Re: [Mid] Fw: [gdh] IMPORTANT: Privacy Issue

    Hmmm.... well, this is a continuation of something extremely bad,
    but not really a new addition.

    What a lot of people aren't aware of, is that Ameritech sells a list
    of the home addresses of its customers to Marketing firms, without
    letting the customers know about it, or asking then what they think
    about this.

    I found out about this, last year, when I started getting junk mail in
    my box, addressed to me, personally, instead of to "occupant". I found
    this a little disturbing, in particular because of a psychotic
    ex-girlfriend who had left a partially dismembered chicken carcass in
    front of my door, at my old apartment, phoned death threats to my
    parents... all around, a fun girl. To add to the fun, she worked in
    Market research, and if marketing people were geting that address, so
    was she.

    This seemed a little mystifying, because EVERYONE who had my address
    (U. of Illinois, Indiana U., the post office, the phone company, my
    landlord,....) had been informed of the situation, and had agreed to
    not release the address to anyone. I called the place that had sent me
    the mail, and asked them where they had found my address. I then
    called the company that sold the list with my name and address on it,
    and so on, and so on...and the trail lead back to Ameritech.

    I called Ameritech, and got customer service. I ask the woman there if
    it was true that my name had been released. She said it was. I asked
    her if it was not true, that Ameritech had agreed to not release this
    information to anyone, given the situation. She agreed that such a
    guarantee had been given. I asked, then, what my name was doing on
    that list. She responded by saying, "But sir, when you listed your
    phone number, under our policy, you made it permissible to give out
    your address". "But", I said, "you never told me about either the
    policy, or the list". Ameritech had decided, unilaterally, that when
    promising to not release such information, that the guarantee only
    covered directory assistance, and reverse directory, and had seen no
    need to mention this to anyone outside of its ranks. I then got to
    enjoy a circular argument, that went on for a half hour, in which
    she continued trying to argue that the people at Ameritech hadn't
    violated the agreement, because, in effect, they had their fingers
    crossed behind their backs when they made it.

    To add to the wonder of it all, it seemed that the Republican court
    appointees who control much of the bench, had decided that not only
    was a company that violated such an agreement exempt from lawsuit
    under then current law, even if in doing so, they managed to get
    someone killed, but that any law that removed such immunity would be
    unconstitutional, because it would be too vague, due to a provision
    in English common law from the 1300s (and you thought that this
    discussion wouldn't be period). "What is vague about the statement
    "You may not give out someone's address, after agreeing to not give it
    out to anyone" ?", I asked the attourney who told me this. His answer
    was that I hadn't indicated, that when I said that I didn't want them
    to give out my address, that "anyone" included marketing people.

    "So, in other words, if you don't specify that the specific group of
    people that the list was mailed to, was included in "anybody", then
    you're being too vague ?". I got an affirmative answer. An intriguing
    thought, really, because to merely cover all possible subsets of the
    first 100 marketing people that I could think of, if I were to cover
    one per second, would take approximately

         40,169,423,540,000,000,000,000
        (40 sextillion, 169 quintillion, 423 quadrillion and 540 trillion)

    years, and frankly, I just didn't have the time. "Well", I was told,
   "you're going to have to make the time".

    So stands the law, to this day.

    But, with repeated badgering, and more than a little screaming, I got
    Ameritech to take my name off of the list. But not before they sold it
    to companies all over the city, who in turn sold it to companies,
    who....
   
    Tracking that down, was a real joy. Once done, though, I checked this
    new service, advertised, and found that it would neither locate me,
    nor give information about my phone number. So, whatever damage this
    new service is doing, was already done - as considerable as that might
    be.

    By the way, Scientific American also does this.

On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, Bridget/Slayer wrote:

>
>
> ----------
> > Date: Friday, January 02, 1998 01:20:32
> > From: Shoshana McVey
>
> > Subject: [gdh] IMPORTANT: Privacy Issue
> >
> > AT&T is testing a service that provides phone numbers, addresses, and
> > directions to people's homes. It's been up since September, but not
> > advertised. It allows reverse look-up, so you can find a person by
> > phone number.
> >
> > Some of this is good. Some is not.
> >
> > For example: for personal reasons, I do not give out my home address in
> >
> > most places. My phone number is published, but my address is not. When
> >
> > I searched for myself in this service, I found my phone number as
> > listed, with no address. But clicking on the map icon took me to a map
> > that pointed out my exact address. End of security.
> >
> > It is also possible to find out the names of someone's neighbors, just
> > by clicking on their addresses on the map.
> >
> > This service exceeds the limits of local phone listings, and may
> > endanger anyone who has had a problem with stalkers - or who has been
> > mentioned in a local news report, or wedding announcements, or who has
> > recently lost a loved one and may have been mentioned in the obituary.
> > It is possible to remove one's listing, but not if you don't know about
> > the service - do your elderly parents have a computer?
> >
> > If you are concerned about your privacy, check this URL:
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/content/inwo/1229/266702.html
> >
> > It has a story on this service.
> >
> > The AT&T site is at www.anywho.com
> >
> > Check it out, and if this bothers you complain to AT&T and the FCC. I
> > live in a state with a constitutional guarantee of privacy - you can bet
> >
> > my assemblyman is going to hear about this.
> >
> > Shoshana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> From: "Bridget/Slayer" <bridave@iconnect.net>
> +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
> `~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` sca-middle-request@dnaco.net with
> . | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe' as its body.
>

From: Joseph Dunphy <stats@xnet.com>
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` sca-middle-request@dnaco.net with
. | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe' as its body.
Received on Tue Jan 6 11:41:57 1998