadget.  They couldn't believe anyone had _any_
|> reason to be concerned.  None of the PR droids I spoke with had the
|> first idea about technological privacy risks, and one chose to interpret
|> my concern as an accusation.  Unfortunately, the only way to make some
|> people understand a risk is to present an exagerated example... it
|> really upset this guy.

Why is this new gadget any more dangerous than the status quo? Anyone
can digitize a signature from paper using your average image scanner.

-Chris

-- 
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 10:33:55 GMT
From: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Fully automated speeding tickets
Reply-To: Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 112, Message 8 of 10

I do not think privacy will have more than a passing comment
made on it. The bottom line is $MONEY for the state, Photo
radar is a money machine and that is what drives govt in 
these years of high unemployment, less people paying taxes,
more interest in town, state and federal budgets. In NJ if
you drive the speed limit you WILL GET HIT. I have been 
watching it climb every year to 70mph during rush hours.
Know how much $ that translates into over the months it
would take to beat it in court.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Date: 08 Dec 92 16:45:27 EST
From: tim gorman <71336.1270@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Phone Number Ownership
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 112, Message 3 of 10

There have been several messages concerning ownership of phone numbers in
the past digests. It is my understanding from North American Numbering Plan
documentation that the numbers belong to the public in the number plan area,
i.e. World Zone 1.
 
It is the responsibility of the industry to administer the NANP resources
fairly and impartially to the mutual benefit of users and service providers.
Central Office codes within an NPA are administered by the dominate LEC,
number assignments within a CO code are administered by the switch owner.
 
Administration of the NANP resources may at times require changing telephone
numbers for certain subscribers, such as with an NPA split or when splitting
a wire center into two new wire centers due to growth requirements. For the
telephone company to arbitrarily take your existing number and to reassign a
new one would, however, be an undefendable action, at least in my opinion. I
am sure the PUC would have something to say about such an action. The courts
probably would also. Thus the telephone company doesn't really "own" the
number any more than you do. Your number may get changed as part of
administering the number resource but that should be the only time.
 
Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*
Date: Friday, 11 Dec 1992 10:51:34 EST
From: Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:    Blockbuster Video
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 113, Message 7 of 9

I think this has been discussed before, but I have only been on the
list a short time.  So....

I just had my first encounter with Blockbuster Video.  They wanted
my driver's license number, my SSN, a credit card number, where
I worked, and my boss's name.  I balked on the SSN, they would not
give in, and I walked out.

What has been the previous discussion about Blockbuster?  Would they
call my boss and tell on me if I was late with a tape?