HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 15:58:58 -0700
From: Doug Thompson <norsk@mobius.mobius.provo.novell.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
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 116, Message 3 of 11

In article <comp-privacy1.114.4@pica.army.mil>, bjwhitlock@vnet.ibm.com (Brad Whitlock) writes:
> And by the way, do you demand to see the original SSA-issue SSN card?

Alabama recently (last 2 years) began requiring SSN's for all students
entering school. No SSN, no school. 

What's even worse, is they simply REFUSE to accept the number by itself, they
require the actual SSA-issued card. My sister was a week late starting school
because they wouldn't let her in the doors without a SSA-issue card. It
took a week to get a new one made, we had lost the original from when she
was born.


After moving here to utah, my primary school sent home 3 forms
one for each child in that school asking for SSN. After sending a
reply letter stating my reasons for NOT providing the numbers
I went a spoke with the clerk about how it was received.

She said, it was okay, but cause more clerical work to generate
a new number. As they knew that each child already had a number
the SSN became the default. I've been trying for the last year,
since becoming familiar with the SSN problem, of shielding my
kids numbers.

[Moderator's Note:  What do they do if parents refuse to give the
SSN?  It seems to me the best way for parents who want teach their kids
on their own to get around all the legal requirements that one must go
through in order not to send kids to school. ._dennis ]

PS Utah also requires SSN for drivers licences  :-(
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:12:49 GMT
From: Sharon Fisher <slf@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Comm Week article omits PGP
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 118, Message 5 of 9

Sharon Fisher <slf@netcom.com> writes:

>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>>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 I turned in included a reference to PGP; it was cut out in
>the editing process, of which I am not a part.

Shoulda checked before I typed.  PGP was indeed cut for length, but I
did it myself.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:07:02 GMT
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 120, Message 4 of 8


Date Entered: 12-28-92 13:58
John De Armond <jgd@dixie.com> writes:
in Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.118.4@pica.army.mil>

JD> No, not at all.  The states base their law on their right to 
regulate
JD> what equipment is used in a vehicle.  Virginia got burned early on by
JD> confiscating detectors they could not prove was being operated in
JD> the vehicle.  Thus the use of radar detector detectors.  
JD> This is the same basis used to rationalize scanner bans and red/blue
JD> flashing light bans.  Whether this rational would withstand a Supreme Court 
JD> test is anyone's guess.

Interesting discussion, but obviously limited to the US.  In Canada 
the Federal Government, in its infinite wisdom, simply made them 
illegal.  No question of constitutional rights, or court challenge... 
just plain made them illegal...

Obviously the US needs to have its constitution changed, to make it 
possible for the Executive Branch to simply follow the same course, 
for the good of ALL drivers. After all, speed kills. Congress would 
love it, wouldn't they?  Look at all the porkbarreling eliminated this 
way.  US Taxpayers might actually SAVE money, too.

Bob
---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:41:10 GMT
From: Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: UPS Digital Clipboards
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 120, Message 6 of 8

allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:

>I usually get a brick, wrap it in brown paper, and glue the envelope I get
>from other groups on top of the brick, writing on the envelope 'Delivery
>Refused'.  Since the sending company must then pay the extra postage on the
>brick, I seldom get a followup from a company, although one company was stupid
>enough to send me two more notices, so on the third (total) notice from them,
>I wrapped up about four bricks in a small box and glued the envelope on the
>top of this box.  I never got another notice from this company!

What you describe above *is* annoying the companies it gets done to.
So annoying that they got it made *illegal* as "misuse of return postage"
or some such. I don't recall the exact details, but if I were you, I'd
be expecting to get a visit from a postal inspector some fine day...

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:35 EST  
From: Paul Olson <olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Mission Operations and Data Systems
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 118, Message 2 of 9

In article <comp-privacy1.116.1@pica.army.mil>, rj@cadre.com writes...
> 
>While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
>is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime.  This is
>how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
> 
>The problem I have with this is that a radar detector prohibition
>assumes that a crime has or will be commited even though there
>may be no proof of the crime.  The counter argument is that a radar
>detector is good for only one thing: to facilitate the violation
>of speed limits.  This is not good enough.  The law is clear.
>Receivers are always legal unless used to commit a crime.  If
>there is no proof of a crime, there is no crime.

I own a detector and use it for its intended purpose: detecting microwave
emissions!

If the state governments wanted to be serious about curbing the use of radar
detectors (as well as the lack of seat belt use), they could allow the
insurance companies to increase the premium of a driver ticketed for speeding
while using a radar detector.  Hitting people in the wallet is the best way to
modify their behaviour.

> 
>--
>The software engineer's credo:  Eschew Obfuscation
> 
>Rob deFriesse                    Mail:  rj@ri.cadre.com
>Cadre Technologies Inc.          Phone:  (401) 351-5950
>222 Richmond St.                 Fax:    (401) 351-7380
>Providence, RI  02903
> 
>I don't speak for my employer.

       __  Paul J. Olson - VAX Systems Manager & Resident Amiga Addict 
  C=  ///  Voice -     301/286-4246, 301725-5501                       
 __  ///   DECnet-    DSTL86::OLSON                                    
 \\\///    Internet - olson@dstl86.gsfc.nasa.gov                       
  \XX/     Disclaimer: Statements in my messages are wholely my own.   
  AMIGA    "[the universe originated] as a quantum fluctuation         
            of absolutely nothing." - Guth & Steinhardt
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:27:23 GMT
From: Leonard Erickson <leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Ownership of Telephone Numbers
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 6 of 11

KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil writes:

>I don't know if this applies to private residence numbers, but recently, MCI 
>has been advertising in California that if you want lower rates on your 
>800-number charges, you can transfer from Pacific Telephone and TAKE YOUR 
>800-NUMBER WITH YOU.  This kind of implies that the number belongs to you, 
>not to the telco.

800 numbers are a special case. They are being made "portable" so that you
can change long distance companies without the penalty of having to get all
your business cards, ads, etc reprinted.

800 numbers are just a translation table lookup anyway. They merely "map"
to a specific "normal number".

Regular phone numbers are most *definitely* owned by the phone company.
Ask the folks who have had their number changed when the phone company
put in a new exchange here!


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:54:57 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
Organization: I.E.C.C.
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 120, Message 1 of 8

>I think the reason for kids needing SSN to enter school and kids having
>them by the time is so that the Feds can better track abducted kids.

I'll bet anyone a dollar that the school merely writes down the alleged
SSN provided for each kid without any verification.  A kidnapper (or more
likely a parent fleeing an abusive spouse) with the brains of a chipmunk
would give a fake SSN.

As has often been noted before, one of the reasons that the SSN is a poor
choice of ID is that it is so easy to make one up.  Practically any nine
digit string starting with 0 through 5 is a valid SSN.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl
Date: 21 Dec 1992 11:54:07 -0500
From: Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@graphics.cornell.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Digital Licenses in NY State
Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 117, Message 4 of 9

In <comp-privacy1.113.6@pica.army.mil> James Hess <jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu> writes:

>In article <comp-privacy1.109.1@pica.army.mil> Mitch Collinsworth <mkc@graphics.cornell.edu> writes:

>>But then a few days later I walked into the polling place for the
>>primary election and was presented with a new form of sign-in book in
>>which I was instructed to sign below my name.  The book was clearly the
>>output of a laser printer.  My name appeared twice, once in type and
>>once in a pixel reproduction of my signature.  I decided it was already
>>too late...


>>Needless to say, I voted for the candidate who said we need to reduce
>>government rather than the one who wanted to expand it.

>Not to question your politics, but remember that Bush was director of the CIA,
>which is not noted for its concerns for privacy or legality.  Ask yourself,
>which parts of government did he propose to reduce or expand?  Of course, 
>if you run the country off the books, through Ollie North, you can reduce
>the visible government...  ;-)

Not to question your intelligence, but I didn't say which party I belong
to.  I also don't recall there being a Republican primary for presidential
candidates in New York State.  What makes you think I was referring to
Bush?

-Mitch Collinsworth
 mitch@graphics.cornell.edu
Date: 20 Dec 92 01:36:57 GMT
From: Eric Hunt <bsc835!ehunt%bsc835bsc.edu@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V1
Organization: Birmingham-Southern College
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 4 of 11


> Alabama recently (last 2 years) began requiring SSN's for all students
> entering school. No SSN, no school. 
>
> [Moderator's Note:  Is this colleges, high schools, or primary schools?
>  ._dennis ]

It was her 10th grade year. She's in the 11th now. Public School. Very pissed
off mother, incedentally. "If the number is good for the IRS, by god it should
be good enough for [insert principal's name]" [grin]
-- 
Eric Hunt                     | bsc835!ehunt@uunet.uu.net (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College   | eric.hunt@the-matrix.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254     |          ^--- Nothing longer than 100 lines
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:24:21 GMT
From: Alan Heckman <oracle!us.oracle.com!aheckman@uunet.uu.net>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Schools and SSN
Organization: Oracle 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 118, Message 7 of 9

I think the reason for kids needing SSN to enter school and kids having
them by the time is so that the Feds can better track abducted kids.
--

Alan J. Heckman                My opinions...
Oracle Corporation             
HP Products Division
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:37:14 GMT
From: The Jester <ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
Organization: Republicans for Sanity
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 2 of 11


In article <comp-privacy1.114.5@pica.army.mil> StarOwl@uiuc.edu (StarOwl) writes:
>Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
>detectors was technically a violation of federal law.  I think
>there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's,
>which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere
>in the electromagnetic spectrum.



Well then I know of at least one instance where that law was amended
and this has A LOT to do with privacy. As has been pointed out on
this group before, making a Cellular telephone call is like talking
to the other party on a loud speaker. Well fearful of giving the
general public a viable encryption medium for cellular telephone,
the congress passed a law making it illegal to listen in to that
frequency. I'd say I'm constantly amazed by the idiocy of congress,
but to be honest, nothing much surprises me anymore.

				The Jester

-- 
		The Jester
	PGP v2 Key available via finger
   Hit Me, Beat Me, Make me Program in Assembly
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 07:17:09 EST
From: Dave Niebuhr <dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Sallie Mae and SSNs
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 116, Message 8 of 11

One of my daughters recently obtained a student loan guaranteed by
Sallie Mae, the quasi-governmental agency created to purchase these
loans made by banks and other financial institutions, similar to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The problem is that Sallie Mae uses my SSN, not my daughter's, as
the account number.  I called Sallie Mae and the person on the
other side stated that he couldn't do anything about it and that
I should address a letter to his supervisor (naturally).

I've done that and have yet to receive any response.  

While filling out the forms for financial aid (many of them), I
didn't see one instance of the Privacy Act being stated; I complained
about that too.

I am curious to see what answers (non-answers) that I receive.

Dave

Dave Niebuhr      Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:41:23 GMT
From: Sharon Fisher <slf@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Comm Week article omits PGP
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 117, Message 6 of 9

oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>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 I turned in included a reference to PGP; it was cut out in
the editing process, of which I am not a part.
Date:  Fri, 18 Dec 92 23:04:17 EST
From:  Brinton Cooper <abc@brl.mil>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject:  [Jerry Bryan: Blockbuster Video]
Organization:  The US Army Research Laboratory
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 7 of 11


Jerry Bryan <BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu> writes...

> ...Blockbuster Video...   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.

I recall Blockbuster wanting a credit card number so that they could
charge me if I returned a tape late or not at all.  I balked and asked
if there were an alternative.  The alternative was a one-time fee of
$5.00.  This seems to be an insurance premium (perhaps self-insurance)
to indemnify them against loss of property.  Seemed reasonable, so I
paid it.  I didn't tell them my SSN or where I worked.  This was several
years ago.

_Brint
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:41:25 CUT
From: Dewey Coffman <ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey@ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: CA Privacy Hotline
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 118, Message 9 of 9

	This was forwarded to me by someone who's name has been lost.

California consumers who feel their privacy has been invaded now have a
hotline to call to report their problem and receive helpful
information.  The California Privacy Rights Clearinghouse went on line
this week at 1-800-773-7748.  Gabriela Castelan reports...

Telemarketing calls, junk mail, eavesdroppers on cellular and cordless
phones and problems with credit reporting agencies top the list of
privacy concerns being reported to the new privacy hotline.  Beth
Givens is the project director of the hotline which is being operated
by the University of San Diego's Center for Public Interest Law.

"I think most of us hold our privacy pretty dear and with the great
sophistication of computers and telecommunications and I must say the
growing sophistication of them, I think more and more people are
feeling that their losing control of their personal information.  And
what we want to do is be able to tell people how they can exert some
influence about how information about them is used, and to some extent
try to control how it's used."

The privacy hotline will compile caller complaints and report them to
state lawmakers.  This is Gabriela Castelan.

Additional quote from Beth Givens (11/11/92)...  "What we're going to
do with all this information is at the end of the year analize the
types of questions that we've gotten and the types of concerns that
Californians are addressing to us and we will be looking at the
existing laws and public utility commission regulations and we will be
writing a policy report making recommendations about ways that people's
privacy can be further protected through laws and regulations.  And we
will be addressing that report to the legislature and to the public
utilities commission."
Date: 23 Dec 92 12:17:01
From: Stephen M Jameson <sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Digital Licenses in NY State
Reply-To: sjameson@atl.dnet.ge.com
Organization: General Electric Advanced Technology Labs
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 119, Message 1 of 7

In article <comp-privacy1.113.6@pica.army.mil> jhess@orion.oac.uci.edu (James Hess) writes:

>>Needless to say, I voted for the candidate who said we need to reduce
>>government rather than the one who wanted to expand it.
>>
>Not to question your politics, but remember that Bush was director of the CIA,
>which is not noted for its concerns for privacy or legality.  Ask yourself,
>which parts of government did he propose to reduce or expand?  Of course, 
>if you run the country off the books, through Ollie North, you can reduce
>the visible government...  ;-)

I do question your politics, if you assume offhand that the Republican
candidate was the one most likely to reduce government.  Government has
expanded substantially under the previous Republican administrations, and will
doubtless expand at least as substantially under the upcoming Democratic
administration.  Any continued expansion of government is a potential threat to
privacy and to all other rights we hold, and is in fact a far more serious
threat than any other non-governmental threats that are discussed in this
group.  This is because while you at least have some choice about your dealings
with private organizations, you generally have none about the necessity to deal
with the government, i.e. you are truly forced to provide the information
simply, for example, to earn a living, or even, in the case of the census, for
being here.  The Libertarian Party, whose candidate Andre Marrou was on the
ballot in all 50 states, is the only major political group with an unambiguous
and consistent committment to the reduction of government and its concomittant
threats to all of our rights, including the right to privacy.


--
Steve Jameson                 General Electric Aerospace / Martin Marietta
sjameson@atl.ge.com           Advanced Technology Laboratories
                              Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 14:19:31 -0500
From: "David I. Dalva" <dave@tis.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: SSN and new baby
Organization: Computer Privacy Digest
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 120, Message 3 of 8

What experience have people in this group had in keeping the SSN of a newborn
private?  I have heard that some hospitals insist on submitting the paperwork
to the Social Security Administration to obtain the number.

Dave