Date: Mon, 04 May 92 10:44:56 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#010 Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 04 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 010 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Law of Monitoring Airwave Transmissions in US Re: Cordless Phones Re: Should political speech be censored online? Re: Cordless phones Personal Info. Privacy and companies Re: Modem Tax Re: Should political speech be censored online? Re: Free TRW Credit Report 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 comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.200]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Adrienne Voorhis Subject: Law of Monitoring Airwave Transmissions in US Date: Sat, 2 May 92 12:29:56 EDT What is the law concerning monitoring of transmissions over the airwaves? A lawyer friend told me that in the United States it is legal to monitor any transmissions over the airwaves. he distinguished monitoring satillite tv transmissions (which he said was legal) from stealing cable tv (illegal) only because with cable tv you are physically hooked up to the cable company's cable, and are therefore *trespassing* when you take cable transmissions for channels that you did not pay for. I have my doubts as to whether his theory is true, particularly for all wave- lenghs. Wouldn't that mean that monitoring police radar detection devices would be legal? I understand that in Connecticut, for example, even possession (not just use) of radar detectors is illegal. And how about police band radios? Can the government make it illegal to either possess or use them if the user does not have a legitimate law enforcement purpose. More to the point of personal privacy, what exactly is the law concerning monitoring of, say, cellular telephone transmissions. And does anyone know the regulatory or statutory provisions. I imagine it relates to the FCC. Finally, I keep hearing that the law allows for monitoring of telephone transmissions over the airwaves, but that the monitorer legally cannot disclose what he has *legally* heard. How can such a rule possibly survive First Amendment analysis? I mean, particularly when you obtained the information lawfully, how can the government then gag you from talking about what you have heard? Bob Voorhis c/o voorhis@aecom.yu.edu Albert Einstein College of Medicine *These opinions are just mine.* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 92 17:48:27 EDT From: Brinton Cooper cc: comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Re: Cordless Phones Reply-To: cooper@dewey.udel.edu Continuing the discussion on cordless phones Scott Coleman asserts. >"I have a cordless phone, but I do not use it. It sits at the bottom of >my electronic junk box in my closet. I refuse to use it because it is so >incredibly easy for anyone with a $50 scanner to pick up cordless phone >conversations from as far away as 2 miles..." What I have is a lot of trouble with the ability to receive cordless phone conversations from two miles with a cheap scanner. In an urban environment, a two mile range may yield dozens of cordless phone conversations. Separation would be impossible. Even in a suburban or rural setting, a two mile range would be extraordinary with a cheap scanner. For heavens' sakes, my cordless phone link begins to peter out when I climb to the second story of my house. _Brint ------------------------------ From: Colin Plumb Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online? Date: Sat, 2 May 1992 01:50:10 -0400 Um... You attribute the following to Brad Templeton; I (colin@eecg.toronto.edu) am the actual author. Perhaps you could include a correction in the next digest? (Cc: to Brad for his information.) In article you write: >X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil >X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 005, Message 6 of 9 > >[This is more to the moderator than the list, but the moderator may >post it if he likes.] [...] >H'm. this is tricky. On the one hand, this is obviously interesting >to readers of comp.society.privacy, and I'd like to hear what Mr. >Tenney has to say. The Hatch act legalese, well, I don't care. The >advertising prohibition, that's tricky. The real objection people have >is to *uninformative* advertising. Content-free prose like press >releases. (I find I can typically extract about three lines of >information out of a one-page press release.) Subtler things like >companies posting descriptions of their new products, participating in >debates over the virtues of their products, or even providing informal >support over the net (e.g. comp.sys.amiga.* is frequented by Commodore >employees), is generally tolerated as useful. [...] Admittedly, we argue similar points. -- -Colin ------------------------------ From: Dan Boyd Subject: Re: Cordless phones Date: Fri, 1 May 1992 23:07:03 GMT In article ugtalbot@KING.MCS.DREXEL.EDU (George Talbot) writes: > I have a cordless phone. [...] You seem to be of the opinion that > if my conversation is transmitted over copper wire, then I have a > right to privacy, but if it's transmitted over the air, then I > don't. The Supreme Court said in a recent decision that this is precisely the case. If you use a cordless phone then there is no expectation of privacy. Would you expect privacy for your phone conversations if you went out and bought a CB and patched the phone into it? No, you wouldn't; you'd know that anyone who wanted to could listen in with their CB. The Court says the only difference with a cordless phone is that Sony hooked up the CB and the phone and sold it to you. True, cordless phones don't transmit over the CB bands -- but there is no law against listening to the bands they do use. To say otherwise would require making laws against listening to the cordless-phone bands simply because some of the traffic going over the air originated on a phone. No go. Since it's you who decided to transmit it over the air, then it's you who's given up the expectation of privacy. You're the one who bought the cordless phone. > The phone companies (if it's a long distance call) sometimes > transmit phone calls using microwave towers. If this is the case, > do I lose my right to privacy when I call long distance? I should > think not. THIS IS DIFFERENT -- snooping on the microwaves is eavesdropping on a COMMON CARRIER. You have an expectation of privacy when you're using a common carrier. You, the user of the service, have no control over whether the phone company uses microwaves, copper wires, or fiberoptics -- so you have the same expectation of privacy no matter which it is. > I am of the opinion that it is impolite and possibly even immoral to > listen in upon another's private conversation without being invited. So is everybody reasonable. It's also unreasonable to expect that everybody on the sidewalk must cover their ears so you can talk about private matters on your doorstep -- which is what prohibiting intercepting cordless-phone conversations would amount to. Do you want the police to go around searching people's houses for illegal radios? > Do you stand in a crowd with a parabolic dish so you can listen in > on others who are bombarding you with sound waves? Do you do the > same when others are in a closed room having a private discussion? No doubt it's bad to snoop on your neighbors. That doesn't make a cordless phone part of a common carrier. The phone company's responsibility, and your expectation of privacy, ended when you (or Sony) hooked the phone up to a radio that transmits in the clear. > When you suggest that listening in on my phone conversations (or > breaking into my computer account) is moral and that I must be > ignorant for using a cordless phone you show a profound disrespect > for the privacy of others and a definite lack of concern for the > feelings of others. This is conflating two separate and unrelated issues. When you say 'listening in on my phone conversations' in this paragraph, you seem to be talking about someone climbing up on the telephone pole and snapping on to the wires. Of course this isn't moral. It's also not what you started talking about. You started off angry because someone can listen to your cordless phone. Suppose I buy two cordless phones and modify one of the handsets so it transmits on the other's recieve band, and vice versa. Now I've got a pair of walkie-talkies. Do I have an expectation of privacy that the government should enforce? Obviously not. You are suggesting that if I then plug one of the walkie-talkies into my phone then all of a sudden I have an expectation of privacy. Wrong. Daniel F. Boyd -- consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu ==== It's not a system called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X', after the owl on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood". -- Daniel F. Boyd -- consp04@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu ==== It's not a system called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X', after the owl on "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood". ------------------------------ From: Eric Sword Subject: Personal Info. Privacy and companies Date: Mon, 4 May 92 02:23:06 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net Good day all! The use of what we consider _personal_ information as a commodity is a topic in two of my classes this quarter. Topics such as the sale of mundane mailing lists to computer records of what groceries you by on your charge/bank cards have come up, and many of my classmates have had a lot to say aboutwhat they believe is an invasion of their privacy via technological means (I am undecided.) For both my personal interest, and as assistence for a presentation I am giving next week, I would be interested in hearing from people (specifically, companies that deal in large scale information transfer for profit) of the benefits to having so much information about an individual be public knowledge. For example, having your medical history encoded on your drivers license to assist paramedics in case you are in a car wreck. Or Credit Card companies using their membership lists for soliciting other "services". (I'm having a big problem with mine. It would be so bad if I couldn't tell when their script went from normal type to bold, and then to underline. :) Any direct examples of benefits, general thoughts, or even ads are welcomed, as well as advice on good resources for further info. would be greatly appreciated. adTHANKSvance Sword "Practicality may be boring, but rarely is it unnecessary." -myself ------------------------------ From: Joe Smith Subject: Re: Modem Tax Date: 2 May 92 00:39:21 GMT In article O1EVERT%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.uakron.edu (Tom Evert) writes: >X-Computer Privacy Digest: Volume 1, Issue 004, Message 1 of 3 To the comp.society.privacy moderator: SHAME ON YOU! Spreading misinformation around like that is inexcuseable. In the above mentioned Digest, you published a letter and a document, and did not include the date of the letter. This particular letter was first circulated around 1987, and is nothing but an out-dated hysterical reaction to a suggestion that the FCC turned down. To all readers: If you see this letter on any BBS, delete it immediately. It has the facts wrong, and worst of all, it has no date. As a result, it gets posted to the net about once a year by uninformed idiots that think it describes the current situation. It has been the cause of several waves of unfounded rumors. To help you recognize this out-dated call for a letter writing campaign, the first lines of each paragraph is included here: >Two years ago the FCC tried and (with your help and letters of protest) >Now, they are at it again. A new regulation that the FCC is quietly working >The money is to be collected and given to the telephone company in an effort >Here's what you should do (NOW!): > 1- Pass this information on. Capture the information which contains > 2- Print out three copies of the letter which follows (or write your >Here's the suggested text of the letter to send: > Please allow me to express my displeasure with the FCC proposal > In short, a modem call is the same as a voice call and therefore >It is important that you act now. The bureaucrats already have it in their As to the document, which has the date 23-July-1991, I have no comment, other than do say that was last year's debate, not this year. > [FR Doc. 91-17340 Filed 7-23-91; 8:45 am] Joe Smith BT North America (TYMNET) 1-May-1991, 5:36pm -- Joe Smith (408)922-6220 | SMTP: jms@tardis.tymnet.com DIALCOM: J.SMITH BTNA Tech Services TYMNET| CA license plate: "POPJ P," PDP-10, 36 bits forever PO Box 49019, MS-C51 | Married to the LB, Quantum Leap's #1 net.fan San Jose, CA 95161-9019 | humorous disclaimer: "My Amiga 3000 speaks for me." ------------------------------ From: John Nagle Subject: Re: Should political speech be censored online? Date: Sat, 02 May 92 18:20:06 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@ames.arc.nasa.gov lupine!mellon@uunet.uu.net (Ted Lemon) writes: >>Therefore, if the moderator's supervisor finds that a posting under >>moderator's control is in violation of the Hatch Act, the moderator can >>be given some time off from work *without pay.* >If it is true that the moderator of this newsgroup is being influenced >in this way, then that person should step down in favour of somebody >who won't be subject to such restrictions. This may be the solution. It may be inappropriate for federal employees to moderate newsgroups with political content. A similar issue has arisen with regard to federal employees acting as editors of scientific journals. Questions have been raised both about that being a proper expenditure of federal funds and of government intrusion into controlling content of the press. There seems to be a trend toward federal employees not performing such tasks. Perhaps this should also apply to USENET. John Nagle [Moderator's Note: This is a technical forum not a polical forum. ] ------------------------------ From: Les Earnest Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report Date: Sun, 3 May 1992 21:47:12 GMT Apparently-To: comp-society-privacy@uunet.uu.net Mary Culnan writes: >Everyone knows by know how important it is to check your credit report >before applying for a loan or a job. The law also requires that the >report list who has seen your credit report during the past year. > >According to USA Today, beginning April 30, you can get a free copy of >your TRW credit report once a year by writing to: [TRW address] > >Include all of the following in your letter: full name including >middle initial and generation such as Jr, Sr, III etc., current >address and ZIP code, all previous addresses and ZIPs for past five >years, Social Security number, year of birth, spouse's first name. >Also include a photocopy of a billing statement, utility bill, >driver's license or other document that links your name with the >address where the report should be mailed. In other words, assist TRW in completing the invasion of your privacy by filling in any information that they have missed, such as your Social Security Number, even though it is none of their business. If you really are curious about what they have on you, I suggest that you give them your name and address. If they can't find your records based on that information, consider yourself lucky! -- Les Earnest Phone: 415 941-3984 Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 May 92 21:45:29 PDT From: Michael McClary Subject: Re: Free TRW Credit Report In article MCULNAN@guvax.georgetown.edu writes: >According to USA Today, beginning April 30, you can get a free copy of >your TRW credit report once a year by writing to: [TRW] >Include all of the following in your letter: full name including >middle initial and generation such as Jr, Sr, III etc., current >address and ZIP code, all previous addresses and ZIPs for past five >years, Social Security number, year of birth, spouse's first name. >Also include a photocopy of a billing statement, utility bill, >driver's license or other document that links your name with the >address where the report should be mailed. Sounds like a good deal for TRW, too. In return for sending you a free copy no more often than once per year, they get a confirmation on the connection between your SS number, name, spouse's name, and your current and past addresses, along with an irate letter from you if they've let some bad (for you) data creep into your file (or at least into the part they send you). Note, by the way, that many banks and credit-card providers make the last month-or-so of your account history available over the phone to anyone who can touch-tone in the account number and your zipcode or SS number. ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #010 ******************************