Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 16:56:02 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <comp-privacy-request@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#060
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 10 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 060
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Caller ID decision
Re: Can Merlins be used as bugs?
Re: Caller ID decision
Re: Caller ID decision
The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the
effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and
gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy
(Moderated). Submissions should be sent to
comp-privacy@pica.army.mil and administrative requests to
comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 16:46 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Caller ID decision
"David H. Close" <dhclose@cco.caltech.edu> writes:
> Has anyone else commented on the general availability of ANI versus the
> general unavailability of CLID? If you can afford a T1 link and an 800
> number, there is no privacy issue mentioned when you get ANI from your
> carrier.
This has been the case for MANY years. And you bring up one of the
foremost disadvantages of "rule making through activism". Activists
have a narrow, limited agenda and more often than not are shockingly
uninformed. I must have mentioned on this and other forums more times
than I can count that big business can have "super Caller-ID" anytime
it wants. ANI transcends LATAs, state boundaries, SS7 capability and
most rules and regulations. It is unblockable.
> Its only the analog
> customer with limited (home, small business) needs who faces the big
> bruhaha over alleged "privacy".
How about that! The saviours of our "privacy" (I was the one who
mentioned that it is really an anonymity issue) will only be successful
in denying the small players (you, I, and our fellow small businessmen)
the ability to have a second-class (no pun intended) imitation of what
the big boys have been enjoying for years and years. I do not suppose
that we can thank them enough.
> But another, very real, issue is the
> discrimination against smaller users who can't get the service which is
> readily available today to large companies.
Don't ask me. Don't ask the telcos. Ask the yahoo anti-Caller-ID people
who have decided in their collective infinite wisdom that the common
man is not to know who is ringing his phone, disturbing his PRIVACY!
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
------------------------------
From: Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com>
Subject: Re: Can Merlins be used as bugs?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 23:32:11 GMT
>Daniel P. B. Smith (dpbsmith@world.std.com) writes:
>>Our office AT&T Merlin systems offer a built-in speakerphone mode
>> ... [and lots of other features besides -ed] ...
>>Potentially, it seems as if the system could be
>>used to eavesdrop on offices. The phone installer assured me that
>>this was impossible (translation: if there IS a way, they don't tell
>>him how). But I wonder if there are really engineered protections,
>>or whether eavesdropping is simply not a feature supported by the
>>"standard" software. Could a hacker reprogram it somehow? ...
There was a posting in comp.dcom.telecom a few months ago about an engineer
who worked for a PBX company in designing the station sets. He and his
fellow engineers thought about the possibility of someone hacking the firmware
to turn on the mic without anyone knowing it. They decided to build into the
hardware of the set a feature such that it was impossible to turn on the mic
without also the 'mic' LED being turned on. Although there would be no
audible indication that the mic was on, it would be pretty foolish for someone
seriously trying to bug someone's office (they would have to be quite serious
to hack the PBX firmware in the first place) and have the 'mic' LED turned
on.
Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Forrette <stevef@wrq.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID decision
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 02:25:03 GMT
In article <comp-privacy1.59.2@pica.army.mil> dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H. Close) writes:
>Has anyone else commented on the general availability of ANI versus the
>general unavailability of CLID? If you can afford a T1 link and an 800
>number, there is no privacy issue mentioned when you get ANI from your
>carrier. The caller is usually totally unaware. Its only the analog
>customer with limited (home, small business) needs who faces the big
>bruhaha over alleged "privacy". As someone else mentioned, privacy isn't
>the issue, anonimity (sp?) is. But another, very real, issue is the
>discrimination against smaller users who can't get the service which is
>readily available today to large companies.
I think you are overlooking a big difference here. In the case of a "large
company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call.
Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting
someone else to pay for their calls. And that's just what you're doing
anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it. Also,
there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for
the call gets to know who both parties are. Whenever you place a toll call,
the called number is listed on your bill. Manual collect calls have the
caller announced by the operator, as well as the calling number itemized on
the bill (in most areas). Similarly, virtually all 800 service has had the
calling number for each call itemized on the bill for several years now. The
only new thing is that you can now get it in real time. I do think that more
public education would be a good thing to inform people of the 800 ANI issue.
But I don't think blocking is really a necessity here - again, don't expect
someone else to pay for your "privacy"/anonymity.
Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com
------------------------------
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Caller ID decision
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1992 21:33:12 GMT
But who can doubt the right of the 800 call recipient, who is paying for
the call, to know who is calling?
[Moderator's Note: Anyone who has an 800 number gets a list of all
calling numbers on their bill. I even get one for my residential 800
number. ._dennis ]
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #060
******************************