Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 8 1993

Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 8 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 92

ISSN 1004-042X

Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)

Archivist: Brendan Kehoe

Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth

Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala

Ian Dickinson

Copy Editor: Craig Shergold, III

CONTENTS, #5.92 (Dec 8 1993)

File 1--Senator Simon Introduces Privacy Bill

File 2--Cantwell & Markey bills, GAO report, etc. online at EFF

File 3--ANNOUNCEMENT: DPSWG Crypto-Policy Statement to White House

File 4--A Superhighway Through the Wasteland?

File 5--Health Privacy Radio Program

File 6--Apple "Accepts" Texas Bigotry

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are

available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The

editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-0303), fax (815-753-6302)

or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL

60115.

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest

news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of

LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT

libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in

the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"

On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;

on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG

WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020

CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted

nodes and points welcome.

EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893;

In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493

ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:

AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.

EUROPE: ftp.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)

UNITED STATES:

aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud

etext.archive.umich.edu (141.211.164.18) in /pub/CuD/cud

ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud

halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud

ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)

KOREA: ftp: cair.kaist.ac.kr in /doc/eff/cud

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing

information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of

diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long

as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and

they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that

non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise

specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles

relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are

preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts

unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent

the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all

responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not

violate copyright protections.

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

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1993 14:04:41 EST

From: Alert@washofc.cpsr.org

Subject: File 1--Senator Simon Introduces Privacy Bill

Extracted from CPSR ALERT, #2.06, 1 December, 1993

[1] Senator Simon Introduces Major Privacy Bill

Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) has introduced legislation to create a

privacy agency in the United States. The bill is considered the most

important privacy measure now under consideration by Congress.

The Privacy protection Act of 1993, designated S. 1735, attempts to

fill a critical gap in US privacy law and to respond to growing public

concern about the lack of privacy protection.

The Vice President also recommended the creation of a privacy agency

in the National Performance Review report on reinventing government

released in September.

The measure establishes a commission with authority to oversee the

Privacy Act of 1974, to coordinate federal privacy laws, develop model

guidelines and standards, and assist individuals with privacy matters.

However, the bill lacks authority to regulate the private sector, to

curtail government surveillance proposals, and has a only a small

budget for the commission.

Many privacy experts believe the bill is a good first step but does not

go far enough.

The Senate is expected to consider the bill in January when it returns

to session.

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

[2] Senator Simon's Statement on Introduction

(From the Congressional Record, November 19, 1993)

Mr. Simon. "Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to

create a Privacy Protection Commission. The fast-paced growth in

technology coupled with American's increasing privacy concerns demand

Congress take action.

"A decade ago few could afford the millions of dollars necessary for a

mainframe computer. Today, for a few thousand dollars, you can purchase

a smaller, faster, and even more powerful personal computer. Ten years

from now computers will likely be even less expensive, more accessible,

and more powerful. Currently, there are "smart" buildings, electronic

data "highways", mobile satellite communication systems, and

interactive multimedia. Moreover, the future holds technologies that we

can't even envision today. These changes hold the promise of

advancement for our society, but they also pose serious questions about

our right to privacy. We should not fear the future or its technology,

but we must give significant consideration to the effect such

technology will have on our rights.

"Polls indicate that the American public is very concerned about this

issue. For example, according to a Harris-Equifax poll completed this

fall, 80 percent of those polled were concerned about threats to their

personal privacy. In fact, an example of the high level of concern is

reflected in the volume of calls received by California's Privacy

Rights Clearinghouse. Within the first three months of operation. The

California Clearinghouse received more than 5,400 calls. The

Harris-Equifax poll also reported that only 9 percent of Americans felt

that current law and organizational practices adequately protected

their privacy. This perception is accurate. The Privacy Act of 1974

was created to afford citizens broad protection. Yet, studies and

reviews of the act clearly indicate that there is inadequate specific

protection, too much ambiguity, and lack of strong enforcement.

"Furthermore, half of those polled felt that technology has almost

gotten out of control, and 80 percent felt that they had no control

over how personal information about them is circulated and used by

companies. A recent article written by Charles Piller for MacWorld

magazine outlined a number of privacy concerns. I ask unanimous consent

the article written by Charles Piller be included in the record

following my statement. These privacy concerns have caused the public

to fear those with access to their personal information. Not

surprisingly, distrust of business and government has significantly

climbed upwards from just three years ago.

"In 1990, the United States General Accounting Office reported that

there were conservatively 910 major federal data banks with billions of

individual records. Information that is often open to other

governmental agencies and corporations, or sold to commercial data

banks that trade information about you, your family, your home, your

spending habits, and so on. What if the data is inaccurate or no longer

relevant? Today's public debates on health care reform, immigration,

and even gun control highlight the growing public concern regarding

privacy.

"The United States has long been the leader in the development of

included an implied basic right to privacy. More than a hundred years

later, Brandeis and Warren wrote their famous 1890 article, in which

they wrote that privacy is the most cherished and comprehensive of

all rights. International privacy scholar Professor David Flaherty has

argued successfully that the United States invented the concept of a

legal right to privacy. In 1967, Professor Alan Westin wrote privacy

and freedom, which has been described as having been of primary

influence on privacy debates world-wide. Another early and

internationally influential report on privacy was completed in 1972

by the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

advisory committee. A Few years later in 1974, Senator Sam Ervin

introduced legislation to create a federal privacy board. The result

of debates on Senator Ervin's proposal was the enactment of the

Privacy Act of 1974. The United States has not addressed privacy

protection in any comprehensive way since.

"International interest in privacy and in particular data protection

dramatically moved forward in the late 1970's. In 1977 and 1978 six

countries enacted privacy protection legislation. As of September

1993, 27 countries have legislation under consideration. I ask

unanimous consent that a list of those countries be included in the

record following my statement. Among those considering legislation are

former Soviet Block countries Croatia, Estonia, Slovakia, and

Lithuania. Moreover, the European Community Commission will be adopting

a directive on the exchange of personal data between those countries

with and those without data or privacy protection laws.

"Mr. President, a Privacy Protection Commission is needed to restore

the public's trust in business and government's commitment to

protecting their privacy and willingness to thoughtfully and seriously

address current and future privacy issues. It is also needed to fill

in the gaps that remain in federal privacy law.

"The Clinton Administration also recognizes the importance for

restoring public trust. A statement the Office of Management and Budget

sent to me included the following paragraph:

[T]he need to protect individual privacy has become increasingly

important as we move forward on two major initiatives, Health

Care Reform and the National Information Infrastructure. The

success of these initiatives will depend, in large part, on the

extent to which Americans trust the underlying information

systems. Recognizing this concern, the National Performance

Review has called for a commission to perform a function similar

to that envisioned by Senator Simon. Senator Simon's bill

responds to an issue of critical importance.

"In addition, the National Research Council recommends the creation of

'an independent federal advisory body ...' In their newly released

study, Private Lives and Public Policies.

"It is very important that the Privacy Protection Commission be

effective and above politics. Toward that end, the Privacy Protection

Commission will be advisory and independent. It is to be composed of 5

members, who are appointed By the President, by and with the consent of

the Senate, with no more than 3 from the same political party. The

members are to serve for staggered seven year terms, and during their

tenure on the commission, may not engage in any other Employment.

"Mr. President, I am concerned about the creation of additional

bureaucracy; therefore the legislation would limit the number of

employees to a total of 50 officers and employees. The creation of an

independent Privacy Protection Commission is imperative. I have

received support for an independent privacy protection commission from

consumer, civil liberty, privacy, library, technology, and law

organizations, groups, and individuals. I ask unanimous consent that a

copy of a letter I have received be included in the record following my

statement.

"What the commission's functions, make-up, and responsibilities are

will certainly be debated through the Congressional process. I look

forward to hearing from and working with a broad range of individuals,

organizations, and businesses on this issue, as well as the

administration.

"I urge my colleagues to review the legislation and the issue, and join

me in support of a privacy protection commission. I ask unanimous

consent that the text of the bill be included in the record."

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

[3] Privacy Commission Bill Section Headings

Section 1. Short Title.

Section 2. Findings and Purpose.

Section 3. Establishment of a Privacy Protection Commission.

Section 4. Privacy Protection Commission.

Section 5. Personnel of The Commission.

Section 6. Functions of The Commission.

Section 7. Confidentiality of Information.

Section 8. Powers of the Commission.

Section 9. Reports and Information.

Section 10. Authorization of Appropriations.

A full copy of the bill, floor statement and other materials will

be made available at the CPSR Internet Library.

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

From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>

Subject: File 2--Cantwell & Markey bills, GAO report, etc. online at EFF

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 17:36:43 -0500 (EST)

Maria Cantwell's bill, which would reduce ITAR export restrictions on

cryptography, is online at EFF's ftp site:

ftp.eff.org, %ftp/pub/eff/legislation/cantwell.bill

(AKA .../legislation/hr3627)

Also recently added to the archives:

The Markey bill, which deals with the coming "data superhighway" or

"national information infrastructure", and which incorporates much of

EFF's Open Platform proposal:

%ftp/pub/eff/legislation/markey.bill (AKA .../legislation/hr3636)

The Cyberpoet's Guide to Virtual Culture, much like the Big Dummy's Guide

to the Internet, but a more advanced and specific compendium of net.info.

Highly recommended:

%ftp/pub/eff/papers/cyber/cyberpoet.gvc

The govt. General Accounting Office's report on communications privacy, a

must see! Criticizes NSA involvement in crafting national crypto-policy,

and makes many other important points:

%ftp/pub/eff/crypto-policy/osi-94-2.gao

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

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 17:17:50 -0500 (EST)

From: Stanton McCandlish <mech@EFF.ORG>

Subject: File 3--ANNOUNCEMENT: DPSWG Crypto-Policy Statement to White House

NOTICE: This is the letter from the Digital Privacy and Security

Working Group sent to the White House 12/06/93, urging the

Administration to lift export controls on DES, RSA and other mass

market encryption without requiring legislation.

Some erroneous press reports have said the DPSWG (see letter

signatories) were making a Clipper/Skipjack "deal". This is not true.

The letter makes it clear that Clipper as originally proposed is not

viable, and that in any form it is to be implemented only if it's use

is completely voluntary and ONLY if current restrictions on mass

market encryption software are removed, so that the right to choose

one's own methods of privacy and security is retained, and American

businesses can effectively and openly compete in the expanding

international market for encryption products.

For more details please see the third paragraph of the letter, below.

+----------------------------------------------

DIGITAL PRIVACY AND SECURITY WORKING GROUP

1001 G Street, NW

Suite 950 East

Washington, DC 20001

Jerry Berman 202/347-5400

Leah Gurowitz 202/393-1010

December 6, 1993

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On April 16, 1993, you initiated a broad industry/government

review of privacy and cryptography policies at the same time that the

Administration unveiled its Clipper Chip proposal. The Digital

Privacy and Security Working Group -- a coalition of over 50

communications and computer companies and associations, and consumer

and privacy advocates --has been working with members of your

Administration to develop policies which will reflect the realities of

the digital information age, the need to provide individuals at work

and home with information security and privacy, and the importance of

preserving American competitiveness.

The Digital Privacy and Security Working Group is committed to

the proposition that computer users worldwide should be able to choose

their encryption programs and products, and that American programs and

products should be allowed to compete in the world marketplace. In

our discussions with Administration officials, we have expressed the

Coalition's tentative acceptance of the Clipper Chip's encryption

scheme (as announced on April 16, 1993), but only if it is available

as a voluntary alternative to widely-available, commercially-accepted,

encryption programs and products.

Thus, we applaud repeated statements by Administration

officials that there is no intent to make the Clipper Chip mandatory.

One key indication of whether the choice of encryption regimes will be

truly voluntary, however, is the ability of American companies to

export computer programs and products employing other strong

encryption algorithms (e.g. DES and RC2/RC4 at comparable strengths)

demanded by customers worldwide. In this regard, we commend to your

attention legislation introduced by Rep. Maria Cantwell (H.R. 3627)

that would liberalize existing export controls on software with

encryption capabilities. Of course, such legislation would not be

necessary if the Administration acts to accomplish such export control

liberalization on its own. As part of your on-going encryption review

and decision-making, we strongly urge you to do so.

As your Administration concludes its review of this issue,

representatives of the Digital Privacy and Security Working Group

remain available to meet with Administration officials at any time.

Sincerely,

American Civil Liberties Union IBM

Apple Computer, Inc. Information Industry Association

Business Software Alliance Information Technology Association of

America

Committee on Communications and

Information Policy, IEEE-USA Iris Associates, Inc.

Computer and Business Equipment Lotus Development Corporation

Manufacturers Association

Microsoft Corporation

Crest Industries, Inc.

Oracle Corporation

Digital Equipment Corporation

Prodigy Services Company

EDUCOM

Software Publishers Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Electronic Messaging Association

Telecommunications Industry Association

GKI Cryptek Division

Trusted Information Systems

Hewlett-Packard Company

cc: John Podesta, Office of the President

George Tenet, National Security Council

Mike Nelson, Office of Science and Technology Policy

Ray Kammer, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Steve Aoki, National Security Council

Geoff Greiveldinger, Department of Justice

+---------------------------------------------------

This document and others on related topics are archived at ftp.eff.org,

%ftp/pub/eff/crypto-policy.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 14:46:58 -0800

From: Anonymous <tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu>

Subject: File 4--A Superhighway Through the Wasteland?

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following op-ed letter to the New York Times

has been widely circulated across the nets. It is not amenable to

summary, and the importance of the issue requires intact reproduction.

Thanks to the various readers who forwarded it over to us)).

A Superhighway Through the Wasteland?

By Mitchell Kapor and Jerry Berman

Source: New York Times, 24 Nov., 1993 / Op-Ed Column

Washington--Telecommunications and cable TV executives, seeking to

allay concerns over their proposed megamergers, insist that the coming

electronic superhighway will be an educational and informational tool

as well as a cornucopia of interactive entertainment. Allow the

marriage between entertainment and communications giants, we are told,

and they will connect students with learning resources, provide a

forum for political discourse, increase economic competitiveness and

speed us into the multimedia information age.

Both broadcast and cable TV were introduced with similar fanfare. The

results have been disappointing. Because of regulatory failure and the

limits of the technology, they failed to be saviors of education or

political life. We love the tube but recognize that it is largely a

cultural wasteland.

For the Government to break this cycle of promise and disappointment,

communications mergers should be approved or barred based on detailed,

enforceable commitments that the electronic superhighway will meet

public goals. The amount of electronic material the superhighway can

carry is dizzying compared to the relatively narrow range of broadcast

TV and the limited number of cable channels. Properly constructed and

regulated, it could be open to all who wish to speak, publish and

communicate.

None of the interactive services will be possible, however, if we have

an eight-lane data superhighway rushing into every home and only a

narrow footpath coming back out. Instead of settling for a multimedia

version of the same entertainment that is increasingly dissatisfying

on today's TV, we need a superhighway that encourages the production

and distribution of a broader, more diverse range of programming.

The superhighway should be required to provide so-called open platform

services. In today's channel-based cable TV system, program producers

must negotiate for channel space with cable companies around the

country. In an open platform network, we would avoid that bottleneck.

Every person would have access to the entire superhighway, so

programmers could distribute information directly to consumers.

Consumers would become producers: individuals and small organizations

could create and distribute programs to anyone on the highway who

wants them. Open platform services will spur diversity in the

electronic media, just as low production and distribution costs make

possible a wide variety of newspapers and magazines.

To prevent abuses by media giants that because of recent Federal court

decisions will control the pipeline into the home and much of the

content delivered over it, we need new laws. Like today's phone

companies, the companies controlling the superhighway must be required

to carry other programmers' content, just as phone companies must

provide service to anyone who is willing to pay for it. We must

guarantee that anyone who, say, wants to start an alternative news

network or a forum for political discussion is given an outlet to do

so.

Americans will come to depend on the superhighway even more than they

need the telephone. The guarantee of universal telephone service must

be expanded to include universal access to the superhighway. Although

market forces will help keep the new technology affordable, we need

laws to protect consumers when competition fails.

And because several companies will operate the highway, each must be

required to interconnect with the others. Likewise, the new computers

that will give us access to the superhighway should be built according

to commonly accepted standards.

Also, even an open, competitive market will leave out organizations

with limited resources such as schools and libraries. To compensate

for market oversights, we must insure that money -- whether through

Federal support or a tax on the companies that will control the

superhighway -- is made available to these institutions. Finally,

people won't use the new technology unless they feel that their

privacy is protected. Technical means, such as recently developed

encryption techniques, must be made available to all users. And clear

legal guidelines for individual control over access to and reuse of

personal information must be established. Companies that sell

entertainment services will have a record of what their customers'

interests are; these records must remain confidential.

Bell Atlantic, T.C.I., Time-Warner, U.S. West and other companies

involved in proposed mergers have promised to allow the public full

access to the superhighway. But they are asking policy makers to trust

that, profits aside, they will use their new positions for the public

good.

Rather than opposing mergers or blindly trusting competition to shape

the data highways, Congress should make the mergers hinge on detailed

commitments to provide affordable services to all Americans. Some

legislators, led by Representative Ed Markey, Democrat of

Massachusetts, are working to enact similar requirements; these

efforts deserve support.

The best approach would be to amend these requirements to the

Communications Act of 1934. Still the central law on open access, an

updated Communications Act would codify the terms of a new social

contract between the the telecommunications industry and the American

people.

Mitchell Kapor is chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a

nonprofit group that promotes civil liberties in digital media. He was

a founder of the Lotus Development Corporation, from which he resigned

in 1986. Jerry Berman is executive director of the foundation.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1993 13:55:06 -0800

From: Matt Binder <binder@WELL.SF.CA.US>

Subject: File 5--Health Privacy Radio Program

((MODERATORS' NOTE: A few months ago, Matt Binder solicited

information from a number of people on computer privacy for a segment

on privacy in the health industry. At the time, concerns were raised

that it might be another cyber-scare drama, but those familiar with

Matt's local (Bay Area, Calif.) reputation allayed suspicions. His

story justified their opinion, and we reprint it below)).

Working on the story was a real education for me, (getting to meet

all kinds of interesting people is one of the main reasons why I'm

a reporter) and I had a few good coincidences that added some

"atmosphere" to the piece. I've included the entire script below,

I hope I'm not being presumptuous.

The show in which my 8.5 minute piece aired is called "The

Communications Revolution, produced by the Telecommunications Radio

Project, which is headquartered at KPFA-FM in Berkeley. The

project is funded by the California Public Utilities Commission,

through the Telecommunications Education Trust (TET), which is

basically money that was overpaid to Pac Bell by its customers.

Other TET grantees are Gregg McVicar's "Privacy Project", and Beth

Given's "Privacy Rights Clearinghouse" in San Diego. Our project

is a series of 13 one hour, live, satellite- linked panel

discussion and call-in shows that air on about thirty stations

around the country (but especially in California).

show: HEALTH PRIVACY Matt Binder 11/12/93 draft FINAL

****************************************************************

*** cut 1 *** dramatic reading of Hippocratic Oath (Ed Markman)

in: "I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Health, and

by all the gods and goddesses that I will carry out this oath:

into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick,

and whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my

profession, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will

never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets...."

(then fade)

****************************************************************

SINCE THE TIME OF ANCIENT GREECE, DOCTORS HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE

SENSITIVE NATURE OF THEIR PROFESSION, AND HAVE RECITED THIS, THE

HIPPOCRATIC OATH, AS A PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY. UNTIL

RECENTLY PHYSICIANS HAVE KEPT THE SECRETS OF THEIR PATIENTS IN

THEIR HEADS, OR ON PIECES OF PAPER IN A FILE. AND THEY'VE BEEN

THE GATEKEEPERS FOR OTHERS WANTING TO SEE THIS EXTREMELY PRIVATE

INFORMATION. BUT NOW, FOR SOME VERY GOOD REASONS, THAT'S ALL

BEGINNING TO CHANGE.

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 1 --- dialysis machine (2:00)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 2 --- ventilator (2:00)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 3 --- Dr. Ting talking to patient (1:30)

(3 possible starting points)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

AT THE DIALYSIS UNIT AT EL CAMINO HOSPITAL IN MOUNTAINVIEW

CALIFORNIA, DOCTOR GEORGE TING USES A COMPUTER TO KEEP RECORDS,

ORDER TESTS AND PRESCRIBE DRUGS FOR HIS PATIENTS. HE SAYS THE

COMPUTER SAVES HIM HOURS EACH WEEK, AND CAN EVEN SAVE LIVES...

****************************************************************

*** cut 2 *** Dr. Ting :15

in: "For instance if you're ordering a medication on a patient,

it automatically gives you the most common prescribing doses and

frequency. It does make it less likely that you're gonna make

some major mistake, prescribing ten times the usual amount."

(then fade)

****************************************************************

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 4 --- Nurse Holt working at computer (1:10)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 5 --- computer printer (1:05)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

NURSE JUDY HOLT IS AN EVEN STRONGER PROPONENT OF THE COMPUTER.

WHEN NEW DOCTORS COME TO THE HOSPITAL AND RESIST USING THE

COMPUTER SYSTEM, SHE AND OTHER NURSES PRESSURE THEM TO GET WITH

THE PROGRAM...

****************************************************************

*** cut 3 *** Holt :17

in: "We're all anxious to help them learn how to use the

computer because it saves us time, it saves the possibility of

transcription errors, it saves: 'I can't read this doctor's

writing, what on earth does it say,' and if three of us looked at

it and can't figure it out, we've gotta call him..."

(then fade)

****************************************************************

BUT THE COMPUTERIZATION OF MEDICAL RECORDS HAS A DOWNSIDE:

AMASSING HUGE DATABASES OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION COULD OPEN THE

DOOR TO PRIVACY INVASIONS ON A SCALE UNIMAGINABLE WITH PAPER

FILES. IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING. INSURANCE COMPANIES AND DIRECT

MARKETERS, AIDED BY COMPUTERS ALL LINKED TOGETHER BY PHONE LINES

ARE FINDING WAYS TO GET AHOLD OF MEDICAL DATA, AND THEY'RE

SELLING AND TRADING IT ACROSS VAST NETWORKS.

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 6 --- Taylor answering door on Halloween (1:00)

in: "Trick or Treat!..."

+----------------------------------------------------------------

IT'S HALLOWEEN NIGHT AT THE HOME OF MARY ROSE TAYLOR IN

SPRINGFIELD MASSACHUSETTS. TAYLOR RECENTLY FOUND OUT HOW EASY IT

IS TO GET TRAPPED IN ONE OF THOSE DATA WEBS. SHE APPLIED FOR

HEALTH INSURANCE BUT WAS REJECTED BECAUSE OF A COMPUTER ERROR AT

THE MEDICAL INFORMATION BUREAU, OR MIB, A HUGE MEDICAL DATABASE

KEPT BY INSURANCE COMPANIES...

****************************************************************

*** cut 4 *** Taylor :20

in: "They had my name on a urinalysis that wasn't mine, and

they refused to think that there was any kind of mistake or

mixup, and I went without insurance for a year and a half, and

had to literally go to my state representative, the insurance

commissioner just to have it corrected."

****************************************************************

TAYLOR TOLD MIB AND HER INSURANCE COMPANY THAT SHE'D HAD ONLY A

BLOOD TEST, NOT A URINE TEST, AND THEREFORE THE ABNORMAL

URINALYSIS COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE HERS. BUT THE INSURANCE COMPANY

INSISTED THAT SHE GAVE A URINE SAMPLE, THAT IT SHOWED THERE WAS

SOMETHING WRONG WITH HER, THOUGH THEY WOULDN'T TELL HER WHAT IT

WAS...

****************************************************************

*** cut 5 *** Taylor :14

in: "At one point the risk manager had me in tears (sniff). He

was very nasty, really. You know, and his words, what he said to

me was that computers don't make mistakes. I said I agree, but

the people that feed the computer do.

****************************************************************

+----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 5 comes up full again --- more Halloween sound

(then fades out completely before next cut starts)

+----------------------------------------------------------------

****************************************************************

*** cut 6 *** Anonymous (ALTERED VOICE) :10

in: "I'm paying fifteen thousand a year for disability,

personal disability and medical insurance, and that seems like a

whole heck of a lot of money..." (then fade)

****************************************************************

ANOTHER VICTIM OF A MEDICAL INFORMATION BUREAU ERROR IS THIS

DOCTOR FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WHO WANTS TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS.

WHEN SHE ASKED HER INSURANCE COMPANY WHY HER RATES WERE SO HIGH,

THEY TOLD HER THAT HER MIB FILE SHOWED THAT SHE HAD ALZHEIMER'S

DISEASE AND A HEART CONDITION...

****************************************************************

*** cut 7 *** Anonymous (ALTERED VOICE) :23

in: "Here I am a physician who works sixteen hours a day, who's

never been in the hospital has Alzheimer's disease and a heart

attack!? That doesn't make sense. I don't think computers and

the people who put information into the computer are advanced

enough to have such control over our lives."

****************************************************************

*** cut 8 *** Binder stand-up at MIB :24

in: "I'm now standing outside the entrance to MIB Incorporated

in Westwood Massachusetts. I've been trying for over two months

to get an interview with the president of the company, Neil Day.

He says he doesn't have the time, and no one else can speak for

the company. But he did admit during a telephone conversation we

had that four percent of the 16 million computerized medical

records in this building do have errors in them."

****************************************************************

*** cut 9 *** Smith :10

in: "I don't think MIB really needs the good will of consumers,

as does a retail store, and in many ways the less known about MIB

the better perhaps for insurance companies."

****************************************************************

ROBERT ELLIS SMITH IS THE EDITOR OF PRIVACY JOURNAL IN PROVIDENCE

RHODE ISLAND...

****************************************************************

*** cut 10 *** Smith :23

in: "The ancient Greeks knew as others did that for medical

care to work properly, you have to be totally candid to your

doctor. But now instead of a one on one relationship there is a

triangle among the provider, your insurance company and your

employer, and medical information about us flows throughout that

triangle without our participation. And that's the crisis we're

in right now."

****************************************************************

AFTER THE INSURERS AND EMPLOYERS, IT'S PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES

AND DIRECT MARKETERS THAT ARE THE MOST AVID COMPILERS OF MEDICAL

INFORMATION. SOME OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE

NUMBERS YOU CAN CALL TO GET FREE SAMPLES OF THEIR PRODUCTS. WHAT

THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHEN YOU CALL IS THAT YOUR PHONE NUMBER AND

OFTEN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AUTOMATICALLY POPS UP ON THEIR

COMPUTER SCREENS, AND YOUR PERSONAL PROBLEM, WHETHER IT BE

ALLERGIES OR HEMORRHOIDS GOES RIGHT INTO THEIR DATABASE. AGAIN

THE COMPANIES THAT RUN THESE DATABASES REFUSED TO TALK ABOUT

THEM.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------

+--- ambience 6 --- Apter talking on phone

+----------------------------------------------------------------

ONE MAN WHO'S NOT SHY AT ALL ABOUT HIS DATABASE SNOOPING IS JOE

APTER, PRESIDENT OF TELEPHONIC-INFO INCORPORATED OF SAINT

PETERSBURG FLORIDA. HIS COMPANY ACTUALLY HAS A PRICE LIST OF

INFORMATION YOU CAN OBTAIN: $49 FOR SOMEONE'S SOCIAL SECURITY

NUMBER; $299 WILL GET YOU SOMETHING CALLED A "MEDICAL PROFILE"

THAT APTER WOULDN'T ELABORATE ON, BUT WHICH HE SAYS COMES FROM

LEGAL SOURCES...

****************************************************************

*** cut 11 *** Apter :24

in: "There are people out there that are providing medical

records on an illegal basis. And the method they would use to

obtain that would be a pretext into a doctor, and they'd have to

know the doctor, or a pretext in the insurance company to get

that information. We don't do that.

or: *** alternate cut 11 *** Apter :24

in: "You and I are leaving threads as we go around, and we find

those threads and we weave them together to get a picture. There

are people out there that are providing medical records on an

illegal basis. We don't do that."

****************************************************************

*** cut 12 *** Hippocratic oath

(fades in under last cut, up full for a couple of seconds, then

under next cut, then up again after next cut.)

****************************************************************

*** cut 13 *** Smith :22

in: "I think the answer is for patients to insist that doctors

go back to that ancient ethical standard, and insist that they

not disclose information about them without their informed

consent totally. The concept of informed consent about the

release of medical information seems to have gotten lost in the

modern age."

****************************************************************

(Hippocratic Oath comes up full again, then down briefly for soc

out)

I'M MATT BINDER FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS REVOLUTION.

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

Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 16:15:33 EST

From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@mindvox.phantom.com>

Subject: File 6--Apple "Accepts" Texas Bigotry

Last week, the Williamson County (Texas) Commissioners denied Apple

Computer, Inc., tax incentives for building a new facility. The

reason, the commissioners explained, was their opposition to Apple's

policy of extending health benefits to the partners of gay and

unmarried couples. The logic, according to the commissioners, was

that a county subsidy would amount to an endorsement of an "immoral"

lifestyle. Such bigotry is intolerable as we move into the 21st

century, and we are saddened to see it endorsed by the Texas

Republican Party, as reported in the first story below.

Excerpts from the second story indicated a face-saving "compromise" by

the commissioners. Apple's acceptance of the compromise is, we feel,

inappropriate. The commissioners (and the Texas Republican Party) have

made it clear that gays and others of whom they disapprove are

unwelcome. We question whether such a climate is appropriate for

Apple, considered by most to be a principled and progressive

corporation. If it is clear that the community's homophobic attitudes

are translated into policies and action, it would seem that at least

some of Apple's employees will find themselves in a hostile

environment. Perhaps Apple should reconsider its acceptance

lest its employees find themselves in the back of the bus.

+++++++++++++

"Texas GOP Praises Vote Against Gays"

Source: Chicago Tribune, 5 December, 1993 (p. A-8)

Associated Press

AUSTIN, Texas--The Texas Republican Party is praising three county

commissioners who voted against tax abatements for Apple Computer Inc.

because the company grants health benefits to partners of gay and

lesbian employees.

The state Republican Executive Committee commended the three

commissioners Saturday "for having the courage to say taxpayers should

not be forced to subsidize behavior that they believe to be immoral and

illegal."

In a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the Williamson County Commission denied

$750,000 in tax abatements that Apple had sought for building an $80

million sales support center that would employ 700 people.

The three commissioners said they opposed Apple's benefits policy.

Apple later said it was committed to the policy and had been swamped

by offers to build in other communities.

====================================================================

"Anti-gay Texas Board Finds way to Welcome Apple and its Riches"

Source: Chicago Tribune, 8 December, I993 (p. I-6)

Associated Press

GEORGETOWN, Texas--Gary rights leaders called it a triumph over

prejudice, and others said it was proof that cold cash prevails.

Whatever the reason, Williamson County compromised Tuesday on its

objection to Apple Computer Inc.'s benefits policy or unmarried

employees.

One week after rejecting a proposed tax break for Apple, county

commissioners voted 3-2 Tuesday for an alluring financial

alternative. Apple said it will accept.

((The story continues that Apple's new customer support center would

bring 1,700 jobs to the area over the next 7 years, an that the impact

of construction and other indirect sources would add another 4,000 new

jobs. The story summarizes the information published in the Sunday

Tribune story)).

The new incentive plan will reimburse taxes paid by Apple in

exchange for giving the county the right of way for roads and

other improvements on the Apple site.

"Jobs prevailed over prejudice," said David Smith of the National

Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Not according to some conservatives. "Once again, we see an

entity of government that has sold out its moral beliefs for

economic growth," said Jeff Fisher, state director of the

American Family Association.

The story concludes by noting that Commissioner David Hays switched

his vote, even though opposed to the policy. He did so because the

compromise does not tacitly support a gay benefits policy as he felt

the previous one did.

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

End of Computer Underground Digest #5.92

************************************

Search This Blog

The Butcher Shop

Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 8 1993

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Microsoft Explorapedia: The World of Nature software

Microsoft Explorapedia--The World of People software

Babysitter tied up