PRIVACY Forum Digest     Friday, 5 November 1993     Volume 02 : Issue 34

          Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
            Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
	
                     ===== PRIVACY FORUM =====

   	  The PRIVACY Forum digest is supported in part by the 
	      ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy.


CONTENTS 
	PRIVACY Briefs (Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator)
	Re: Politics is private property in the panopticon society 
	   (Andy Sherman)
	Re: Conviction after 30 years (Warren R. Carithers)
	Re: Swiss weapons (Martin Minow)
	"On the Road to Nosiness?" (Dan Gillmor)
	CLI News from Spain - Nov. 1, '93 (Rafael Fernandez Calvo)
	Privacy Advocate (Prof. L. P. Levine)
	Re: Computer Fingerprint Matching (Tom Olin)
	NII Call for Action (Al Whaley)
	Help with SSN question (Brad Dolan)
	Privacy of Card Reader Systems (Dave Millar)
	Commercials in phone calls (chris@efi.com)


 *** Please include a RELEVANT "Subject:" line on all submissions! ***
            *** Submissions without them may be ignored! ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and
analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal
and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond.  The
moderator will choose submissions for inclusion based on their relevance and
content.  Submissions will not be routinely acknowledged.

ALL submissions should be addressed to "privacy@vortex.com" and must have
RELEVANT "Subject:" lines; submissions without appropriate and relevant
"Subject:" lines may be ignored.  Excessive "signatures" on submissions are
subject to editing.  Subscriptions are by an automatic "listserv" system; for
subscription information, please send a message consisting of the word
"help" (quotes not included) in the BODY of a message to:
"privacy-request@vortex.com".  Mailing list problems should be reported to
"list-maint@vortex.com".  All submissions included in this digest represent
the views of the individual authors and all submissions will be considered
to be distributable without limitations. 

The PRIVACY Forum archive, including all issues of the digest and all
related materials, is available via anonymous FTP from site "ftp.vortex.com",
in the "/privacy" directory.  Use the FTP login "ftp" or "anonymous", and
enter your e-mail address as the password.  The typical "README" and "INDEX"
files are available to guide you through the files available for FTP
access.  PRIVACY Forum materials may also be obtained automatically via
e-mail through the listserv system.  Please follow the instructions above
for getting the listserv "help" information, which includes details
regarding the "index" and "get" listserv commands, which are used to access
the PRIVACY Forum archive.  All PRIVACY Forum materials are also
available through the Internet Gopher system via a gopher server on
site "gopher.vortex.com".

For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please
send an inquiry to privacy-fax@vortex.com, call (818) 225-2800, or FAX
to (818) 225-7203.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOLUME 02, ISSUE 34

   Quote for the day:

	"Every boy wants a Remco toy... and so do girls."

		-- Modified 1960's advertising slogan for the Remco
		   toy manufacturing company.  Their original
		   slogan did not include the "and so do girls"
		   phrase.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Briefs (from the Moderator)

---

A controversy has arisen over a recent case where a police officer, who was
listening to cellular phone channels with a radio scanner, overheard a
conversation which led him to a crime (robbery) in progress and associated
arrests.

The problem: Under U.S. federal law, it is illegal to monitor cellular phone
channels without an appropriate warrant.  There was no warrant in this case,
since the conversation was heard during random scanning of cellular calls.

Many legal experts seem to feel that the arrests may be invalidated due to
the apparently improper use of the cellular scanner, much as evidence may
be invalidated through the use of other improper procedures.

Comments?

---

The U.S. Social Security Administration is reported to be considering using
federal prisoners to transcribe requests for information from callers
leaving recorded messages on their inquiry numbers.  While the SSA points
out that prisoners would not have access to SSA records, concerns have been
raised (by members of Congress and other parties) that the handing over of
names, addresses, and presumably social security numbers of callers to
convicted felons, may not be in the best interests of personal privacy.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 28 Oct 93 07:56:40 EDT
From:    andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: politics is private property in the panopticon society 

>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 93 10:38:53 -0400, sorenjs@pb.com (Jeffrey S. Sorensen)
>>>>> said:
sorenjs> According to the article, a company called _Scanners_ out of
sorenjs> Denver will "fax a list of toll calls made by anyone,
sorenjs> anywhere, for up to $125."  (No doubt the company takes their
sorenjs> name from the movie about people who make your blood boil and
sorenjs> your veins pop out on your head.)  It seems that while the
sorenjs> content of calls is private and cannot be monitored without a
sorenjs> court order, the billing information is not protected.

This puzzled me greatly when it appeared in the Telecom Digest, too.
When I was at AT&T, the code of conduct that I signed asserted that
call detail is Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), and
that it is illegal to disclose CPNI without the customer's consent.
To do so also results in immediate dismissal.  So how can Scanners
claim that it's legal for them to sell CPNI?  *SOMEBODY* had to break
the law for them to get it.

I can't speak about MCI or Sprint, or the tons of little Mom and Pop
storm door and phone companies, but I know that AT&T and the RBOCs
have typically refused to disclose anything without papers signed by a
judge.
--
Andy Sherman
Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 28 Oct 1993 08:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:    wrc@cs.rit.edu (Warren R Carithers)
Subject: Re: conviction after 30 years

> Question: Is the use of computer technology to provide such a 
> "match," long after most other evidence has been lost or is no
> longer available, a positive or negative development?

As is the case with many technological improvements, this one provides a
mixed blessing.  Certainly, in some cases, this capability will merely
provide confirmation of the "story" told by other evidence; in cases such
as the one cited, however, I worry that the computer match will be taken
as absolute truth because/in spite of the lack of additional evidence.

I don't know any of the other details of this case, so I don't know
what other evidence existed.  The man claimed to have been in "military
training" at the time - presumably this was verified by the prosecution?
Were there any other connections between the accused and the victim?  I
find it disturbing, however, to think that a jury would convict *solely* on
the basis of a fingerprint match between a 30-year-old sample and a current
one, regardless of how the match was achieved (by computer, or by manual
comparison).

--
Warren R. Carithers, RIT Department of Computer Science, Rochester NY 14623-5608
Internet:  wrc@cs.rit.edu, wrcics@ultb.isc.rit.edu      (716) 475-2288
BITNET:    wrcics@ritvax.bitnet                     FAX (716) 475-7100

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 28 Oct 93 09:10:11 -0700
From:    Martin Minow <minow@apple.com>
Subject: re: Swiss weapons

In a note to Privacy, Paul Robinson wrote,

> ...(okay to commit any crime since you probably won't do time.)  In
> Switzerland by law every male is required to keep in their house, loaded,
> a FULLY AUTOMATIC machine gun which the government gives them.  Gun homicides
> are rare there.

I believe that this is incorrect regarding Switzerland. There, members
of the armed forces (active and reserve, which includes most Swiss male
citizens) generally keep their military personal arms at home. Ammunition
is, however, kept in sealed containers (and it is a court-martial offense
to break the seal except under orders). However, if the military doesn't
trust you (or you are female or don't have a military need for a personal
weapon), you don't get a machine gun. My source for this is John McFee's
book on the Swiss military, which I recommend highly.

Martin Minow
minow@apple.com

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 16:44:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor@det-freepress.com
Subject: "On the Road to Nosiness?"

 [ Used with permission -- MODERATOR ]

 DETROIT FREE PRESS
 DATE: MONDAY October 18, 1993
 BYLINE:  DAN*GILLMOR*

		 Copyright 1993 Detroit Free Press

                      ON THE ROAD TO NOSINESS?
                THE SAME GEAR THAT WOULD SMOOTH OUT
             TRAFFIC JAMS COULD BE USED TO SNOOP ON YOU

     The next time you're stuck in stop-and-go traffic, steaming
 because you're late, consider the promise of smarter cars and
 highways. Then consider the possible impact on your privacy.

     The idea  behind intelligent vehicle highway systems
 --IVHS, the in-crowd acronym for smart cars and highways -- is
 alluring. By using computers and other electronic gear, we
 could squeeze many more cars, trucks  and buses onto existing
 highways and help everyone get where he or she is going more
 quickly and reliably.

     IVHS is just one of the advances in communications and
 information technology that are  transforming our lives. But it
 also could let government and private snoops peer into our
 lives in new and scary ways.

     "There is a lot of good that can come from IVHS if it's
 done right, but there's  also a need to assure that privacy and
 individual rights are maintained," says U.S. Rep. Bob Carr, D-
 Mich., a strong advocate of IVHS.

     IVHS isn't a single technology. It's an expanding grab-bag
 of gadgets, computers and brains. Among them:

 * An experiment now under way in Oakland County. Cameras keep
 track of traffic on  major streets. They relay information to a
 computer that tells the traffic  lights when to turn green,
 yellow and red. The result, according to road officials, is
 smoother-flowing traffic.

 * Projects in Europe and Japan. One is Prometheus, a European
 system designed to help  cars avoid collisions, plus in-car
 computers that give information on how to steer around
 congestion.

 * Pathfinder, a California-based car-to-computer communication
 system that includes dashboard displays  about upcoming traffic
 jams.

 * Proposals for electronic tolls -- which economists and
 traffic planners generally agree would be an  efficient way to
 reduce congestion and pay for upkeep. The reasoning,  which
 makes sense, is that you should pay more to use the highway at
 rush hour than at 2 a.m. How would that be done? Highway and
 vehicle sensors, which wouldn't slow traffic like old-fashioned
 toll  booths, would know when you use  the road and bill you
 accordingly.

     Those and other emerging IVHS technologies hold out the
 long-range promise of fully automatic highways and cars: You'd
 get into  your car, tell it where you're going, and the car and
 the roads would do the rest.

     Backers of IVHS include the Big Three automakers,
 Michigan's state government and  its major universities. They
 see a potential mother lode -- much of it likely to be mined
 from taxpayer's pocketbooks -- as well as public benefits.

     Let's think about this.

     Assume for the moment that IVHS actually will  work and be
 affordable.

     What worries me, and ought to worry you, is how IVHS could
 be used to pry into your life. A rule of thumb: The smarter the
 system, the more Big-Brotherish it could be.

     Specifically, the smarter the system, the more easily it'll
 be able to track your every move.

     Oakland County's relatively primitive traffic-control
 system uses cameras, but officials with the  county road
 commission say the cameras only sense motion. They don't
 monitor license plate numbers or take pictures of drivers.

     Spy on motorists? "We're opposed to it and have no
 intention of getting  into it," insists Brent Bair, managing
 director of the Road Commission for Oakland County. "We can't
 afford to get involved in stuff like that."

     I believe him. But questions I'm raising aren't about
 what's here today, but what's coming tomorrow.

     Bair thinks I'm being alarmist. I hope he's right. But
 suppose some future road officials decide to install new
 cameras and higher-capacity transmission  lines, allowing the
 system to scan locations, license-plate numbers and drivers'
 faces into the computer.

     And what about other IVHS systems that include
 communications devices in vehicles that talk  with a central
 computer and get instructions on the best route.  Will the
 computer keep records of where the car has been, and when?

     These concerns apply to electronic tolls and just about all
 other  IVHS technologies. Will the information be used solely
 for traffic control and billing? If not, who should have access
 to it, and for what purposes? We need to answer all of these
 questions now, not  after the fact.

     "Most people are honest and wouldn't misuse the
 information, but we do need protections, just in case," says
 Dale Rubin, professor of law at Willamette College of Law in
 Salem, Ore.,  and the author of several papers on IVHS issues.

     I'm no Luddite who fears anything new; IVHS undoubtedly can
 make our lives better. Still, before we spend a few bazillion
 dollars on this brave new  world of transportation, we should
 consider just how much liberty we're willing to trade for
 mobility and convenience.

                           ******

Dan Gillmor                       Internet: dgillmor@det-freepress.com
Detroit Free Press                CompuServe: 73240,334
306 S. Washington                 313-691-2400 Voice
Royal Oak, MI 48067               313-691-2420 Fax
(Standard disclaimer: Neither the Free Press nor I speaks for the other.)

------------------------------

Date:    Mon,  1 Nov 93 13:42:27 -0100
From:    rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es (Rafael Fernandez Calvo)
Subject: CLI News from Spain - Nov. 1, '93  

    CCCCC  LL     II
   CC      LL     II
   CC      LL     II    --  N E W S   FROM   S P A I N  --- Nov. 1, 1993
    CCCCC  LLLLLL II

 COMMISSION for LIBERTIES
 and INFORMATICS (*)

 DIRECTOR OF DATA PROTECTION AGENCY APPOINTED BY THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Government of Spain has appointed the first Director of the recently
created Data Protection Agency, according to the Data Protection Law
in force since January.

 Juan-Jose Martin-Casallo, a longtime Prosecutor, is his name.
Although he has no special background in the computers, freedom and
privacy area, his record in the field of defense of civil liberties
is outstanding.

 In his new post he will watch over the implementation of the Data
Protection Law along with the Consultative Council of the Data Protection
Agency, a body consisting of nine people representing different entities
(Congress, Senate, Central Administration, Regional Governments,
Municipalities, Council of Consumers, Royal Academy of History, Council
of Universities and Chambers of Commerce). Two of the members of the
Consultative Council belong to CLI (Ms. Elena Gomez-Pozuelo and Mr.
Adolfo Varela, representing the Spanish Association of Direct Marketing
Companies and United Consumers of Spain, respectively).

 CLI, which has been largely consulted by the new Minister of Justice
during the process of creation of the new body, has personally expressed
Mr. Martin-Casallo his willingness to cooperate with the new Agency
in order to improve the chaotic situation existing today in Spain
with regard to the use of computerized personal data by both
Government bodies and private companies.

* SOME WORDS ABOUT CLI

 The --Commission for Liberties and Informatics, CLI-- is an independent
and pluralistic organization that was officially constituted in April
'91.

 Its mission is to "promote the development and protection of
citizens' rights, specially privacy, against misuse of Information
Technologies".

 As of November '93, CLI is composed by nine organizations, with
a joint membership of about 3,000,000 people. They cover a very
wide spectrum of social interest groups: associations of computer
professionals, judges, civil rights leagues, trade unions, consumers
groups, direct marketing industry, etc.

 CLI is confederated with similar bodies created in some other Spanish
Regions such as Valencia, Basque Country and Catalonia, and has fluid
working relationships with many public and private Data Protection bodies
and entities all over the world, including France's CNIL, USA's CPSR and
Privacy International.

 CLI has its headquarters in:

Padilla 66, 3 dcha.
E-28006 Madrid, Spain

Phone: (34-1) 402 9391
Fax: (34-1) 309 3685
E-mail: rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Fernandez-Calvo                        | rfcalvo@guest2.atimdr.es
Member of the Presidential Board of           |
CLI (Comision de Libertades e Informatica)    | (34+1) 402 9391 CLI Phone
    (Commission for Liberties and Informatics)| (34+1) 309 3685 CLI Fax
Padilla 66, 3 dcha., E28006 Madrid Espana     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 1 Nov 1993 15:14:55 -0600 (CST)
From:    "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Subject: Privacy Advocate

The state of Wisconsin recently appointed a Privacy Advocate.  

Carol M. Doeppers, the wife of a UW Geology Professor begins in this
new post 12/1/93 according to an article by Steven Walters in the 
October 27th Milwaukee Sentinel.  The job pays $33,000/year and should
be compared to $100,000/year paid to the state person who tracks
Railroad legislation.

Even with this interesting disparity Wisconsin is the first state in
the union to have such an advocate.  Canada has had one for some time.

Doeppers is not sure just what the job entails, according to the
Sentinel, but intends to be "... keenly concerned" with "the pretty 
rampant collection of identifiable information, much of which is not
relevant."

I am sure there will be more news to come on this.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu |
| Professor, Computer Science             Office (414) 229-5170 |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   (414) 962-4719 |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    (414) 229-6958 |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 1 Nov 93 16:00:42 EST
From:    adiron!tro@uunet.UU.NET (Tom Olin)
Subject: Re: Computer Fingerprint Matching

   A California jury has recently convicted a man of murder, some 30
   years after the event, based solely on a computer fingerprint
   match. ... Question: Is the use of computer technology to provide
   such a "match," long after most other evidence has been lost or is
   no longer available, a positive or negative development?

The merit of *using* such technology is, I think, independent of
whether other evidence is still available.  If the technology works,
it works.

However, I think your question is really whether a conviction on a
single fingerprint is acceptable, given that all other evidence has
been lost.  That's a harder question.  I would be concerned if the
fingerprint is the only piece of evidence used to convict, unless the
print is in an obviously telling location - e.g., in blood, on the
murder weapon.

Tom Olin        PAR Technology Corporation   Tel:(315)738-0600 Ext 638
tro@partech.com           New Hartford, NY   Fax:(315)738-8304

------------------------------

Date:    Tue, 2 Nov 1993 13:13:13 -0800
From:    Al Whaley <Al.Whaley@snyside.sunnyside.com>
Subject: NII Call for Action

	 Date: Mon, 1 Nov 93 14:46:22 PST
	 From: Doug Schuler <schuler@cpsr.org>

              Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

                            NII Call for Action

                                Autumn, 1993

Introduction

The Clinton administration has recently developed an "Agenda for Action" to
develop a National Information Infrastructure (NII), a very high capacity
network for communication of digital information in the United States. While
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) applauds much of
this effort, we feel that there are serious concerns that must be addressed
if this technology is to meet our country's needs and our citizen's
expectations into the 21st Century.

This is a critical technology that transcends entertainment, convenience
shopping, and instant polling. Communication and information are at the core
of a democratic and equitable society.  We believe that the development of
this technology has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of
community and democratic discourse and, hence, is one of the most critical
issues facing us.  We feel that this issue deserves serious and
comprehensive public participation.

Important decisions may be made in the near future with inadequate public
participation.  This document is designed to help spur that participation.
We urge you to contact us with your ideas for what needs to be done, and
your feedback on this call for action.

Motivation

The United States is faced with profound challenges as it prepares to enter
the 21st century.  These include wide disparities in income and economic
opportunity as well as a declining sense of community involvement.  Many of
today's children are growing up in an unsafe environment with little hope
for the future.  These problems may well be exacerbated by a lack of access
to communication and information technology.  We believe that ensuring
affordable access could help increase political participation, improve
economic opportunities, reinvigorate community, and promote opportunities
for lifelong learning.  While not a panacea, technology may be useful in
this area if it is developed with full democratic participation and if
genuine human needs are addressed.

Why a Call for Action?

CPSR has written a policy statement with recommendations for those who will
be building the NII.  This statement was released in conjunction with a
press conference by the Telecommunications Policy Roundtable (TPR), a
coalition group of some 60 public interest organizations.  CPSR's policy
document, entitled "Serving the Community: A Public-Interest Vision of the
National Information Infrastructure", is largely addressed to policy makers.
At the same time, we realize that top-down action from government policy
makers is only one piece of the puzzle.  Action at all levels is required if
the NII is to become a shared national (and ultimately international)
resource.  This call for action is being released simultaneously with the
policy statement.

TPR Principles

The TPR principles represent a consensus view of a variety of public-
interest organizations.  These principles represent as shared desire for an
equitable public space that we can hold in common as a society.  We urge you
to adopt them in any future discussions, proposals, or pilot projects.

 (1)  Universal access.  All people should have affordable access to the
      information infrastructure.

 (2)  Freedom to communicate.  The information infrastructure should
      enable all people to effectively exercise their fundamental right to
      communicate.

 (3)  Vital civic sector.  The information infrastructure must have a
      vital civic sector at its core.

 (4)  Diverse and competitive marketplace.  The information infrastructure
      should ensure competition among ideas and information providers.

 (5)  Equitable workplace.  New technologies should be used to enhance the
      quality of work and to promote equity in the workplace.

 (6)  Privacy.  Privacy should be carefully protected and extended.

 (7)  Democratic policy-making.  The public should be fully involved in
      policy-making for the information infrastructure.

Based on our experience as both users and designers of networking systems
we have formulated an additional principle:

 (8)  Functional integrity.  The NII must be engineered to high
      standards of reliability, robustness, and extensibility.

Opportunities for Action

We believe that substantial effort will be required if the NII is to
live up to the principles outlined above.  Some of this work can be
initiated by individuals and some by organizations at the community,
regional, and national levels.  CPSR at both the national and the
chapter level intends to be a strong player in this effort.  These
objectives will not be realized without a strong diversified and
distributed effort and we hope that you will become involved in this
effort.  We've included a list of possible opportunities actions - there
are lots of others!

  Education and Public Meetings

   + Organize and attend public meetings on the NII
   + Organize and attend study groups on NII issues
   + Write articles and editorial pieces for publication emphasizing the
     eight public-interest principles and their application to specific
     NII proposals and plans.

  Work with Community

   + Help assess community information and services needs
   + Develop criteria for NII related projects and services to evaluate
     whether they support the public-interest principles and address
     community needs
   + Work with local organizations, projects, and networks to develop
     models of how the NII can promote the public good and to ensure that
     the principles are followed
   + Co-design local service and information related pilot projects that
     can be used by others as models

  Work with Government

   + Contact government officials to sponsor hearings and consider NII
     issues
   + Identify government information and services for inclusion on NII.
   + Attend and offer testimony at public hearings
   + Help to develop equitable regulatory approaches to NII
     implementation

  Work with Organizations

   + Work with local cultural, civic, social service, educational, and
     library organizations to develop NII policies, pilot projects, and
     proposals.
   + Work with organizations that are actively working in this area
   + Work with organizations to educate them as to the importance of
     these issues
   + Form coalitions with organizations in this area

  Work with Business

   + Work with businesses to encourage them to acknowledge and support
     public access to the NII
   + Work with businesses to ensure that affordable public access
     systems and concerns are included in technological and regulatory
     development

  Develop and Build Models

   + Develop Community Networks, Free-Nets, Civic Networks, information
     and services cooperative and organizations and conduct other
     experiments in local telecommunications.
   + Communicate goals, concerns, and findings to the rest of the
     community

About CPSR

Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility stands alone as the
only national, non-partisan, public-interest organization dedicated to
understanding and directing the impact of computers on society.
Decisions regarding the use of this technology have far-reaching
consequences that necessarily reflect the basic values and priorities of
the people who govern their use.  We will continue our work on Calling
Number ID, workplace issues, participatory design, privacy, freedom of
information,  redirection of national technology policy for non-military
purposes and other issues in addition to our recent NII initiatives.

Founded in 1981, CPSR has 2000 members from all over the world and 22
chapters across the country.  Each of our members is an important
participant in the dialogue that is helping to shape the future use of
computers in the United States.  Our National Advisory Board includes
one Nobel laureate and three winners of the Turing Award, the highest
honor in computer science.

We believe that as the influence of computers continues to permeate
every aspect of our society, it is important that professionals become
active participants in formulating the policy that governs computer use
and access.  CPSR welcomes any and all who share our convictions.

To obtain copies of the CPSR NII Policy Document or to obtain additional
information about CPSR, contact us at cpsr@cpsr.org or CPSR, P.O. Box
717, Palo Alto, CA, 94302.

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 4 Nov 1993 12:13:28 -0500 (EST)
From:    PINE_RIDGE@ORVB.SAIC.COM
Subject: Help with SSN question

Forgive me if this is FAQ-ish or wrong for this forum.  I've just subscribed.

My company is claiming that the '93 budget act includes a provision 
requiring it to report my dependent's names, ages, *SSNs*, and other data to 
the "Medicare/Medicaid Coverage Data Bank".  There are several things I
don't like about this, but I'm particularly offended by the requirement
to report dependent SSNs (my kids don't have 'em!).  

Can somebody provide or point me to more info about the actual legal 
requirements?  What legal legs do I have to stand on in refusing to supply
SSNs?

Brad Dolan 71431.2564@compuserve.com     ask for PGP dat

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 18 Oct 1993 17:18:12 -0400
From:    millar@pobox.upenn.edu (Dave Millar)
Subject: Privacy of Card Reader Systems

Hi,

Can you help me find any information on the issues associated with
information kept on security card scanner systems?  We have  a large
network of card readers scattered across campus tracking the comings and
goings of several tens of thousands of people at several hundred points on
campus - administrative buildings, dining halls, dorms, libraries, etc. 
What, if anything, stops someone from collecting this data and using it in
ways not known or intended by the people being monitored?  

I scanned through the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse bbs, but didn't see
anything.  Can you point me to any other resources?  Do you know any way
that I might keyword search back issues of Privacy FORUM?  Any help would
be much appreciated.

Also, for my searches, are you aware of any other terms I might use (I'm
trying "id cards", "card readers", "security cards").

Thanks in advance.

Dave Millar
University of Pennsylvania
millar@pobox.upenn.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Fri, 5 Nov 1993 19:22:55 -0800 (PST)
From:    chris@efi.com
Subject: Commercials in phone calls

     A blurb in the "Bits & Bytes" column of the August 16th
BusinessWeek tells about a new kind of long distance service.  Calls
will be free, but you have to listen to commercials and they will
collect and sell information on you.
     A small startup in New York City that hopes to go nationwide
later this year (sorry, I don't have any more recent information) is
offering the service.  Callers punch in "a special access code" to
connect to the company's computer which then routes the calls over
leased long-distance lines.  Before the call, the caller has to punch
in info like age and sex.  The system uses this to determine which
commercials it will use to "periodically interrupt" your call!
     In addition, advertisers will get "access to a wealth of
demographic information--length and time of call, what geographic
areas are called most, number of ads played per call, and so on."
     This doesn't seem like a privacy risk or invasion--as long as
they tell people that they're going to sell the information.
(Privacy-conscious people should be able to spot it in a second
anyway, but I suspect many people wouldn't.)  But it surprised me that
they would go to such lengths to collect information and make me
listen to commercials.
     Would I use it?  Yes, unless I can think of a worse risk than
getting extra junk mail.  One dodge that occurs to me: if both people
have two phone lines, make the call on both at once and switch lines
when a commercial comes on!  It's free, after all...

------------------------------

End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 02.34
************************
