Visit our newest sister site!
Hundreds of free aircraft flight manuals
Civilian • Historical • Military • Declassified • FREE!


TUCoPS :: Privacy :: priv_118.txt

Privacy Digest 1.18 9/19/92




From privacy@cv.vortex.com Sun Sep 20 03:36:12 1992
Return-Path: <privacy@cv.vortex.com>
Received: from cv.vortex.com by csrc.ncsl.nist.gov (4.1/NIST)
	id AA23000; Sun, 20 Sep 92 03:35:49 EDT
Posted-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 23:57 PDT
Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 03:35:49 EDT
Received: by cv.vortex.com (Smail3.1.26.7 #2)
	id m0mWLEy-0001zxC; Sat, 19 Sep 92 23:57 PDT
Message-Id: <m0mWLEy-0001zxC@cv.vortex.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 92 23:57 PDT
From: privacy@cv.vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum)
Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V01 #18
To: PRIVACY-Forum-List@cv.vortex.com
Status: R

PRIVACY Forum Digest     Saturday, 19 September 1992     Volume 01 : Issue 18

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

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


CONTENTS
	Re: Telephone comm encryption (Jerry Leichter)
	Telemarketing (Gerald M. Phillips)
	Re: "No data collection" pledge as marketing advantage
	   (Jeff Johnson)
	Postal service privacy RISK (Daniel Burstein)
	CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI (Marc Rotenberg)


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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 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@cv.vortex.com" and must have
RELEVANT "Subject:" lines.  Submissions without appropriate and relevant
"Subject:" lines may be ignored.  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@cv.vortex.com".  Mailing list problems should be
reported to "list-maint@cv.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 "cv.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.

For information regarding the availability of this digest via FAX, please
send an inquiry to privacy-fax@cv.vortex.com, call (310) 455-9300, or FAX
to (310) 455-2364.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

VOLUME 01, ISSUE 18

    Quote for the day:

   	   "Nothing can go wrong."

		        -- Promotional slogan at the "Delos" resort.
			   "Westworld" (1973)
				
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 17 Sep 92 08:36:44 EDT
From:    Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
Subject: Re: Telephone comm encryption

Daniel Burstein asks whether anyone manufactures a telephone encryption device
as a module that would fit between the handset and the base unit - and if not,
why no one has built such an obvious thing.

It's not as easy as Mr. Burstein believes!  Doing even slightly secure encryp-
tion in the analogue domain is quite difficult and expensive.  That's way
units that do frequency spectrum inversion are still being sold today, at
least 50 years after they were first built (and soon found not to be very
secure:  Even with no electronics, with practice a human being can learn to
interpret such a signal).

All the fancy encryption technologies of today are digital.  So, you ask the
obvious question:  Why not digitize the signal, encrypt it, then convert it
back to analogue for transmission over the phone line?  Unfortunately, that
doesn't work.  A phone line is a noise, sharply bandwidth-limited channel.
The output of any decent encryptor will look like essentially random bits,
which implies that if transformed back to the analogue domain, it will have
its energy spread over a broad spectrum of frequencies - much broader than
the original signal.  Further, that signal will not be able to tolerate the
kinds of distortions a typical telephone channel imposes - the underlying
information will also be spread all over the spectrum.

It WOULD theoretically be possible to take the output digital data stream
and encode it using a fast modem technology - say, the 14.4kbps of V.32bis.
(Note that you are pretty certain not to be able to compress an encrypted
data stream, so the much higher "typical" numbers you see in the modem ads,
which all assume compression, don't apply.)  There are many problems with
this approach:

	- While it's possible to encode understandable speech at 14.4kbps
		(you can actually get well below that), the result will
		hardly be up to the standards people are used to.

	-  Encoding speech that well is a complicated, expensive process.
		(When the telephone company digitizes voice channels, it
		uses 56kbps.)

	- Not all phone connections will support a 14.4kpbs connection.  The
		V.32bis fallback speeds probably won't be fast enough.

	- Getting bits through this fast with any reliability requires
		error checking and possible retransmission.  This results
		in delays, which will have odd effects on the sound of
		the resulting speech.  It may no longer be understandable.

Still, I suppose with the technology now available (but really not available
more than a year or so ago), one might be able to build such a box.  Without
a ready source of cheap low-rate speech encoder chips, it would be a fairly
expensive piece of equipment.  But perhaps there's a sufficient market.

(Note that with ISDN, the problem goes away:  You are ALREADY sending a
digital stream to the telephone company; it makes no difference how that
stream has beeen pre-processes before it is handed off, since the ISDN
connection provides a transparent "bit pipe".)

							-- Jerry

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

Date:    Thu, 17 Sep 92 09:12 EDT
From:    <GMP@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Telemarketing

    There were several references to phone marketing in the last issue.
On the "Seinfeld" show of September 16, Jerry was called by a phone solicitor.
His response was, "give me your home phone number and I'll call you back."
Apparently the other party demurred and Seinfeld replied, "well, neither do
I."  He then hung up.

    As a disabled American, I am very concerned with privacy.  It takes
genuine effort to answer the door when the Adventists come around and sometimes
trying to reach the phone before it stops ringing almost brings on a medical
crisis.  It is very disheartening to find you have made that effort for MCI.

    While I am interested in the sophisticated issues that have characterized
these discussions, I would appreciate any advisories about legal protection
or recourse I might have against simple invasions of privacy by door-to-door
and phone solicitors.

    Also, please note, in my signature below -- our Ejournal could use a
serious statement on this issue in our forthcoming issue.  If anyone is
interested, please write me privately and I will send a brochure detailing
submission policies.  I wanted to send a general announcement, but it struck
me that solicitation over Email is also an egregious violation of rights.

GMP@PSUVM
Gerald M. Phillips (Professor Emeritus), Speech Communication
Editor, IPCT: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century
ISSN 1064-4326
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Manuscripts are being accepted for the January, 1993 issue

		[ Assuming that the IPCT Journal is involved
		  in privacy-related issues, I'd have no problem
		  at all in sending out a "general announcement" with
		  more information through the PRIVACY Forum. -- MODERATOR ]

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

Date:    Thu, 17 Sep 92 09:09:45 -0700
From:    Jeff Johnson <jjohnson@hpljaj.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: "No data collection" pledge as marketing advantage

Lynn R Grant writes:

> Regarding Randy Gellins' comment in V16 about whether stores could use
> the fact that they don't collect data about your buying habits as a
> marketing advantage...

Some companies and non-profits have long used similar pledges as an
incentive to prospective customers.

MAD magazine has for decades made the following pledge in each issue of
their magazine:  "Our pledge: MAD will not sell or give your name and
address to anyone for any reason!"

Similarly, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
attracts more members than it otherwise would by making the following
pledge: "The CPSR membership database is never sold, rented, lent,
exchanged, or used for anything other than official CPSR activity. 
CPSR may elect to send members mailings with information from other
groups, but the mailings will always originate with CPSR."

JJ
		[ Of course, MAD Magazine always had (and probably
		  still has) a person listed in the masthead
		  specifically for "Lawsuits"! -- MODERATOR ]

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

Date:    Fri, 18 Sep 92 05:49 GMT
From:    Daniel Burstein <0001964967@mcimail.com>
Subject: postal service privacy RISK

There have been quite a few articles discussing the privacy aspects (or lack
thereof), based on the US Postal Service's databases - especially the
"forwarding" system.

The following article, from "Labor Notes" [with permission -- MODERATOR]
(7435 Michigan Avenu, Detroit, Mich. 48210 (313) 842-6262) #160, July 1992, 
is targeted towards labor issues, but people reading this Digest will 
quickly grasp the RISKS involved with videotaping all postal envelopes.
(see additional comments added at end). 

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

Title: Fighting Privatization. 
Postal workers urge campaign to organize the new, private sector,
mailing industry.

by: Sarah Ryan

Text: If top US Postal Service officials have their way, private
corporations will sort most of the mail by the mid 1990s.  And the jobs will
pay little better than minimum wage.

But some members of the American Postal Workers Union are hoping to block
management's plan with an organizing drive in the private sector mailing
industry.  A resolution will be presented to teh August APWU national
convention would, if passed, require the union, which has until now included
only government employees, to begin to organize workers in privately-held
automated mail processing plants.

Over 40,000 postal union jobs have been eliminated in the last two and a
half years, and at least 55,000 more are slated to go by 1995.  While many
postal workers and union officials believe they are losing jobs to
"automation," postal work is being pushed into the hands of an alternate,
privately-ownbed, mailing industry.

Management calls the process "worksharing."  contractors are eager to jump
inbto mail processing and take advantage of the extremely low wages, absence
of unions, new high-speed mail processing equipment, and public subsidies.

subtitle: Worksharing

A year ago USPS announced that the new Remote Video Encoding operation would
be contracted out.  Remote encoding was developed as a way to sort mail
which cannot be "read" by optical character readers and bar code sorting
machines.  RVE also allows mail to be sorted without highly trained workers.

Some mail, such as handwritten letters, cannot now be read by machines.  The
new process will transmit the image of these letters through telephone lines
to a data entry operator at a video terminal.  The worker enters an extract
code, and a bar code is chosen by computer and applied to the letter.  The
operator can be thousands of miles away from the mail. 

According to former Postmaster General Anthony Frank, the remote video
operation will eventually replace most to the nation's 49,000 mechanical
letter sorting machine jobs.  Over 200 remote keying sites are planned; the
first ones are already on line.

[the article then goes on to discuss the various financial incentives being
proposed by the USPS -and- local governments for the companies setting up
these remote operations.  It also compares the salaries for the workers.
Other tidbits in the piece describe some specific labor issues, use of
convicts by the USPS, and the like) 

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

Added comments:  No doubt the first few machines will only be used for
sorting and bar-code spraying handwritten addresses.  HOWEVER, given OCR
technology, it would be quite trivial to have EVERY piece of correspondence
going through the USPS scanned, and a data list of who sent what to whom
could be generated.

I can't cite the reference this moment, but I'm pretty sure the courts have
ruled that "mail covers" are legal WITHOUT a search warrant.  In other
words, "they" can look at the return addresses on the letters in your
mailbox (or the addresses you send "to") without legal hassles. 
(Contents, though, are protected, a little...)

Seems it may be time to change some laws...

<dburstein@mcimail.com>

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

Date:    Fri, 18 Sep 1992 10:32:20 EDT
From:    Marc Rotenberg <Marc_Rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org>
Subject: CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI

"CPSR Seeks Wiretap Info from FBI"
PRESS RELEASE
WASHINGTON, DC
September 17, 1992
4:30 pm

Contact:
  Marc Rotenberg, CPSR Director (202/544-9240)
    rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org
  David Sobel, CPSR Legal Counsel (202/544-9240)
    sobel@washofc.cpsr.org

   CPSR Sues FBI For Information About Wiretap Proposal:
                Seeks Reasons for New Plan

	Washington, DC - Computer Professional for Social Responsibility
filed suit today against the FBI for information about a new wiretap
proposal.  The proposal would expand FBI wiretap power and give the Bureau
authority to set technical standards for the computer and communications
industry.

	The suit was filed after the FBI failed to make the information
public.  In April, CPSR requested documents from the Bureau about the
reasons for the proposal. The FBI denied that any information existed.  But
when CPSR pursued the matter with the Department of Justice, the Bureau
conceded that it had the information.  Now CPSR is trying to force the
Bureau to disclose the records.

	The proposal expands the FBI's ability to intercept communications.
It would mandate that every communication system in the United States have a
built-in "remote monitoring" capability to make wiretap easier. The proposal
covers all communication equipment from office phone systems to advanced
computer networks.  Companies that do not comply face fines of $10,000 per
day.

	The proposal is opposed by leading phone companies and computer
manufacturers, including AT&T, IBM, and Digital Equipment Corporation.  Many
charge that the FBI has not been adequately forthcoming about the need for
the legislation.

	According to CPSR Washington Office director Marc Rotenberg, "A full
disclosure of the reasons for this proposal is necessary.  The FBI simply
cannot put forward such a sweeping recommendation, keep important documents
secret, and expect the public to sign off."

	In a related effort, a 1989 CPSR FOIA suit uncovered evidence that
the FBI established procedures to monitor computer bulletin boards in 1982.

	CPSR is a national membership organization of computer professionals
with over 2,500 members based in Palo Alto, California with offices in
Washington, DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts and chapters in over a dozen
metropolitan areas across the nation.  For membership information, please
contact CPSR, P.O. Box 717, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 322- 3778,
cpsr@csli.stanford.edu.

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

End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 01.18
************************




TUCoPS is optimized to look best in Firefox® on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 AOH