Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 01 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 020
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
ANI
Ramblings
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#019
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#008
Re: human factors of coins
Caller ID Blocking and 911
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
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 09:57:14 -0700
From: David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: ANI
Paul Robinson wrote:
> Most people know the return of the calling telephone number
> under the name of "Caller ID". 800 numbers have never had
> Caller-ID. They have always (and only) had ANI. And the
> ANI is what the system is reading to you.
Another difference between Caller ID and ANI is that Caller ID
returns the number you are calling from unless blocked or from
certain lines that, for example, do not have an incoming telephone
number. ANI returns the billing number. For most residential
customers the two will be the same, for corporate accounts or for
people with more than one line, there could be only one ANI for
all the phone lines.
> ANI *cannot* be blocked by dialing *67.
true. at least as currently implemented.
> There would probably be another issue involved since the only
> way they could keep from delivering your number would be to
> disable ANI on calls; assuming this was even possible, it
> would trigger faults and other problems associated with ANI
> failure.
Since ANI exists so that LECs (long distance companies like AT&T or
MCI) can properly *bill* calls, there is no reason that ANI has to
be provided to any recipient of any call, 800 number or regular number
like 213-572-3467. (I have no idea what that number is or even if
it is a working number). If no ANI were delivered to the recipient
of a call, billing could still be done. (Note: Even 900 numbers do
not need ANI. They could be required to negotiate a payment method
at the time of the call.) Further, I do not buy the argument that
just because someone pays for an 800 call, they deserve to be able
to invade my privacy.
Sure, recipients often like to purchase this information anyway because
information is power, but there is no reason, technical or otherwise,
except for greed, that ANI has to be provided to the recipient of the
call. You may find that certain applications are worthwhile, and it
should be your right to participate in those applications, but you should
also have the right not to participate in those applications if you like.
BTW, one way to get some privacy on 800 number calls is to call from a pay
phone.
> Now there really is very little the CRTC can do anyway, if the
> 1-800 number is within the U.S., even assuming that this
> capability is illegal, since the U.S. company is doing nothing
> illegal under U.S. law, any more than the TV station in Canada
> that broadcasts into the U.S. is not violating Canadian law even
> though it is not licensed to broadcast on that station in the U.S.
The CRTC could make it illegal to import or export ANI information.
In fact, if the CRTC wants everyone in Canada to use a Canadian carrier,
then blocking the export of ANI would help to achieve that restriction.
Your analogy fails because it is technically impossible to have broadcasts
stop at the boarder. It is technically possible to prohibit the export of
ANI.
David
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 02:25:01 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <drears@pica.army.mil>
Subject: Ramblings
This started out as a "Moderator`s Note" to a article on ANI by David
Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu>. I then thought to myself I have a couple of
minutes and thought I would ramble on. Hopefully the moderator will
approve this article :-). I realized that I had a couple of paragraphs and
decided to make it an article by itself. He had wrote:
"Further, I do not buy the argument that just because someone
pays for an 800 call, they deserve to be able to invade my
privacy."
How does somebody that you called on their nickel having your phone
number "invade your privacy"? Anonymity, maybe? What exactly is
privacy, anonymity? Let's See.......
privacy n. 1. Seclusion or isolation from the view of, or contact with,
others. 2. Secrecy, concealment.
anonymity n. The quality or state of being unknown or obscure. 2. One
that is anonymous.
In this case, the knowledge of your phone number violates your anonymity,
the use of it your privacy. If somebody calls you they have interrupted
your activities. If you don't like it you can screen calls. The sheer
fact that you have a telephone that can receive calls means that you have
allowed anyone who dials that number to interrupt you.
If you don't want somebody to know your phone number don't call them
from that number. My phone number is 201.927.8757. I don't care who
knows it. I care who calls it. Technology is here, it won't go away.
If you use technology people can find out information about you. If
have a radio receiver it can be determined what you are listening to. If
you use credit cards they can determine your purchases. If you use atm
cards they can determine where you've been. If you use celluear phones
they can track your movements.
Technology is a double edged sword. That is why I started this
discussion group. I wanted a forum to discuss ways on how technology
enhances privacy (encryption) and detracts from privacy (e.g. wide
area databases). For the most part I gotten discussions about on the
fringes of this. I gotten a lot of articles on SSNs. SSN are nothing
but a key to a data base. If it wasn't for the SSN we have a another
key (birthdate & address). The discussion should be about the use of
the data base and who has access not if they have the right to ask it.
I've been kind of disappointed about the types of discussion in this
forum but unfortanetly (sp) I haven't really had the time to direct the
discussions.
I seen discussions if merchants have the right for driver license
numbers, social security numbers, or phone numbers. They don't. If
however you want want to cash that check they do. They want it to
protect themselves if the check bounces not to get a database on you.
Radio Shack just wants to send you a catalog. If you don't want it throw
it out.
In this digest we have one article about a spouse not wanting to reveal
a SSN to his/her mate. Wow, whatever happened to the basic idea of
marriage being a union? We can write until we are blue in the face about
what should or should not be. However, privacy/anonymity is getting
harder to safeguard. Let's start discussing ways to use existing technologies
to our benefit.
dennis
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 11:22:10 PDT
From: Dave Gomberg <GOMBERG%UCSFVM.BITNET@cmsa.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#019
Christy, I suggest that if you do not want your spouse to divulge your
SSN, don't give it to her. And if you do not trust her, don't send her
to the bank to do your banking business, go yourself. You wanted to
save some time and energy, and then you are miffed when it works. What
do you want?
Dave Gomberg, role model for those who don't ask much in their fantasy lives.
GOMBERG@UCSFVM Internet node UCSFVM.UCSF.EDU fax-> (415)731-7797
------------------------------
From: Hans Lachman <lachman@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#008
Organization: Netcom
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1993 18:36:48 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.19.5@pica.army.mil> "Dennis D. Steinauer" <dds@csmes.ncsl.nist.gov> writes:
>Stephen Block asks:
>
> >> 1) Who is allowed to demand my Social Security number, and for what
> >> purposes? I'm curious about both governmental and non-governmental
> >> organizations.
>
> Briefly, the Privacy Act (5 USC 552a note (Disclosure of Social Security
> Number)) says: "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local
> government agency to deny any individual right, benefit, or privilege
> provide by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his
> social security account number: Sec. 7(a)(1).
> ... (exceptions, etc.) ...
So I suppose there is no law like the above that applies to
non-governmental organizations. This is unfortunate.
I have experienced what I would call housing discrimination
resulting from my refusal to disclose my SSN. My basis for not
divulging it was that I did not consider my relationship with
the Social Security Administration to be directly relevant to
my applying to rent an apartment. I'd like to see the situation
change, but I can't imagine how that's going to happen.
Hans Lachman
lachman@netcom.com
"You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike."
------------------------------
From: Ed Ravin <eravin@panix.com>
Subject: Re: human factors of coins
Date: 31 Aug 1993 20:59:34 -0400
Organization: Not Just Another Pretty Face
In article <comp-privacy3.19.3@pica.army.mil>,
Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>Vancouver police recently arrested a gang who were getting into peoples
>accounts by watching over their shoulders as they entered their PINs
>and then grabbing the transaction reports slips that most people
>foolishly throw into the wastepaper containers beside the ATMs. The
>card number and all the information needed to encode a duplicate card
>are usually printed on the slip.
Not all the information is on the slip -- the cards also have an expiration
date recorded on their magnetic strip, and the thieves need to either
glance at the card or improvise. An ex-employee of a bank in NY City
who used to repair ATM machines was pulling off this scam a few years
ago -- the bank found him because all his faked cards had the wrong
expiration date (and the bank's software was still allowing the
transactions even though the expiration dates were wrong).
See the back issues of RISKS digest (maybe 4 years ago?) for more info.
--
Ed Ravin |
eravin@panix.com | "The cockroach is very advanced politically -- not
elr@trintex.uucp | one cockroach in America voted for Ronald Reagan."
+1 914 993 4737 | ---- Professor Louie
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 00:16:10 -0400
From: Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>
Subject: Caller ID Blocking and 911
The following is an excerpt from the "Caller ID And Blocking Fact Sheet" I
received from New England Telephone.
How Does Line Blocking Work With Emergency Calls?
If you have Line Blocking and an emergency service provider has
Caller ID, the provider will NOT receive your number UNLESS you
unblock your number by pressing *67 (dial 1167 on a rotary/pulse
phone) before you call '911' or other seven digit emergency numbers.
Line Blocking and Per-Call Blocking pertain to Caller ID only. Call Trace
and Call Return are unaffected by either Line Blocking or Per-Call Blocking.
---
# Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405
# monty%roscom@think.com
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #020
******************************