Conference 7.286::digital

    Re: .0
    
    With the introduction of the Health Care Rinbursement Account program,
    which allows us to use pre-tax dollars to pay for most unreimbursed
    health care expenses, it's quite possible that John Hancock, which also
    administers this program, will need to keep records indexed by SSN for
    IRS purposes.
    
    -  David

     RE:.1

>    With the introduction of the Health Care Rinbursement Account program,
>    which allows us to use pre-tax dollars to pay for most unreimbursed
>    health care expenses, it's quite possible that John Hancock, which also
>    administers this program, will need to keep records indexed by SSN for
>    IRS purposes.
    
     Since you get the deduction from DEC, not JH (i.e.  it shows up as a
     lowered  taxable  income on your DEC W2), I would doubt it (and hope
     not).   Afterall,  whatever  is  not  dolled  back  out  to  you (by
     submitting bills by  badge number, as we do today) goes back to DEC,
     not the Employee.  Thus, the only accounting for tax purposes is the
     outflow of money from your  paycheck,  not  the  return  back to the
     Employee.
     
     We'll see if Ed Brady gets back  to me and raises this topic.  If it
     is  required  for  the  HCRA, I'll continue to  pay  my  bills  from
     post-taxed  income  rather  than trust an insurance company with  my
     SSN.  I value my privacy more than a few  $100 in reduced taxes.  [I
     don't  know anyone who doesn't "waste" more than $200 in a  year  in
     bad-judgement purchases, impulse buying, etc.]

re Note 1298.2 by AMELIA::SEGAL:

>      not).   Afterall,  whatever  is  not  dolled  back  out  to  you (by
>      submitting bills by  badge number, as we do today) goes back to DEC,
>      not the Employee.  Thus, the only accounting for tax purposes is the
>      outflow of money from your  paycheck,  not  the  return  back to the
>      Employee.
  
        However, the money in the account can only be "dolled  back 
        out  to  you" for certain purposes, controlled by IRS
        regulations.  Thus the IRS has an interest in tracking the
        "dolling out" as well as the taking in.

   
>      We'll see if Ed Brady gets back  to me and raises this topic.  If it
>      is  required  for  the  HCRA, I'll continue to  pay  my  bills  from
>      post-taxed  income  rather  than trust an insurance company with  my
>      SSN.  I value my privacy more than a few  $100 in reduced taxes.  [I
>      don't  know anyone who doesn't "waste" more than $200 in a  year  in
>      bad-judgement purchases, impulse buying, etc.]

        I would be satisfied if Digital would go to bat for its
        employees and extract a binding agreement from JH that the
        SSN thus provided would be used ONLY for IRS reporting and
        record-keeping purposes and NEVER correlated with medical
        records kept for any other purpose.

        Who is interested in asking Digital to do this?

        Bob

        P.S.  Since John Hancock is not the "insurer" for the Digital
        Medical Plans but only the "administrator", does this mean
        that our medical information supplied to JH is treated in any
        different way than medical information supplied to an
        insurer?  I understand that insurers routinely exchange
        medical information on their clients; but since there is no
        insurer in this case, do we enjoy an extra measure of
        privacy?  Or am I just dreaming?

>        P.S.  Since John Hancock is not the "insurer" for the Digital
>        Medical Plans but only the "administrator", does this mean
>        that our medical information supplied to JH is treated in any
>        different way than medical information supplied to an
>        insurer?  I understand that insurers routinely exchange
>        medical information on their clients; but since there is no
>        insurer in this case, do we enjoy an extra measure of
>        privacy?  Or am I just dreaming?

I recently saw an article about someone who lost a court case regarding
medical insurance.  The ruling was that self-insurance isn't insurance,
so that companies that self-insure (like Digital) aren't covered by
insurance regulations.  [I only glanced at the article, so my summary
may be totally wrong.]

RE: .4

That ruling means that "self-insurers" are not subject to all the regulations
involving actuarial recordkeeping, reserves, etc. that exist for a company
selling insurance to the general public.

This is orthogonal to the issue of whether DEC can or should stipulate to
John Hancock that the SSN and medical information that they obtain from DEC
in their capacity as administrators of DEC's employee insurance benefit programs
is to be used only for the purposes of those programs and does not constitute
part of Hancock's general corporate information pool.

--PSW

  Re self-insurance: One of the speakers at the last DVN boradcast said that
because DEC's John Hancock insurance is self-insurance, it is exempt from 
certain MA state insurance laws.
  Re HCRA and the IRS: The only way the IRS can check to see if you are getting
a double deduction for health care expenses (claiming the same expense in an
HCRA and as a tax-form deduction) is to know what expenses you claimed on your
HCRA. I doubt that HCRA records will be any more private than IRS tax-form
records.

>  Re self-insurance: One of the speakers at the last DVN boradcast said that
>because DEC's John Hancock insurance is self-insurance, it is exempt from 
>certain MA state insurance laws.

Interesting.  One official publication (I believe the benefits bulletin)
said that the waiting period for IVF was being reduced from five years to
one year so that the rest of the country would be in line with what MA
law required.  So it seems that this is one of the MA state insurance laws
from which self-insurers aren't exempt.

     Having  not  heard  anything  from  Ed  Brady (nor  anyone  else  in
     "personnel")  since I sent my memo on December 4th, I called  Ed  at
     5:30PM  tonight.    He told me that he "...hopes to get to  my  memo
     within the  next  few days".  I reminded him that the 14th is coming
     in a few  days,  to  which  he  said that he'd "try" to get to it by
     Wednesday.
     
     I suggest that a  number  of  you  send  a  similar  memo  to  Ed at
     ICS::BRADY, so perhaps he'll better  understand  the need for DEC to
     protect Employees' privacy.

     Keep in mind that  once  an insurance company starts using SSN's for
     ID, you'll be REQUIRED to  give  it  to everyone in doctors offices,
     labs,  pharmacies,  etc.  Therefore, it  isn't  only  the  insurance
     company you need to worry about, but  everyone  else  in  the  "food
     chain" who supplies data to unknown medical/credit agencies.

     Insurance  carriers and companies issuing credit  can  probably  get
     away  (and  HAVE,  for years) with "discriminating"  against  people
     based on medical history for a few reasons:    1st--they rarely tell
     you the TRUE reason for being turned down, 2nd--if  they can "prove"
     with any data that they are afraid that the risk  is  "greater  than
     normal"  of not being able to pay back a loan (disabled,  unable  to
     work,  etc.) or potential shorter than average life span, etc.  they
     can usually  get  away  with  it.    Frequently,  people  with heart
     conditions, diabetes, cancer  (even  cured  skin  cancer),  etc.  or
     family history of same will cause rejection for insurance (or "rated
     up") or rejection for mortgages/loans.
      
     [An insurance agent once told me that if ANYONE in a household had a
     particular    medical  disorder  (non-fatal,  non-contagious),  this
     company would REFUSE to write ANY insurance on the household, autos,
     or anyone who lived there.  I was  shocked, especially since he just
     "offered"  the  info  unsolicited, even though this position did not
     effect me.]
      
     Remember, no matter how healthy we are today...none of us knows what
     the future may bring!!  NOW  is the time to protect your privacy, it
     is too late to start when you "need" to protect your privacy!!

    I just turned in my form to register with Harvard HMO. I blacked out
    the SSN box and wrote next to it in large letters:
    
    MY SSN IS NOT TO BE GIVEN TO THE HMO UNLESS MANDATED BY LAW
    
    When I gave the form to my PSA I pointed out what I had done and asked
    her how the forms are processed. She said the HMO gets the actual
    handwritten form. She was happy to accept my form and even expressed
    support to me on my stance.
    
    Dave

     I just received Ed's reply. I am attaching my response below.
     
     Ed stated that we do NOT have to provide SSN's for DECplan insurance
     options, but DO have to for HMO's.  Personally, I still would NOT do
     so, as the HMO's  have  NO LEGAL right to that info.  However, since
     it does not affect me directly, I am not going to pursue it per see.
     I am going to pursue the general issue with my State Legislators and
     Sen. Lois Pines (who has filed a privacy bill in Mass. Legislature).
     
     Regards,
     
     Len
     
From:	LESREG::SEGAL        "LEN, 223-7687, MLO6-1/U30" 13-DEC-1990 10:55:31.90
To:	ICS::ICS::MRGATE::"A1::BRADY.ED"
CC:	SEGAL
Subj:	RE: Medical Insurance Forms & Violation of Employees' Right to Privacy

     Ed,
     
     Thanks for the response.  
     
     I understand you to say that  the DECplans do NOT require the use of
     Social Security Numbers and thus we need  not  provide  them  on the
     forms.
     
     Although providing the SSN  to  the  HMO's  is  still a violation of
     Employees' Right to Privacy, my  Wife  and  I  are  staying with the
     DECplan and are thus not affected by this position.
     
     Do  you  have  any  objection  to my posting your  response  in  the
     VAXNotes Conference?
     
     Regards,
     
     Len

    I also don't like my SSN sent around.  ZKO personnel seemed well aware
    of this concern.  I was informed that Digital needs this information
    for tax purposes, but that John Hancock and the HMOs do not, so I was
    instructed to simply fold back the top page of the form when writing my
    SSN, such that only the top (Digital) copy had the number.  Seemed
    reasonable enough to me!
    

    I also crossed off the SSN box on my form with a note that said "SSN
    not to be given to HMO", and my PSA didn't flinch.
    
    My PSA needs my badge number to record the change.  The HMO needs
    my badge number to speak to DEC.  The HMO isn't going to be sending
    me (or the IRS) a W2 or a 1099-x form, and so does NOT need my SSN.
    If they do send a 1099-x form, then they *must* have the SSN.  If they
    make such a case, I'll give it to them, but otherwise they don't need
    it.

     Here's an example of the mis-use of personal data, however it is NOT
     illegal for Lotus to  do this, nor anyone to use/misuse it!  That is
     why each of us has to stand up and protect our Right to Privacy!!
     
     I also suggest that letters  are in order, but I would tone down the
     "flames" and make SPECIFIC mention of the US RIGHT TO PRIVACY ACT OF
     1973. 
     
        NOTE:  the way the law is written, the burden is on each of us to
        invoke it!!  That is the only way to be "protected" by it.

     Also, in spite of what I wrote yesterday, I did  consult an attorney
     about  DEC's  "requirement"  for  SSN's  to be given to HMO's.   His
     opinion  is  that  I  am absolutely correct (that we do NOT have  to
     provide  SSN's  to  HMO's  or   any  other  insurance/administrative
     entity).  A number of years  ago  after  another similar incident, I
     consulted  an  attorney  in the US HEW  office  (administrators  for
     Social Security) and was advised that it is  ILLEGAL  for  anyone to
     refuse you services due to your refusal to provide  your SSN, AND to
     do so was a CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION!!!  [Even DEC  will  not  provide
     legal    protection  to  an  Employee  accused  of  a  Civil  Rights
     Violation!]
           

     Len
     
     P.S.   In the body of the attached memo, Larry authorizes forwarding
     of his memo to anyone/everyone. 
     
     [Memo follows as written, including typos.]

[headers deleted]

From:	RGB::SEILER "Larry Seiler, 225-4077, HL2-1/J12  12-Dec-1990 1144"
To:	@LOTUS
CC:	SEILER
Subj:	Confirmation of Lotus' plan to sell data on individuals -- 
	including income estimates and addresses

Folks,

I recently forwarded a message about a new Lotus product -- a database 
on CDROM of 120M US residents with their estimated incomes and buying
profiles.  Someone questioned whether Lotus is really doing this, so
I checked by calling Lotus and speaking to someone in pre-sales service.

It really is true.  Lotus is still gearing up to sell their "Household 
Marketplace" product, and it really does give information on individual
people, not just regional statistical summaries.  I learned the following 
(and I asked for literature, so I'll soon know even more):

    1)	Yes, it really *DOES* have names and addresses of individuals.  

    2)	They have divided up the database by regions, and you specify
	the region you are interested in when you buy the product.
	That explains how they could have 120M people in their database
	and still sell you just 1 CD (or a few) for your purchase price.

    3)	They also have a "Business Marketplace" CD with data on 7 million
	US businesses.

I forebore yelling at the sales-type who handled my call, merely asking if
there was a place to write with comments about the service.  Apparently
the sales types haven't heard of the controversy the product is raising,
since she replied that several different reports can be generated by the
product, and some of them do have space for comments.

GREAT!  So not only do they have the audacity to print an estimate of your
income (which could be quite damaging if they get it wrong, and is an
intrusion into your privacy if they get it right), they also have space 
on the disk for arbitrary comments about you -- and they'll be selling
this data in volume to mass marketing companies across the country!

In interviews, Lotus has said that individuals will NOT be able to correct
their own entries, or even see what they are.  I didn't try to confirm 
this in my call to Lotus, but I did confirm that the person who reported 
it -- Rich Salz of BBN -- has an excellent reputation on the internet.
Also, everything he said that I checked with Lotus is absolutely accurate.
Further, the Wall Street Journal has reported on it -- saying that the
database has ages, marital status, and other such personal data as well.

So I believe it, and you should to, since it is going to affect your life.
Remember -- a database of 120 million US residents comes to almost half
the people in the country.  Considering that the database is probably
biased toward those with higher incomes, the chances are *really good*
that anyone able to electronically read this message is in the database.

What can you do about it?  A couple of things.  Lotus has said that they'll
omit from their database anyone who asks.  Therefore, start by writing to
the address below.  Tell them that you don't want to be in the database,
and tell them exactly what you think of their database.  I've appended a
copy of my letter to Lotus for an example.

Second, pass this message along to anyone whom you think might care.  To
me, this is not just a matter of privacy.  Lotus is going to sell information
behind our backs -- we are not allowed to dispute their data or even know
what it is.  Worse, Lotus is going to sell rumors about our income.  Still
worse, they will do it on a scale never before achieved.  This should not 
be tolerated.  Please help to stop Lotus.

	Thanks,
	Larry Seiler


Write to:
      Lotus Development Corp.
      Attn:  Market Name Referral Service
      55 Cambridge Parkway
      Cambridge, MA 02142
   

Here's my letter.  Also send copies of your letter to the president and the
CEO of Lotus, if you want to let those at the highest levels know that you
are displeased with their product.  I've also appended a net copy of the 
Wall Street Journal artical about it.


                                                198 Linden Street
                                                Boylston, MA 01505
                                                December 6, 1990

     Lotus Development Corp.
     Attn:  Market Name Referral Service
     55 Cambridge Parkway
     Cambridge, MA 02142


     Dear Marketeers,

          I do not want my name included in your "Household Marketplace"
     CDROM database, nor that of anyone in my family, at any address I have
     ever lived at.  To be specific, please make sure that the following
     entries are **NOT** included in your database:

        any last name (especially Seiler, Schmidt, Poffenberger, or Zwerner)
        at 198 Linden Street, Boylston MA

        any Seiler family name
        at 53 Oak Street, Waltham MA

        any Seiler family name
        at 77 Reed Road, Hudson MA


          As you have it set up, I think your "Household Marketplace" CDROM
     database is an incredible intrusion and ought to be illegal.  I am a
     computer professional, so this opinion is not based on any native
     dislike of computers or databases.  The problems I have with your
     proposed service involve the way in which you plan to administer it,
     the way in which the data will almost certainly be used, the type of
     data you are including, and my conviction that you will vigorously
     seek to avoid responsibility for errors in your database.

          First, administration.  I have heard that you are not providing
     any means to correct errors in your database.  The potential for long
     term damage to individuals from use of your database is therefore
     enormous.  Even if an individual knows that your database is false,
     users of your database will almost certainly believe the CDROM data in
     spite of any disclaimers or evidence offered by the individual.

          Second, use of data.  Given the fact that law enforcement
     agencies are nearly powerless to shut down obviously illegal
     boiler-room businesses, it is absurd for you to claim that you will
     only provide the data to legitimate businesses.  You won't be able to
     prevent your product from being used to defraud individuals by huge
     numbers of illegal operations.  One way or another, essentially any
     business who wants your database will be able to get it -- and it will
     be of special value to illegal and borderline businesses.


                                                                Page 2


          Third, type of data.  I understand that you plan to publish
     "income estimates".  There is no legal way for you to verify income,
     unless an individual voluntarily provides that information.  (I never
     do, except when the data is legally required to be held in
     confidence.) It is absolutely unacceptable for you to publish what
     amount to rumors about people's income.  The possibilities for abuse
     are tremendous.

          Fourth, responsibility.  I understand that you will not permit
     individuals to find out what information you are spreading about them.
     The only likely reason for this is that you don't want anyone to find
     out that your information about them is false.  Therefore, while you
     will sell this product on the basis of providing reliable information,
     you aren't prepared to be responsible for the accuracy of your
     information, or for the damage that false information (or even true
     information) might cause.

          So as you see, my concerns about your product are not primarily
     about privacy, although privacy is involved.  If you were prepared to
     take responsibility for the accuracy of your information, then I would
     be willing to accept your service.  For example, you could send copies
     of the data entries to *each* individual in your database, with a
     request to write back if any of the data is incorrect or if they want
     to be removed from your listing.  If you did this, and *made* the
     requested corrections, then I would feel that you were providing a
     positive service, rather than making abusive use of unverified data.

          In conclusion, if you market this product, it is my sincere hope
     that you are sued by every person for whom your data is false, with
     the eventual result that your company goes bankrupt.  That would be a
     pity, since you make many fine products.  However, that is preferable
     to permitting you to spread rumors and encourage abusive business
     practices.  It would be better if your chief officers went to jail,
     but that will apparently require new laws to be passed.  If you
     persist in your plans to market this product, a lot of people will be
     pushing to make that happen.  I suggest that you abandon this project
     while there is time to do so.



                                                Yours most sincerely,




                                                Larry Seiler


 Lotus - New program spurs fears privacy could be undermined
	{The Wall Street Journal, 13-Nov-90, p. B1}
   Privacy advocates are raising the alarm about a new Lotus product that lists
 names, addresses, shopping habits and likely income levels for some 80 million
 U.S. households. Due for release early next year, Lotus Marketplace packs the
 data on palm-sized compact disks aimed at small and mid-sized businesses that
 want to do inexpensive, targeted direct-mail marketing. But critics say the
 product is just too good. "It's going to change the whole ball game," says
 Mary Culnan, an associate professor at Georgetown University's School of
 Business Administration. "This is a big step toward people completely losing
 control of how, and by whom, personal information is used." Janlori Goldman, a
 staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, adds that the product
 raises "serious legal and ethical questions." Lotus' critics concede that the
 product offers little more than is already available from established
 mailing-list brokers. But they say it is a greater potential threat to personal
 privacy because of its low cost, ease of use and lack of effective safeguards
 over who ultimately has access to it and why. They also say that the way it is
 designed allows users to ask a series of increasingly specific questions about
 small subgroups of people - identifying, for example, unmarried, wealthy
 women over 65 in a neighborhood. "They've crossed the line," says Marc
 Rotenberg, Washington director for the nonprofit Computer Professionals for
 Social Responsibility. "It simply shouldn't be allowed on the market." Lotus
 counters that the product, still under development, has been tailored to
 address privacy concerns. No phone numbers will be included, it won't be
 available in retail stores and it will be sold only to "legitimate businesses"
 at verified addresses checked against a "fraud file," Lotus says. A contract
 will specifically limit its use and provide penalties for abuses. Owners will
 be be allowed unlimited use of the names and addresses they buy, at a cost of
 $695 initially for the program plus 5,0000 names and $400 for each additional
 5,000 names.

    Some additional information on getting out of the Lotus database,
    thanks to Usenet.
    
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Subject: How to get out of the Lotus database
Date: 12 Dec 90 18:57:44 GMT
 
To get your name off the Lotus marketplace database, call
	1-800-343-5414
When you hear the voice mail, press 3, then press 2.  You'll hear
music on hold until a person answers.  Tell him or her you want to be
taken off their database.  Give your name and address.
 
If you wish to register complaints about this, write to
	Lotus Development Corporation
	Atten:  Marketplace Product Manager
	55 Cambridge Parkway
	Cambridge, MA 02142
    
    ================================================================
 
From: eliot@jester.rtp.dg.com (Topher Eliot)
Subject: Re: How to get out of the Lotus database
Date: 13 Dec 90 15:04:02 GMT
 
I got through to a very polite human in about 15 seconds.  She also gave me
the following places to write to, to arrange to get less junk mail:
 
Direct Marketing Association
Mail Preference Service
P.O. Box 3861
New York, NY  10163-3861
(she mentioned that writing to these folks would result in your name being
taken off the Lotus thing)
 
Also:
Equifax Options
P.O. Box 740123
Atlanta, Georgia  30374-0123
(she said "this is where we get our information")
 
Topher Eliot
    =================================================================
    
    Comment:  The Lotus/Equifax combination is simply the most efficient of
    the companies that have been doing this sort of thing for years.  The
    specific purpose of Marketplace is to generate better mailing lists.
    The sort of information on the CDROM is no different from what other
    companies keep, except that nobody has done it on this scale or so
    publicly before.  It has nothing to do with credit rating records, but
    everything to do with your mail order buying patterns.
    
    Wes

    re: pre-LOTUS (.12 and before)
    
    This whole brouhaha about giving out your SSN seems just a bit
    academic.  Credit bureaus have your SSN, in MA your driver's license IS
    your SSN, your bank has your SSN, etc.  Do you believe for one moment
    that by leaving your SSN off the form you have denied your HMO or JH
    access to it?  Please!  All they have to do is request a credit report,
    and BINGO!, instant SSN access.
    
    I do agree that SSNs are grossly misused, but don't be deluded into
    thinking that you've denied access simply by leaving it off the form!

    Re: .15:
    
>    academic.  Credit bureaus have your SSN, in MA your driver's license IS
>    your SSN, your bank has your SSN, etc.  Do you believe for one moment
>    that by leaving your SSN off the form you have denied your HMO or JH
>    access to it?  Please!  All they have to do is request a credit report,
>    and BINGO!, instant SSN access.
    
    Credit Bureaus only have your SSN if you give it to someone who uses it
    as an ID number.  My MA driver's license is NOT my SSN.  Banks have my
    SSN because they have to have it to send income-related forms to the
    IRS (Forms 1099-x).   Your SSN is distributed only as widely as you let
    it be.
    

         If you have used credit to any significant degree, the credit
    bureau probably has your SSN.  However, I do advise refusing to provide
    it as often as possible.  It does somewhat slow the dissemination and
    cross-reference capabilities.
    
                                      Greg  

    But do banks report your SSN to a credit bureau during credit
    checks????

    For years I've attempted to withhold my SSN as much as possible.  Got a
    LOT of grief when applying for an Arizona driver's license, which,
    though it uses another accession number for the actual license#, has a
    place for SSN.  I won.
    
    karl

    RE: .15
    
    >Credit bureaus have your SSN, in MA your driver's license IS your SSN,
    >your bank has your SSN, etc.  
    
    Despite getting an invitation in the mail every other week from yet
    another credit card company, I have so far resisted the notion of
    buying things with plastic.  Credit bureaus probably think I'm a bum
    because I don't owe a small fortune in interest, but I bet they've got
    my SS# anyway.  The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, however,
    issued me with a non-SS# for my license.  There was no hassle about it. 
    I simply requested the change last time I renewed.
    

    re: .19
    
    New Hampshire is the same: there is a place on the license for your
    SSN.  I refused to supply it, got some hassle, stood up for my rights,
    and won.  I understand there is less hassle now.
        John Sauter

[Idle thought: Why is this dialogue taing place under the topic "New Med Ins 
 Forms & Privacy Violation?]

As a point of information,

I just called LOTUS (800-343-5414) and asked to be taken off their MARKETPLACE
list. I was told that although they WOULD take the information over the phone
if I insisted, they've been advised by their lawyers to request that people
put their request in writing - including name and address - and mail it to
them.
        Lotus Development Corp.
        Attn: Market Name Removel Service
        55 Cambridge Parkway
        Cambridge, MA  12039

I was told this is NOT a Lotus requirement (hence the willingness to do it over
the phone if I wanted), but a way they've been advised to suggest to protect
the individual.

        /Marvin
  

    
    When I called LOTUS (same telephone no.) I specifically asked if I
    should follow up with a letter... I was told it would not be necessary.
    
    That was on DEC 17
    
    tony
    

    FWIW, under the Privacy Act any government agency can add a 
    "statement of reason" for the data, e.g. SSN, and the required
    data is not a violation of the Privacy Act.
     
    fm

    I just called the LOTUS 800 number and was told that they COULDN'T
    assure that my name would be removed UNLESS I wrote (now get this--not
    them)
    
    	EUIQFAX OPTIONS
        PO BOX 740123
    	Atlanta, GA  30374-0123
    
    	And refer to  Marketplace Household in your letter (their product)
    
    
    Boy are we getting the run around!!  

    Hmm, I just called 1-800-343-5414.  A recording stated that a new
    number had been established to address MARKETPLACE only.  That 
    number is 1-800-225-5800.   The customer service representative
    said that she would mail me a packet of information which would
    include some cards to fill out and return to them to get my name
    removed.   
    FYI.

    
    As a followup, an interesting excerpt from Alex Beam's column in todays 
    Boston Globe business section:
    
    I don't want to make any untoward analogies, but it turns out that
    sometimes a small group of protesters can make a difference. Consider
    for instance, the fate of Lotus Development Corp.'s Marketplace
    products, which put vast amounts of demographics data at the fingertips
    of personal computer users. Household Marketplace for instance, has
    information - including names, addresses, genders and estimated income
    levels - on 120 million individuals stored on 11 compact discs. A
    business to business version is of the $695 product is already in
    stores.
    
    Factoring in the public's general indifference to privacy matters -
    corporations can buy all this information and much, much more on more
    expensive databases - Lotus has encountered significant opposition to
    Houshold Marketplace. The excitable hacker elite, many of whom work at
    Lotus are loggin heavy modem time stirring up opposition to
    Marketplace. Almost 30,000 people have phoned or written the company
    demanding that their names be removed from the discs, and Lotus has set
    up a special 800 number to field complaints. So why aren't I printing
    the number, you ask? Hint: save your breath and save Lotus the dime.
    They're getting the message. If I were a betting man, I'd bet you won't
    see Lotus in this marketplace much longer.
    

    800 225-5800
    
    and save your breath after all. I called, and was told this am, Lotus
    has announced to the press the cancellation of this project.
    
    .-1 wins the bet.