Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 12:50:18 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#064
Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 22 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 064
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Caller ID Decision
Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries
"Paying = Knowing"
Re: Caller ID Decision (are cellular providers telcos?)
cellnet privacy?
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: Sat, 18 Jul 92 10:11:47 -0700
From: Robert Lenoil <lenoil@apple.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision
Organization: Robert S. Lenoil, Independent Consultant
In article <comp-privacy1.62.3@pica.army.mil> mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berc
h) writes:
>This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.
>Cellular customers pay air time for incoming calls (which are generally
>free to callers in the area), but incoming calls are listed on the bill
>with the customer's own cellular number (in most cases, mine included),
>or simply as "INCOMING" on other systems' bills.
That's not the same thing as 800 service. I still pay standard phone charges
to call you on your cellular phone. The fact that you have opted for a phone
service that charges you for incoming calls is your business, not mine.
Robert Lenoil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 09:55:23 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <ole!rwing!peterm@nwnexus.wa.com>
Subject: Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries
Would appreciate comments on the following scenario:
Although libraries and related professional groups have traditionally been
strong defenders of user/patron information privacy and have reflected this'
posture in appropriate policy statements; an expected confluence or somewhat
predictable interplay of a number of influences on the horizon would appear to
present some emerging issues of privacy/information integrity for the library
environment of kind that are unlike those libraries are used to dealing with.
Some of the influences coming into increasing play in this library environment
might include increasing automation and use of information technologies, and an
increasing movement in the direction of imposing fees for services that, in
large measure, employ just this automation and such technologies.
According to this scenario, the rather predictable consequence would, in the
primry instance, be one of significant increase in the flow, and the nature and
quantity of transaction-generated information; which, in turn, would involve
a rather new set of both internal and external interests in access to, and uses
of, such TGI; thus giving rise to a resulting set of emerging, and, for
libraries, non-traditional, emerging questions of information privacy.
Related questions having to do with commoditizing information, and
commercialization and privatization, may also be of relevance in such a
scenario as they are in other privacy areas; and such tendencies may be
facilitated by ideological influences provided, for example, by REINVENTING
GOVERNMENT.
Peter Marshall
------------------------------
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com
Date: 19 JUL 92 22:42
Subject: "Paying = Knowing"
In recent Digests, it has been stated that the party paying for a call
is entitled to know the number of the phone at the other end, for
example, ANI on an 800 number.
In a recent discussion with a GTE media representative, I was told that
"Call Return" would not be offered with the initial GTE CLASS services,
because returning a toll call would disclose the number. The rep said
there was some thought to modifying the billing system to blank out the
last four digits of the number.
=====================================================================
= sua cuique voluptas (everyone has his own pleasures) =
= Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com =
= >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< =
= Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself =
Randomly selected tag:
Please ignore previous fortune.
------------------------------
From: "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision (are cellular providers telcos?)
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:19:10 GMT
Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA
In the referenced article, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> "Michael C. Berch" <mcb@presto.ig.com> writes:
>
> > This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service.
>
> I disagree. Cellular providers are not in the position to either make
> or break "telephone tradition". As entities that are neither LEC nor
> IEC, whatever a cellular provider does or does not do applies only to
> itself. There is not even any consistency, standard, or tradition among
> the hundreds of providers across the country. The rules and procedures
> change on apparent whim. Cellular providers have a long way to go
> before they can claim "telephone company" status.
John, (as usual) I agree with you, or in this case I should say I wish
I could agree with you, but let's face it, cellular providers are de
facto LECs. The fact that they collectively seem to be run by a set
of people who have no deep knowledge of, or respect for, telecom tradition
and usage notwithstanding, they're telcos. "Ya gets yer service, ya
dials yer number, and ya pays the bill."
And rather than having tradition and usage rub off on them, I fear the
opposite will occur, and real (landline) service will end up looking
more like cell service. You know, where you can't even report a
network outage after office hours.
> So I will restate Mr. Forrette's position: tradition and usage dictates
> that the party paying for the call knows the calling number. This is
> true on 800 service, both in real time and on billing; collect calls;
> and even on third-party calls where the billed party is not a
> participant, the billed party has the numbers of both ends of the
> conversation.
Just one gloss on the above -- increasingly, in the case of collect
and third party calls, there is no actual NXX-XXXX number on the bill,
merely something like
FROM SAN FRAN CA PUBLIC PHONE
and I wonder if the information (number of the public phone) is even
permanently recorded, should it ever be a matter of legal, law
enforcement (etc.) interest.
--
Michael C. Berch
mcb@presto.ig.com
------------------------------
From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
Subject: cellnet privacy?
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:45:51 GMT
Organization: ALMAC PC Board
I wonder how long it is going to be before the business
Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made
over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext',
with a cheap shortwave scanner? I managed, completely
invertantly, to overhear a conversation between the Personel
Director of the company I was working for, and the local
Personel Manager, discussing imminent staff redundancies.
Pure coincidence, of course, but a systematic search is not
unrealistic.
Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police
radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information
received?
---
~ PQ 2.15 194 ~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Keith Willis
**** email: keith.willis@almac.co.uk
**** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis
--
ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371 Call for details!
ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #064
******************************