HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaron@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Aaron Watters)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: the age of aquarius
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:21:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I'm interested in past published predictions made for the year 2000
-- no matter how mundane, absurd, or profound, or whether they
came true.  Please email me any that come to mind with a reference
to where it was published.  I will summarize if there is interest.
  -aaron
From: fly@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul D. Fly)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Working on the road
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:56:40 GMT
Organization: UB

Okay, as a new subject, how's this:  Something I've been mulling over a bit
in between meals :)   ...there are some kinds of jobs these days that don't
require people to "go to the office" every day.  Maybe they need to meet
with co-workers once a week, maybe more, maybe less.  I would think some
kinds of programming jobs would fall into this category.  Quite possibily
as electronic communication becomes more sophisticated, face-to-face meeting
could be required less and less.  Add to that powerful portable computers,
and cheaper communications and remote phones (hopefully!), and what will
happen.  Why can't you have people who live in RVs, driving here and there
around the country now and then, setting up temporary residences in
parks etc, and working over their computer.  Maybe once a year they go
to a big meeting in a company headquarters, etc.

Possible?

-- 
Paul Fly                      | "Thinking is more interesting than knowing,
fly@acsu.buffalo.edu          |  but less interesting than looking."
v092pxca@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |    --Goethe
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Saturday, 25 Jul 1992 14:28:30 EDT
From: Geru Solomon <GSOLOMO@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject:    Groupware: Why do people seem to work better in groups?

Do you believe people working in groups in businesses will continue?  Do you be
lieve collaboration leads to better ideas? I am interested in the new concept o
f groupware being used in businesses such as Lotus Notes and the Coordinator.
Have you any thoughts or ideas to express on these subjects?  Gerri
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: "Paying = Knowing"
Date: 20 Jul 92 02:42:00 GMT
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 064, Message 3 of 5

In recent Digests, it has been stated that the party paying for a call
is entitled to know the number of the phone at the other end, for
example, ANI on an 800 number.

In a recent discussion with a GTE media representative, I was told that
"Call Return" would not be offered with the initial GTE CLASS services,
because returning a toll call would disclose the number.  The rep said
there was some thought to modifying the billing system to blank out the
last four digits of the number.

  =====================================================================
  = sua cuique voluptas              (everyone has his own pleasures) =
  = Randy Gellens            randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com =
  = >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< =
  = Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself =

                          Randomly selected tag:

Please ignore previous fortune.
From: ole!rwing!peterm@nwnexus.wa.com (Peter Marshall)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries
Date: 18 Jul 92 16:55:23 GMT
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 064, Message 2 of 5

Would appreciate comments on the following scenario:

Although libraries and related professional groups have traditionally been
strong defenders of user/patron information privacy and have reflected this'
posture in appropriate policy statements; an expected confluence or somewhat
predictable interplay of a number of influences on the horizon would appear to
present some emerging issues of privacy/information integrity for the library
environment of kind that are unlike those libraries are used to dealing with.

Some of the influences coming into increasing play in this library environment
might include increasing automation and use of information technologies, and an
increasing movement in the direction of imposing fees for services that, in
large measure, employ just this automation and such technologies.

According to this scenario, the rather predictable consequence would, in the
primry instance, be one of significant increase in the flow, and the nature and
quantity of transaction-generated information; which, in turn, would involve
a rather new set of both internal and external interests in access to, and uses
of, such TGI; thus giving rise to a resulting set of emerging, and, for 
libraries, non-traditional, emerging questions of information privacy.

Related questions having to do with commoditizing information, and 
commercialization and privatization, may also be of relevance in such a
scenario as they are in other privacy areas; and such tendencies may be
facilitated by ideological influences provided, for example, by REINVENTING
GOVERNMENT.

Peter Marshall
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:45:51 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 064, Message 5 of 5



        I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
        Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
        over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
        with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely
        invertantly, to overhear a conversation between the Personel
        Director of the company I was working for, and the local
        Personel Manager, discussing imminent staff redundancies. 
        Pure coincidence, of course, but a systematic search is not
        unrealistic.

        Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police
        radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information
        received?


---
 ~ PQ 2.15 194 ~ 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email:    keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis


--
ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371 Call for details!
ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: 800 numbers (Re: Caller ID decision)
Date: 24 Jul 92 22:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 066, Message 3 of 6

David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:

> Rather I see a tradition over at least the last couple decades that no one
> knows who is calling until the person identifies him or herself.

Of course this has been the result of technological limitations, not a
matter of conscious, determined policy. In every means of electronic
communication that has been developed since the telephone, if the
technology exists, a positive ID of the message originator has been
built into the system. Due to the relatively early emergence of the
telephone and the widespread flexibility of its connective scope, only
recently has the technology been available to provide positive ID of
the message originator. Naturally, the breaking of custom and usage
will always inspire an anti-technology backlash contingent, but as with
all dynamic fields it will just be a matter of time until Caller ID will
be taken for granted.

In the meantime, we have to go through all the requisite gyrations.

-- 
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !
From: idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re:  SSN & TV rental
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:42:25 GMT
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 067, Message 2 of 7

SSN's march on.  I wanted to rent a TV for the two weeks of the Olympics
(not owning one myself).  So they wanted the driver's license and SSN along
with the names of six friends.  They said this was so they could find the
TV if a renter skipped.  The two places I called, for some reason, both
volunteered that they didn't do a credit check, only that they'd verify
the friends.

Well, I could see the sense of that but naturally I couldn't give my SSN.
(Really, now, would I be on this list if I were willing to do that?)
So I said that I certainly could understand their need to protect their
property, could I speak to the manager?  

I then offered to put the entire value of the TV down as a cash deposit.
Not a credit card chit -- actual hundred dollar bills.  Shucks, I'd make
the deposit be LIST price, not the street price!  All in the legitimate
effort to respect their security interest in the TV.

No dice.  So I asked if anyone had ever approached them this way, wanting
to bypass the checking procedure with a 100% cash deposit?  (You know the
answer...)  No, no one ever had.  No one ever had a problem with giving
the SSN.

Yup.  I have no doubt they're right.  I even explained that I was trying
to be ethical rather than, say, "buying" a TV from a store with a liberal
return policy and bringing it back in two weeks.  Oh well.  (I wound up
bowworing one from a friend.  All upper-middle class households have a
few extra anyway.)

It probably isn't worth the trouble, but does anyone know if there is a
way around this in California?

Regards,

Mark Bell  Los Angeles   "All opinions my own, not speaking for anyone else."
From: keelings@wl.aecl.ca
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:26:27 GMT
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 068, Message 7 of 7

In a previous article, ole!rwing!peterm@nwnexus.wa.com (Peter Marshall) wrote:
>Would appreciate comments on the following scenario:
	.
	.
	.
>Related questions having to do with commoditizing information, and 
>commercialization and privatization, may also be of relevance in such a
>scenario as they are in other privacy areas; and such tendencies may be
>facilitated by ideological influences provided, for example, by REINVENTING
>GOVERNMENT.

	My only comment would be "What the heck does all this bureaucratic
mumbo-jumbo mean in English?!?" "...commoditizing information..."?!?

  ......................................................................
  keelings@wl.aecl.ca wp33::keelings    AECL Research - Whiteshell Labs. 
  ..programmer/analyst, DTD/ESAB/SDS    Pinawa, Man., Canada     R0E 1L0
  ....Voice: 204-753-2311; loc. 2309....Fax: 204-753-2455...............
From: lenoil@apple.com (Robert Lenoil)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision
Date: 18 Jul 92 17:11:47 GMT
Organization: Robert S. Lenoil, Independent Consultant
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 064, Message 1 of 5

In article <comp-privacy1.62.3@pica.army.mil> mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berc
h) writes:
>This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.
>Cellular customers pay air time for incoming calls (which are generally
>free to callers in the area), but incoming calls are listed on the bill
>with the customer's own cellular number (in most cases, mine included),
>or simply as "INCOMING" on other systems' bills.

That's not the same thing as 800 service. I still pay standard phone charges
to call you on your cellular phone. The fact that you have opted for a phone
service that charges you for incoming calls is your business, not mine.

Robert Lenoil
From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re:  Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 066, Message 6 of 6


In article <comp-privacy1.63.3@pica.army.mil> MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com writes:
>[I can understand it being illegal to tap one's own phone, and also
>that evidence received through government (police) misconduct should
>be suppressed.  It also makes sense to me that if you illegally tap
>your phone, you shouldn't be able to profit from it, such as by using
>the tapes in a civil suit.  But if the government had no hand in
>making the tape (didn't put you up to it, etc.), then the tape should
>be usable in a criminal case. -- RCG]
>
>[Moderator's Note:  I wonder if it would be legal for me to put a sign on
>my door stating that entrance into my apartment implies consent for
>recording of that person and a trap on my phone that states staying on
>the line implies consent for me to record the conversation.  After all
>the government does it with thier installations. _dennis]

I posted this article to alt.conspiracy today before i discovered
this group, which seems more appropriate...

The question relevant to this thread is would evidence gleaned by
a hotel employee hold up in court?

G
 --------

First of all, you have to take this as hearsay - the guy who told me this
info said that he did the things I'm describing personally; but I don't
know his name or where exactly he works - it was a chance meeting on
a recent vacation trip to the US.

This guy I met told me he was a senior employee of Howard Johnsons -
not a manager, but a worker.  He said that he and his staff regularly
listened in on guest's telephone calls, and that they had a way of
monitoring all calls at once.  He reckoned his hotel was often used
by drug dealers, and that several well publicised drug busts had
come through info he and his staff had passed on to police.

He gave the impression that his hotel was no exception - that police
forces in many places use hotel staff to monitor hotel phones for
them and report anything suspicious.  It isn't an organised operation
I should add - they don't do this *all* the time - just (it sounded
to me) when they're bored.

Still, it's chilling to think that when you use a hotel phone you're
more likely to be monitored than not.  And the thought that H-J's
phone system has special features to allow all lines to be ganged
together for simultaneous listening, followed by a way of scanning
through them to find a particular call amongst the 'cocktail party
effect', is a bit worrying...

G
From: augy@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Jeffrey Ehlinger)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: cellnet privacy?
Date: 23 Jul 92 23:01:51 GMT
Organization: The Tower of Zot - (716)691-3865
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 065, Message 4 of 5


keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes:
> 
>         I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
>         Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
>         over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
>         with a cheap shortwave scanner?  I managed, completely
>         invertantly, to overhear a conversation between the Personel
>         Director of the company I was working for, and the local
>         Personel Manager, discussing imminent staff redundancies. 
>         Pure coincidence, of course, but a systematic search is not
>         unrealistic.
>         Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police
>         radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information
>         received?

     I have listened to these types of conversations before on a scanner 
after a modification of the radio to recieve 800's. Although the ethics i 
have heard concerning such activities states that one can listen BUT 
cannot repeat the information to anyone. 
     Is that what you mean by "act on the information"
     Could someone clear this up for us?

==========================================================================
** Mail to: Augy@toz.buffalo.ny.us        <<<Tower of Zot>>> Bflo, NY   **
** Or Prodigy Mail me: HKXS18B                                          **
** The bus came by and I got on, that's when it all began!              **
From: mo@world.std.com (Maurice O'Donnell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: IRS: ssn for my kids ?
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:00:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 068, Message 4 of 7

To get a jump on the beginning of the year tax questions.

I don't want to get ssn's for my kids just yet.  does anyone know what
I have to do to convince the IRS that they in fact exist?

[Moderator's Note:  I think the tax reform act of 1986 requires it for
children over 2 years of age.  ._dennis ]
-- 
     Maurice O'Donnell                                    +---------^>
                                                          |    *   <
internet---> mo@world.std.com                             +-.-----. \   7
uucp-------> uunet!world!mo                                        \_\_/
From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: SSN & TV rental
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:24:15 GMT
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 068, Message 6 of 7


idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell) writes:
: 
: I then offered to put the entire value of the TV down as a cash deposit.
: Not a credit card chit -- actual hundred dollar bills.  Shucks, I'd make
: the deposit be LIST price, not the street price!  All in the legitimate
: effort to respect their security interest in the TV.
: 
: No dice.  So I asked if anyone had ever approached them this way, wanting
: to bypass the checking procedure with a 100% cash deposit?  (You know the
: answer...)  No, no one ever had.  No one ever had a problem with giving
: the SSN.
:
   This just goes to show that the 'manager' of this place was an idiot.
He was following some coporate policy to the letter when it was obviously
the wrong thing to do in this case.  I have worked in retail and believe
me, any intelligent businessperson would have accepted the cash deposit.
   Of course most of those rental places are set up to basically rip-off
low income families.  Any one with an IQ above room temperature probably
couldn't stomach working there for long. 

--

*******************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck     DoD #496  ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu                            *
*******************************************************************************
From: mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision (are cellular providers telcos?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:19:10 GMT
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, 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 064, Message 4 of 5


In the referenced article, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com> writes:
> 
> > This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.
> 
> I disagree. Cellular providers are not in the position to either make
> or break "telephone tradition". As entities that are neither LEC nor
> IEC, whatever a cellular provider does or does not do applies only to
> itself. There is not even any consistency, standard, or tradition among
> the hundreds of providers across the country. The rules and procedures
> change on apparent whim. Cellular providers have a long way to go
> before they can claim "telephone company" status.

John, (as usual) I agree with you, or in this case I should say I wish
I could agree with you, but let's face it, cellular providers are de
facto LECs.  The fact that they collectively seem to be run by a set
of people who have no deep knowledge of, or respect for, telecom tradition 
and usage notwithstanding, they're telcos.  "Ya gets yer service, ya
dials yer number, and ya pays the bill."  

And rather than having tradition and usage rub off on them, I fear the
opposite will occur, and real (landline) service will end up looking
more like cell service.  You know, where you can't even report a
network outage after office hours.  

> So I will restate Mr. Forrette's position: tradition and usage dictates
> that the party paying for the call knows the calling number. This is
> true on 800 service, both in real time and on billing; collect calls;
> and even on third-party calls where the billed party is not a
> participant, the billed party has the numbers of both ends of the
> conversation.

Just one gloss on the above -- increasingly, in the case of collect
and third party calls, there is no actual NXX-XXXX number on the bill,
merely something like

	FROM SAN FRAN      CA   PUBLIC PHONE

and I wonder if the information (number of the public phone) is even
permanently recorded, should it ever be a matter of legal, law
enforcement (etc.) interest.  

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@presto.ig.com