Computer underground Digest Wed Dec 8 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 92 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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 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 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: ( in /pub/text/CuD. EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud. (Finland) UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/eff/cud ( in /pub/CuD/cud ( in /pub/cud in /pub/mirror/cud in pub/cud (United Kingdom) KOREA: ftp: 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: 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 privacy policy. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 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 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/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 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 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/pub/eff/crypto-policy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 14:46:58 -0800 From: Anonymous 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 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 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 moving 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 progression 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 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank