Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:31:38 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#027 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 15 May 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 027 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Change of Moderator Re: IF you have nothing to hide Cordless phones & monitoring... Privacy in video rental records? Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Library Record Privacy (Was Re: Seminole ACCESS) Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 May 92 15:19:55 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears " cc: tcora@pica.army.mil Subject: Change of Moderator moderator of the Computer Privacy Digest/comp.society.privacy newsgroup. I will be in Belize (British Honduras) during that time. Mr. Coradeschi is currently the maintainer of the info-labview internet mailing list. dennis -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis G. Rears MILNET: drears@pica.army.mil UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears INTERNET: drears@pilot.njin.net USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Phone(home): 201.927.8757 Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683 USPS: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: Mon May 11 18:01:12 -0400 1992 Subject: Re: IF you have nothing to hide Importance: Normal Date: 5/11/92 5:15 PM > Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the > previously mentioned rational is wrong? Certainly. If admitting that you want privacy equals an admission that you have "something to hide", then by definition the people who seek privacy are admitting that they have something to hide. Compelling them to do this as a matter of law would violate the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is generally recognized as tacky elsewhere. Even though you said "no examples", let me give you a few before summarizing a general rule. I have friends who are part of that most-persecuted group in America, the last group it is fashionable to hate, gay men. Some of them dare to be open anyway, despite the fact that courts have even refused to convict muggers and would-be murderers just because the victims were gay. This is, to my eyes, nothing less than heroic (or stupid). And may I point out that it is legal to discriminate against them in hiring? If I were a gay male working for Shoneys, for example, which has an explicit policy of firing employees who are discovered to be gay, then I would certainly want to hang on to my privacy, even though being gay may not actually be against any law. (At least, in some jurisdictions. It is here in Missouri.) But it'd be a moot point if hanging on to my privacy was considered proof that I was engaged in something unsavory. And even when it's illegal to discriminate against someone for their private activity, such as religion, it's so easy to get away with that I don't blame the thousands of my Wiccan co-religionists, or members of any widely persecuted religion such as Satanism or ISKCON, who take varying levels of precautions to keep their religious affiliation a secret. It's illegal to fire somebody for attempting to organize a union, too, but it happens, so companies are forbidden to inquire what employees' feelings on the subject are except by secret ballot. But it won't help, will it, if "everyone knows" that only people "with something to hide" seek to keep secrets about themselves? (To those of you who may think I'm exaggerating the risk of illegal job discrimination: It is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their religion, or for being pro-union. But since US law doesn't require the employer to state a reason for firing anyone, there is almost no way to prove in court that this was the reason. Even if the employer told you so; when it gets to court, it will be your word against his. And if the court requires him to state a reason, it can be as vague as "he/she wasn't a team player" or "he/she was insubordinate." And if they want to make up a lie about you, what physical evidence can you bring to prove that they lied when they said you were, for example, late for work a hundred times? They have ample opportunity to manufacture evidence. In my work with the Pagan Strength Web and the Alliance for Magical and Earth Religions, I've seen employers use all of these tactics. And win. Almost every time.) Even if you think you have nothing to hide, you may have something to hide. Remember that Rand study back in the late 60s or early 70s that claimed that no matter where you are or what you're doing, the odds are that somehow it violates some ordinance or law? As complicated as our legal system has become, you might be a lot safer from arbitrary persecution or prosecution the less that federal and state and local agencies know about you. Otherwise, all Gods help you should you irritate a neighbor who happens to work for a government. So in summary, the attitude "if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't want privacy" isolates, stigmatizes, and endangers those who do have legitimate needs for privacy, even though their needs are not predicated on illegal activity. Common decency, and respect for their rights and safety, suggests that the rest of us should campaign to make such privacy the norm, or at least relatively common, until such time as people can reasonably expect that if they are engaged in no crime, their personal activities if revealed will result in no harm to them. It will very likely be a long way from here. A long time into the future. On another planet. And involving another species, instead of humans. ---------- J. Brad Hicks Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 11:54:15 GMT From: "Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University" Subject: Cordless phones & monitoring... Howdy, I have been following the thread of late with regard to scanning cordless phone emmissions. Those interested in the law relating to the monitoring of emmissions from digital equiptment are invited to retrieve the file 'tempest.law' from sulaw.law.su.oz.au in the /pub/law directory. There are also many more files relating (generally) to computers and the law. If you have any comments or additions, please do not hesitate to mail me. Mark N. Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are my own and are in no way a reflection of those of my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional capacity. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 11:59:38 GMT From: "Mark P. Neely, Northern Territory University" Subject: Privacy in video rental records? I picked this one off a mailing list... ___ State Attorney John Tanner (Volusia Co, FL) has subpoenaed the rental records of two video shopkeepers to identify the individuals who rented one of four named explicit films. Ostensibily, the customers are only wanted as potential witnesses. Tanner states that he does not intend to prosecute any citizen whose name might be on this list. Both store owners are resisting, citing customers' rights to privacy. Tanner maintains people who rent material have no expectation of privacy. Tanner denies that the list request was intended to scare people out of renting X-rated material. To me, it's analogous to publicly naming prostitution customers so public ridicule will exert economic pressure on the business. Public libraries have traditionally protected the privacy of their patrons' reading material. Why a profit making video library should be denied the same privledge is beyond me. In a state known nationally for its revolving door prisons, it is shameful that Tanner is trying to make reelection hay out of this issue. Hopefully he has underestimated the number of voters who occasionally view explicit films. Steven Gladin The most obscene thing about most obscene 49%arms.uucp@ufl.edu materials is the price requested by the vendor. ___ Mark Neely neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.au Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia DISCLAIMER: The views expressed above are my own and are in no way a reflection of those of my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional capacity. ------------------------------ From: "Daniel E. Platt" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 14 May 92 20:09:34 GMT Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM In article , emba-news.uvm.edu!cavrak@kira.uvm.edu (Steve Cavrak) writes: |> "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" |> |> - sounds like an opening line by the KGB, CIA, FBI, Stassi, or you name |> your favorite terrorist group, |> |> - sounds like an incorrect inversion of, "if you are fearful, you must |> be hiding something" - i.e. you are the cause of your own fear. |> |> - |> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |> |> HEY !@ |> |> |> - I have the right to an unlisted phone number |> |> - I have the right not to have a telephone at all |> |> - I have the right not to carry identification |> |> - I have the right to travel without telling anyone where I am going |> |> - I have the right to carry money |> |> - I have the right not to carry money |> |> - I have the right not to be searched WITHOUT DUE CAUSE. Not if you ride a public bus. |> |> HEY! |> |> This is America. These are the rights that make it so. This must not be America any more (we seem to have ceded our rights when we supported candidates who felt the police powers had suffered, and put in supreme court justices who agreed). |> |> We don't need to apologize for them, we need to celebrate them, to |> assert them. We need to get them back. |> |> Geez. |> |> Steve ------------------------------ From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 15 May 92 01:30:02 GMT >In article ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >>One of the reasons that many people are against 'intrusive' laws is >>because they disagree with the rational "If you have nothing to >>hide, then you don't need to worry." However what I have failed to >>see is a single cogent explination of WHY the rational of "If you >>have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is a bankrupt >>one. Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the >>previously mentioned rational is wrong? (BTW: The word is "rationale".) Because people disagree, sometimes violently, about what is worth hiding. For example, one person might go to absurd lengths to prevent people from learning the details of how he masturbates even though most people would probably find it uninteresting. For another example, many people do not want their tax returns made public even though they might not reveal anything which is, strictly speaking, illegal. Is the point now clear? (If you have no emotional need for privacy, or no appreciation for the need in others, then I suppose that no argument against the "nothing-to-hide" doctrine will have any force for you.) ------------------------------ From: Stephen P Spackman Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:53:53 GMT In article <1992May14.162824.13865@cs.cornell.edu> karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) writes: |Because everyone has something to hide from someone. Even you. (Or do you |claim there is NOTHING you ever do that you would be ashamed for me to have |a videotape of?) If you are ashamed of something you did, that is your OWN problem and you should try to get over it. Furthermore, almost by definition anyone who tries to blackmail you has more to hide than you do yourself (that's how blackmail works!). Privacy is a fundamental privelege in THIS society, just as work is. It is however (like a "right to work" or "affirmative action") antithetical to the ideals of a rational, pleasant or productive society. [And yes, it's known that I'm a touch odd.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- stephen p spackman Center for Information and Language Studies stephen@estragon.uchicago.edu University of Chicago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Carl Ellison Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 15 May 92 18:41:28 GMT In article ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: > We are >all in agreement that the statement IS wrong. Why is everyone >(myself included) having so much trouble comming up with a short, >direct, statement of why? > The Jester I suspect it's because you aren't looking for an answer but rather are looking for the fun of starting and watching an emotional debate. "I preserve and defend my right to privacy" is neutral to positive. "I have something to hide" is negative, carrying implication of criminality. ------------------------------ From: Steve Barber Subject: Library Record Privacy (Was Re: Seminole ACCESS) Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 00:08:30 GMT In michael.scott.baldwin@att.com writes: >| every book they check out from the library or borrow on reserve >Every library I know of keeps track of who checks out books. Your problem >here is that the data is more easily accessible now? Hm, I suspect that >it's not hard for the administration to get to that data for *any* library. Actually, many libraries delete the "link" between borrower and book after it is returned, according to a librarian I heard speaking at the Computers, Freedom & Privacy 2 conference. Apparently, they don't like the FBI subpoenaing their readers' records any more than their readers like it. If the record is destroyed "during the normal course of business," it's too bad for the subpoener. (Is that a word?) Watch out for backups, though. Apparently, this policy is library-dependant. -- Steve Barber sbarber@panix.com "The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation. ------------------------------ From: karr@cs.cornell.edu (David Karr) Subject: Re: "IF you have nothing to hide..." Date: 14 May 92 16:28:24 GMT References: Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853 In article ygoland@edison.seas.ucla.edu (The Jester) writes: >Would anyone care to provide a concise explination of WHY the >previously mentioned rational is wrong? Because everyone has something to hide from someone. Even you. (Or do you claim there is NOTHING you ever do that you would be ashamed for me to have a videotape of?) >And please, though examples >are useful for illustration of a point, they do not make one. And, pray tell, why not? Suppose I tell you that it's a bad idea to shove paper clips into live electrical outlets with your bare fingers. Suppose you don't believe me. Suppose I then suggest you try it and see, and you do, and you get a shock. Now the shock would just be an example illustrating my point, not exactly a mathematical argument, yet I think it would make the point pretty well, don't you? -- David Karr ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #027 ******************************