|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #011
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 28 Jan 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 011
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: SSN
FTC Charges Credit Reporting Company
Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Re: Radar Detector Prohib
OP-ED PIECE ON TELEPH
Speed Limits
Unlisted Phone Numbers
W-2's mailed to wrong people
Ohio requires SSN for children to go to school?!!!?
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
[email protected] and administrative requests to
[email protected].
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jonathan Gentry 501 543-7185 <[email protected]>
Date: 15 Jan 93 08:59:48 CST
Subject: Re: SSN
In Message-ID: <[email protected]>, From Rick Tait
<[email protected]>, the moderator writes:
> [Moderator's Note: PGP signature validation was deleted by me.
._dennis
> ]
Why was this done?
[Moderator's Note: The Jester "<[email protected]>" also
asked why. The moderation process changes the message enough so that
the PGP signature validation becomes meaningless. ._dennis ]
------------------------------
From: Jim Haynes <[email protected]>
Subject: FTC Charges Credit Reporting Company
Date: 15 Jan 1993 19:53:33 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
I posted this to comp.privacy, then realized that comp.society.privacy
is where the action is...
A little item in today's newspaper says the Federal Trade Commission
has charged Trans Union Corp. with using sensitive, federally protected
credit information from its consumer database to compile mailing lists
it sold to telemarketers and direct mail operations, "for purposes not
permitted under the law."
Then there was a piece in the next day's news about, as I recall, TRW
voluntarily ceasing some similar wrongdoing. -- [email protected]
[email protected]
"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!" "No it
aint! But ya gotta know the territory!"
Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"
------------------------------
From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:02:45 GMT
Date Entered: 01-20-93 20:54
"T. Archer" <[email protected]> says, in part:
> I needn't answer that. You are assuming guilt and asking me to prove
> otherwise. That's not the way the law works, nor should it.
Only in some jurisdictions. Try some of the Latin American countries
and see if innocent until proven guilty holds water... it doesn't.
You can also try China, Laos, and several of the countries in Africa.
Further, Radar detectors are now proving dangerous to Greyhound
busses. Seems they have RADAR to help the driver see obstacles in
front of him that are not yet visible to the eye, etc. A car with a
detector passing the bus will have its detector set off, and then the
car's driver tends to slam on the brakes and pull immediately in front
of the bus, causing the driver to slam on his brakes, and all of the
cars immediately behind the bus to follow suit. In bad weather this
can cause a chain reaction crash.... Whether this is due to the radar
detector in the car or the radar in the bus is a moot point, as the
radar is for the safety of the bus and its passengers, while the
detector is for the purpose of avoiding police radar detection of
speeding violations - after all, there is NO other reason to have one
in a car and operating, is there?
If one never exceeds the maximum speed limit or drives under the
minimum speed limit, a radar detector is NOT required. If one
regularly exceeds the top limit, a detector might be the only way to
prevent loss of a driver's license, due to point accumulation. For a
professional driver (Truck, cab driver, messenger, whatever) this is a
livelihood situation. That is why they have detectors, and if any
disbelieves this, ask THEM - they will confirm this statement. It is
the same reason they often use CBs to notify other drivers of police
they spot when travelling the other direction on the highways and
byways of the country. I admit that they also advise re accidents,
dangerous road conditions, and other factors on the CB. They CANNOT
provide such advise using their radar detector. Therefore, I say BAN
THE DETECTOR and make the road safer for the non-speeders. If the
threat of losing one's license to drive is more real, there will be
less speeding. This will reduce the number of high speed accidents,
and the injuries that come from high speed accidents. It will not
eliminate them! It will also do nothing re drunk driving, or drugged
driving. Those are other issues, and still have impact. However,
that they still will exist does not mean that a device whose sole
purpose is to permit violation of speeding laws with greater impunity
should continue to be sold.
A long screed, and one man's opinion only, but any in support of my
position are welcome to join in. Opposition is also welcome, if
anyone can provide me with some reasoned position for continued use of
radar detectors without spouting about the various amendments to the
US Constitution (not applicable in the rest of the world) or nonsense
about a right to listen to the full radio spectrum, which is also
being abrogated by the US govt at the present.
Bob
---
RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
------------------------------
From: Peter Swanson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:06:44 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
In article <[email protected]> oracle!us.oracle.[email protected] (Dave Dargo) wr
>[email protected] (Craig Wagner) writes:
>
>
>> ER> [Moderator's Note: You're underlying assumption is that breaking
>> ER> speed limits is dangerous. This is not necessarily true.
>
>>While it's true that it's "not necessarily true," it's _not_ the case that a
>>driver can _know_ that it's _not_ dangerous, and therefore shouldn't be doing
>>it. He may see no other cars on the road, and the driving conditions may be
>>perfect, but he has no way of knowing precisely the road conditions ahead of
>>him, or whether or not there's a driver waiting to turn onto the road, and
>>expecting any oncoming traffic for which he may be looking to be no further away
>>than could be expected based upon the posted speed limit.
>
>This assumes that the government's posted speed limit is the correct
>speed limit to be able to observe such things based on the road
>conditions. The current max of 65 (still 55 in most places) has
>nothing to do with road conditions or reaction times but rather
>with some vague in-defensible (IMHO) federal government policy.
>
How do you propose to take into account varying road conditions?
The same road that would be safe at 80mph in sunny weather may
be unsafe at 65mph in rain, unsafe at 40mph in fog or blizzard,
and unsafe at 5mph in freezing rain. You don't honestly expect
someone to check road conditions and change the speed limit signs
appropriately, do you? In my travels (often on the 700 mile
stretch of I94 from Detroit to Chicago to Minneapolis) I have rarely
seen anyone slow down for a 65-55mph transition, and I doubt many
people would slow for dynamically updated speed limit signs. Most
people don't slow down in poor visibility conditions such as
darkness or fog, innocuously driving at the speed limit or better
as if it were required (certainly around Detroit and Chicago,
and I assume many other places as well). On an unlit stretch
of road at night, even with bright headlights you can't see far
enough ahead to stop for a fixed object in the road (be it a
deer, person, brick, or jackknifed semi: I've seen them all, even
in the early morning hours). I've also seen or read about dozens
of people killed in bad conditions, striking bridge pylons, pedestrians,
trees, concrete dividers, and an occaisional large truck stopped in the
road, all due primarily to excessive speed. It seems to me that
the 55/65mph speed limits are conservative: in ideal conditions
(low traffic, straight dry road, high visibility) 100mph is safe for many
cars, but conditions are rarely ideal.
>[speeding doesn't hurt rhetoric deleted]
>I doubt that you will find many accidents caused
>solely by excessive speed, but rather by some other contributing
>factor such as whipping in and out of lanes or following two closely
>for the speed being driven.
True, speed *alone* doesn't cause many accidents, but it drastically
lowers your safety margins with such things as decreased response time,
increased braking distance, decreased contact with the road, decreased
visibility (tunnel vision: your peripheral vision diminishes with speed),
and fatigue. Also, in car-car collisions it isn't speed that causes injury,
it is relative speed between vehicles. Allowing higher traffic speeds
allows greater deviations between vehicles: a 55mph car striking a 45mph
car won't cause much injury, but an 85mph car striking a 55mph car may
well kill the occupants of both cars. Lower speed limits permit smaller
variations in traffic speed, and thus fewer fatalities. It is also
difficult to see cars approaching from behind at high speed while still
looking at the road ahead.
Most interstate highways are designed to be safe at speeds of 80mph
under good conditions, with features such as divided highways, banked
curves, and good drainage. I don't have a problem with people doing
80mph on such a road. When conditions aren't ideal, especially at
night or in bad weather, it is necessary to slow down. I think
that 65/55mph is a compromise, a little too slow for good conditions
and a little too fast for poor conditions. I speed, but I also realize
that it isn't just my own life that I risk by doing so. I don't think
many speeders understand this, or care.
--
| Peter J. Swanson | [email protected] |
| PhD Pre-Candidate | controls specialist |
| Electrical Engineering:Systems | Fortunately, ah keep muh feathuhs |
| University of Michigan | numbahd for just such ahn emergency.|
------------------------------
From: Geoffrey Kuenning <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 19:29:54 GMT
In article <[email protected]> [email protected]
(GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
> As one aside from this thread, the radar detector I had in my car was
> stolen. When I informed my insurance company, I was informed that they
> are illegal and therefor not covered by my comprehensive policy. I
> told them that there is no law in colorado regarding their illegality.
> I was then informed that their purpose was to break the law and was not
> covered...
Let me guess: you're covered by GEICO, right?
--
Geoff Kuenning [email protected] [email protected]
------------------------------
From: "Michael D. Adams" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohib
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:30:29 GMT
Apparently-To: [email protected]
oracle!us.oracle.[email protected] (Dave Dargo) writes:
>You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
>if they were actually set based on local road conditions and
>necessary reaction times. Many roads with which I am familiar
>would have limits closer to 100 MPH than the current 55 MPH.
This is really beginning to stray from the purpose of this group, but...
In some states, the law is written in a way such that exceeding
the speed limit is merely apparent evidence of unreasonable
or imprudent speed. A driver can demonstrate that he/she is
innocent by proving that his/her speed was reasonable and safe
with respect to road conditions, traffic, and visibility.
(Of course, that's something that may be difficult to do....)
These states (to the best of my knowledge) include:
AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, ID, MA, MI, MN, NH, OH, OR, RI, TX, and Utah.
>Just my $.02 worth.
and I'm just adding my two zlotys' worth to the pot....
[Moderator's Note: OK. Let's end this thread. It really doesn't belong
here. I will allow posts until Tuesday at which time I will summarize.
._dennis ]
--
Michael D. Adams |"Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois | them from injustice?" -- Lillian Hellman
[email protected] |"Computer, end program!" -- Lt. Barkley at the end
Standard Disclaimers | of ST:TNG, "Ship in a Bottle"
------------------------------
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
From: mvario@inode.com
Subject: OP-ED PIECE ON TELEPH
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:17 GMT
Organization: inode BBS, NYC's Best Usenet Access (212-679-9146)
Sy> I consider myself PRO-PRIVACY and a libertarian. I oppose caller
Sy> ID because the GOVERNMENT can abuse it to compile lists of
Sy> undesirables---political dissidents, "perpetrators" of victimless
Sy> crimes, people with unpopular attititudes, etc.
Sy> I *might* re-consider if free blocking were offered whenever caller-ID
Sy> was in a given region. Then, if you don't like me not identifying
Sy> myself, DON'T ANSWER IT WHEN YOU SEE THAT IT'S BLOCKED.
I don't think CallerID opens any new avenues for governmental
abuse. First off, with the System7 switching software in place
the caller information is there, whether CallerID is made
available or not. CallerID just makes that information available
to the called party.
Secondly, at least in my area (NYNEX), local legislation has
mandated that we have the option of per-call blocking *or* all
calls blocked (upon request) and per-call unblocking.
Corporations with 800 numbers have had access to ANI info for
years, and the governemt has had acces to our phone calls for
even longer (see: INSIDE THE PUZZLE PALACE re the NSA). Call
CallerID does is place some of that power in the hands of the
users.
-Misha
.. RSA proved you could patent math, whats next? Fire?
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
#! rnews 1
------------------------------
Acknowledge-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:13 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Speed Limits
>You would probably find more people willing to obey speed limits
>if they were actually set based on local road conditions and
>necessary reaction times.
For most roads that is exactly how they are set. The highway engineer
collects information on the actual speed travelled and the speed limit
is set at the 85 percentile rounded to the nearest 5 MPH. The exception
to this rule is when the speed limit is set by law; i.e., when it is set
for political reasons.
William Hugh Murray, Executive Consultant, Information System Security
49 Locust Avenue, Suite 104; New Canaan, Connecticut 06840
1-0-ATT-0-700-WMURRAY; WHMurray at DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 21:39 PST
From: John Higdon <[email protected]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[email protected]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Unlisted Phone Numbers
In the ongoing and unending debate about Caller-ID, the whine keeps
coming up over and over: "I have an unlisted number and I intend to
keep it that way", or words to that effect. While there are legitimate
reasons for having an unlisted number, the avoidance of telemarketing
calls is not one of them.
A minor case in point: I have four lines that ring on telephones that
can be picked up by a human. One of them is listed; the other three are
unlisted. I have had this arrangement for many years. Almost nightly,
there is someone calling to sell something. On my listed line? Almost
never does my listed line ring unless it is a legitimate call.
No, virtually 100% of the annoying, random, dinnertime telemarketing
calls come in on the private lines. While wrong numbers outweigh the
sales pitches, it is the private lines that drive me cookoo. If you
have a number that can be dialed, someone will eventually call it and
bother you. And here in sunny California, the crank-caller's paradise,
we have to pick up the phone to find out that it is a worthless call.
Sometimes I think people overrate the value of an unlisted number.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
[email protected] | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
------------------------------
From: Dewey Coffman <[email protected]>
Subject: W-2's mailed to wrong people
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 13:45:05 CUT
Feel free to edit this down to size.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. goofs on some W-2s; copies may be neighbors'
By Ed Jahn, Copley News Service
San Diego, When the government goofed this time, it did it in
triplicate.
Many local civilian employees of the military are finding that out
this week as they get their income-tax forms showing last year's
earnings.
Instead of the top original and two copies of their W-2 statement,
some people are getting the top one with their earnings, but with the
copies showing how much two other civilian employees earned last year.
The mistake also hits close to home, because the forms were grouped
by postal ZIP codes.
"I had the statement for a neighbor and he had one for a guy up
the street," said Patricia Armijo, a computer programmer with the
Naval Computer Telecommunication Station at North Island Naval Air
Station.
"It doesn't bother me so much that it happened, it's just that
they didn't catch it," Armijo said. "Somebody else at work who had
the same problem warned me or I would have done what I usually do and
waited until the last minute to file my tax form, and had a real
problem."
The mistake had officials chagrined at the Department of Defense
Financial and Accounting Service in Washington, D.C.
"Alas, it's true," said Jean Marie Ward, public affairs officer
for the service that handles payrolls.
"The (Department of Defense) contracts out most of our printing
jobs and it appears one of the contractors had a problem in aligning
the forms," Ward said.
"Pay is about the most intimate issue you can have with someone
who works for you," she said. "Things got screwed up. We will make
sure it gets fixed."
At the Naval Hospital in Balboa Park, the snafu had one employee
seething. "The government puts so much emphasis on employees
protecting government secrecy and then they do this," he said, asking
that he not be quoted by name.
"Here they are cranking out 200,000 forms without any quality
control, and it's going to be redone at an enormous cost to the
government," he said.
"And I've got neighbors who know how much I made last year."
Ward said that although there are nearly 1 million civilian
employees of the military, only a fraction appear to be affected by
the error.
In San Diego, there are about 28,000 civilians working for the Navy
and Marine Corps. And not all of them were affected by the foul-up.
"We haven't got a firm fix on the total number or many other
details," Ward said. It looks like only tax forms sent from the
regional offices in Colorado were improperly aligned, she added.
The snafu leaves people without enough proper printouts to submit
for federal and state income tax, and still have one to keep for
personal records.
Although some people said they were mailing the extra tax
information on to the two other people involved, Ward said it was best
to "just destroy all the materials that don't belong to you. If you
don't feel good about that, just wait for further instructions."
She said the Internal Revenue Service has been contacted and has
advised that photocopies of the original form are acceptable. "So if
you positively have to file your tax forms tonight, go ahead and copy
the original."
In the past, local civilian employees were paid out of the local
Navy payroll, according to Ken Mitchell, a public affairs officer for
North Island whose forms arrived without error.
"Six months ago, the Department of Defense switched over to a new
system that uses computer printouts," he said. The perforated sheets
were misaligned when fed through a machine that glues them together,
something that didn't happen when the Navy used carbon paper, he
explained.
#######
------------------------------
From: Paul Scheidler <[email protected]>
Subject: Ohio requires SSN for children to go to school?!!!?
Keywords: Ohio SSN privacy or lack thereof
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:15:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.privacy
Hello fellow privacy seekers,
With all the privacy related problems with almost every organization
using your SSN, I decided to delay getting a SSN for my kids until they
are have income and need a SSN for tax purposes. Now I am starting the
process of getting my oldest registered for kindergarden and I am
informed by the school that the state of Ohio requires a SSN for the
child to go to school. If you don't have one, they will assign you a
temporary number until you get your official SSN. I have not fully
investigated the actual law, but I plan on fighting this law.
What are my options here? Can they deny my child an education because
she is not numbered?
Any hints or comments are welcome.
Thanks in advance,
Paul Scheidler.
[Moderator's Note: Ask them what they will do if you refuse to get a SSN
for your kids. I think they will back down as there is a requirement for
your kids to go to school. There is a small movement of parents who
would rather teach their kids at home rather than send them to school.
The public school establishment is against this movement and have been
fighting it. If refusal to provide SSNs is all it takes to be able
not to register kids in school it going to make life easier for those
parents who prefer to teach their kids at home. Take a stand and force
the issue. ._dennis ]
[email protected]
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #011
******************************
|
|
