Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 02 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 021
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
Re: ANI
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Re: ANI
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 15:43:30 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.20.1@pica.army.mil> David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>Paul Robinson wrote:
[...]
>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.
They are paying for your call. Because they are paying for the use of
the lines that your call is coming from, they have a legitimate
interest in knowing where the call came from, if for no other reason
than to keep the phone company honest when they bill them. If you
don't want your number delivered, then call the companies non-800
number and pay for the call yourself. If you don't pay for the call
yourself, then you should accept the conditions that the party who pays
for the call puts on you when you make the call. ANI is one of the
conditons. After all, nobody forced you to call the 800 number.
>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.
Another way is to call the non-800 number and pay for the call
yourself. I think the "greed" comes from people who wish to call 800
numbers without having their phone number displayed because they are
too cheap to call the non-toll free number. As for 900 numbers, I
don't think that ANI should be delivered on those because you are the
one paying for the call. [...]
--
Richard E. Roda <rerodd@eos.ncsu.edu>
Computer Science at NCSU | PGP 2.3 Public key by Email
Xdisclaimer: These are my opinions, not necessarly any one elses.
Xmetadisclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 17:21 GMT
From: Christopher Zguris <0004854540@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: ANI
In Computer Privacy Digest V3#020 David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>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
>people with more than one line, there could be only one ANI for
-------------------------------
>all the phone lines.
--------------------
This doesn't make sense. I have an 800 number and multiple lines in a
hunt group. Are you saying that no matter which line in the hunt group
I call from to an 800 number (or whatever we are talking about that
uses ANI) the main number in the hunt group will appear through ANI? If
ANI is used for billing purposes, than why do each of the lines in the
hunt group have their generate their own long distance phone charges
when the MCI bill comes in? If all calls were billed through one ANI
than I'd get all the charges billed to the main number. I think each
phone line generates its own ANI - this sounds like a discussion in
TELECOM Digest.
Christopher Zguris
CZGURIS@MCIMail.com
------------------------------
From: David Hoffman <hoffman@xenon.stanford.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: ANI
Date: 1 Sep 93 17:41:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
In article <comp-privacy3.20.1@pica.army.mil> David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
>
>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.
>
Well, perhaps they could do their billing without revealing the calling
party's number, but if I ever got a phone bill saying "you owe us
$xx.xx for this 1-800 call, but nevermind where it came from - just
trust us", I sure wouldn't pay it.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: ANI
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 11:53:09 CST
Organization: The Villa CyberSpace, executive headquarters
In comp.society.privacy, gast@cs.ucla.edu writes:
> 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.
Do you also think that the recipient of a collect call has no reason to
know the calling number? The two cases are really equivalent.
I suppose the best method might be to make blocking of ANI available,
along with blocked-blocking. (just like CNID) But I would certainly
refuse an anonymous call that was asking me to pick up the tab. In
fact, it strikes me as downright rude to ask that I pay for a call
without knowing who's getting the benifit of my expenditure. And I
wouldn't be able to even ask until I'd already paid.
--
Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | PGP 2.3 public
roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org | main(){ | key available
| int x=486; | upon request
| printf("Just my '%d.\n",x);} | (send yours)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 93 11:46 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: ANI
David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> (Note: Even 900 numbers do
> not need ANI. They could be required to negotiate a payment method
> at the time of the call.)
Yes, and we could use rotary dials instead of keypads. I would like to
remind Mr. Gast that the entire intention and purpose of IAS is to
provide an instant access to information or other "immediate
gratification" without the need for "payment negotiation" or other
non-impulse gyrations. And since many carriers offer 900 service but
provide no billing mechanism, end-user ANI is the only means a provider
has to bill his customer.
> 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.
Don't you have that a little backwards? You calling them invades your
privacy? I would assume that when you call an 800 number, you want
something from the 800 customer. For instance, if you call one of my
800 numbers, it is assumed by me that you want to set up an account. I
expect for you to give me some personal billing information INCLUDING
your phone number. Are you claiming a right to call and scam me and
even deny me a little mechanized sanity check on your information?
Side note: I do find it amusing (and this is not a personal accusation
of Mr. Gast) that many who are vehemently against caller number
identification in any form, ostensibly because businesses will abuse
the information, see nothing wrong with scamming businesses with phoney
information and the like. Could this be a more accurate motivation?
> BTW, one way to get some privacy on 800 number calls is to call from a pay
> phone.
A number of scammers tried this on me which is why I now reject calls
from pay phones (and hotels and large companies and...). You see,
ANI alse provides information about the calling telephone's class of
service.
Calling number delivery provides for some very useful services that
would not be possible otherwise. Yes, the carriers could be prohibited
from delivering the information to the end user, but to what end? It
really is not necessary to accomodate those who feel that their phone
numbers are a matter of national security. Those people can simply
avoid calling others whom they do not wish to know their numbers.
Better yet, have the telephone removed if privacy is the real issue.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407
------------------------------
From: "david.g.lewis" <deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: ANI
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1993 19:47:17 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.20.1@pica.army.mil> gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:
>Paul Robinson wrote:
>> 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
First, I think you meant IXCx, not LECs.
Second, I think the original author's statement was using "they" to
mean "Local Exchange Carriers", not "Interexchange Carriers". While
IXCs are technically able to refrain from delivering ANI to their
customers, LECs are not technically able to refrain from delivering ANI
to the IXCs; nor are they technically able to indicate that the
presentation of the ANI should be restricted.
Third, there is a reason (albeit a non-technical reason) why IXCs may
have to provide ANI to call recipients - it's in the tariff. AT&T's
INFO-2 service tariff specifies that AT&T is obligated to deliver ANI
to INFO-2 subscribers on every call for which we receive ANI. If you
feel the tariff should be outlawed, you're entitled to that opinion; I
would disagree, however...
David G Lewis AT&T Bell Laboratories
david.g.lewis@att.com or !att!goofy!deej Switching & ISDN Implementation
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #021
******************************