Date: Tue, 07 Sep 93 10:10:00 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 V3#024
Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 07 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 024
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
trouble getting the digest today
UK Privacy International Co
Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911
Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 14:42:07 -0700
From: David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: trouble getting the digest today
it is being sent out with header and footer, but no messages.
[Moderator's Note: I had a problem getting out Volume 3, Issue 23. I
had two false starts. I 've gotten about 6 messages about this. ._dennis
]
------------------------------------
From comp-privacy-request@fender.pica.army.mil Fri Sep 3 11:12:19 1993
To: Comp-privacy@Pica.Army.Mil
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#023
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 03 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 023
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
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].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #023
******************************
---------------------- another follows ----------------
------------------------------
Organization: CPSR Washington Office
From: Dave Banisar <banisar@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:46:06 EST
Subject: UK Privacy International Co
UK Privacy International Conference
ANNOUNCEMENT
ONE DAY PUBLIC CONFERENCE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PRIVACY
AND DATA PROTECTION
30th SEPTEMBER, 1993, MANCHESTER, UK
A roundtable hosted jointly by Privacy International
and the Law School of the University of Manchester
Topics include :
Privacy concerns with Caller ID and digital phone
services
Privacy implications of Electronic Health Care Patient
Record Systems and medical smart cards
Cryptography, and communications surveillance
Implications of the European Commission data
protection directive
The establishment of guidelines for handling police files
in emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe
Weaknesses in the UK Data Protection Act
This programme will include a small number of papers and formal
presentations, but will primarily be a forum for general discussion
of the issues. A number of key international experts will be present
at the meeting.
The conference is free for all Privacy International members,
independent experts, and privacy and consumer advocates.
A fee of 50 (US$75) will apply to representatives of government
organisations or companies.
8.30 AM - 2.00 PM, Thursday 30th September 1993
Room 2.22, The Law School, University of Manchester,
Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL
For more information, please contact :
Simon Davies at Privacy International in London on
(44) 81 402 0737 or fax (44) 81 313 3726
(email : Davies @privint.demon.co.uk )
or
Dave Banisar at Privacy International in Washington on
(1) 202 544 9240, fax (1) 202 547 5482
(email : Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org )
------------------------------
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911
Date: 3 Sep 1993 23:12:38 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Others said:
# > 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
Typical Bell misdirection.....
Notice the modifier "If" in the sentence. 911 does not use CLID. Never
has. I suppose if you started up "Joe's Fire Dept. and Storm Door
Company" you might get it CLID. But what good will the number do you?
Do you go flying out onto the street in your ladder truck, while
looking up the number/address in your Haynes Directory ;-?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 6:42:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <NIEBUHR@bnlcl7.bnl.gov>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911
In Computer Privacy Digest V3 #022
"Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Paul Robinson
writes:
>Monty Solomon <roscom!monty@think.com>, writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>I *hope* this is a misprint. Last I heard, 911 *isn't supposed to be
<affected* by the setting of Caller ID. They are supposed to
>unconditionally receive the caller's phone number and address in order
>that they can make a quick response to you in an emergency.
The Suffolk County, NY, Police Department does not see any numbers when
one dials 911. I asked my son-in-law, who is a dispatcher, about this
and he said that, no, they do not see the numbers.
Dave
Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, LI, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093
Senior Technical Specialist: Scientific Computer Facility
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 21:02 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: ANI
Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> writes:
> Does paying for an 800/900 call give someone carte blance to do anything
> they want with the callers number, such as using it to retrieve an address
> from a reverse directory and peddling it to porno magazines as a hot sales
> prospect?
Why would they bother unless you were calling a porn service to begin
with? What do you and others really think a company is going to do with
your phone number? It isn't the key to your house, your savings
passbook number, your Swiss bank account number, or your winning lotto
ticket. It is just your phone number for crissake! The only legitimate
concern expressed here has been that some telemarketer MIGHT call some
evening. Horrors! What a thought! Even if true (it more than likely is
not), I know many people who have survived telemarketing calls and
lived to tell about it.
Telemarketing is a shotgun enterprise. No telemarketer that I am aware
of has people calling selected lists taken from ANI-generated
databases. It simply does not make any logistic or economic sense
except in some very specialized areas.
I use ANI heavily. I use it for internal purposes and to
protect myself against fraud. Please do not pontificate about how it is
unnecessary or how it is not effective compared to the "harm" it causes
until you have my credentials in the use of ANI and about eight years of
experience in the field of customer-delivered ANI processing.
Dennis is absolutely correct in his assertion that most people do not
care. Yes, I have extensively observed people's reactions and
attitudes concerning it. I have yet to find anyone other than
net.posters who has so much as raised an eyebrow over the issue. I make
it a point to tell people about the availability of ANI delivery on 800
numbers, so it is not as though I expect to keep it a deep, dark
secret. Again, no one is surprised; no one seems to care. With ANI, I
am able to open accounts on the spot; without it the new customer would
have to wait some period of time for a validity check. People in the
real world appreciate that and consider it worth the "privacy"
trade-off.
> [Moderator's Note: Paying for it or not does not give "carte blance to
> do anything they want with the callers number" What give them carte
> blance is the knowledge of the number. Quite simple if you don't want
> a party to know you phone number don't call them from that phone.
> ._dennis ]
Did anyone ever hear the fable about the silly women who sat around
crying because they were afraid that an axe stuck in the ceiling would
fall and hit someone on the head? When it comes to discussions of ANI
and Caller-ID we hear endless jawbone-ing about all the what-ifs and
what we would need to do to prevent them. How about simply using the
remedies that are available to everyone when harmed by another? If you
feel that you have action against someone who has made improper use of
your phone number, then ask for compensation. If he refuses take him to
court. You cannot prevent every possible harm (real or unreal) that may
befall someone in this life. You cannot make the world a rubber room.
In that regard, can someone cite one single documented case where
someone was harmed by either CNID or ANI and took action against the
number recipient? Is the problem real, or is it arm.chair.fantasy?
In my experience, the latter is definitely the case. If you have more
experience than I, let us hear about your case histories.
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 08:54:43 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: RE: ANI
Reply-To: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
In a previous article, ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca writes
>Does paying for an 800/900 call give someone carte blance to do anything
>they want with the callers number, such as using it to retrieve an address
>from a reverse directory and peddling it to porno magazines as a hot sales
>prospect?
>
>In some cases 800 service numbers are mentioned in product documentation
>as a selling point. If a customer buys a product on the basis of it being
>warranted and backed up by an 800 support number haven't they already
>paid for the 800 calls as an integral part of the product price?
>
>[Moderator's Note: Paying for it or not does not give "carte blance to
>do anything they want with the callers number" What give them carte
>blance is the knowledge of the number. Quite simple if you don't want
>a party to know you phone number don't call them from that phone.
> ._dennis ]
>
Whatever happened to the US Code of Fair Information Practices? The ACM
recently affirmed it's support for this, which should lend it some strength
as a moral imperative even if it doesn't have the force of law. Most people
feel that information that is given for one purpose should not be used for
another unrelated purpose without their consent, or transferred to a third
party.
The Canadian Direct Marketing Association recently affirmed it's support
for this principle, according to a report in "Privacy Journal" and other
media. Members cannot send mail to addresses on their exclusion list, must
not sell or exchange addresses without consent, and must inform targets of
who sold them an address when asked, so that targets can exercise their full
right to civil remedy for breach of privacy under statutes such as the BC
Credit Reporting act and the BC Privacy Act(deals with private sector breach
privacy).
The CDMA code is mandatory, unlike the US equivalent. My cynical impression is
that it is primarily a PR move intended to stall legislation that was almost
sure to get passed in Ontario, and Quebec, which would cover over half the
population in Canada.
It's really ironic that these direct marketing organizations have been
relying on the anonymity/privacy of their sources of addresses as a way of
preventing civil prosecution for invasion of privacy. BC doesn't need new
legisltion to make it possible to sue for revealing an address. All you need
is to be able to prove who sold or transferred it.
In the past they've pretended that they have no way of tracking who sold
them an address, so I've used the technique of putting coded initials in
magazine subscriptions, and will be taking one publisher to small claims court.
I got this idea from the PBS documentary "Computers Spies and Private Lives".
It seems to be a variation on the old practice of including phoney names in
address lists. Address list peddlars have always done this to let them know
if "their" addresses were resold or used for more mailings than were paid
for. I guess that there isn't much honour among privacy thieves.
------------------------------
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: ANI
Date: 4 Sep 1993 17:26:49 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
G.>There was *no way* to place the call, because they had no non-800
G.>number listed. I finally ended up calling my secretary and having her
G.>call the place from stateside.
G.>
G.>--Lynn Grant
G.> Grant@Dockmaster.NCSC.MIL
G.>
Now of course, you can call US 800 numbers if you have, say, an AT&T
Credit Card and use USA Direct. They do charge you for the call however.
Duncan Frissell
--- WinQwk 2.0b#0
------------------------------
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: ANI
Date: 4 Sep 1993 17:26:52 -0400
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
U.>One point that didn't get mentioned is that the use of ANI to record
U.>numbers allows the payer to prevent nuisance callers from programming
U.>their modems to dial an expensive 800 number repeatedly. I think ...
U.>that"Stopper" must do this
U.>because they gave me a busy signal after the first call. I didn't have
U.>a pen by the phone and they only mentioned the new caller ID demo
U.>number once before they disconnected. I had to call from a pay phone to
U.>hear it again.
U.>
Stopper puts out a notorized statement from a telecoms security consultant
that says they specifically do not accept the ANI of incoming calls so
that it is harder to trace calls made via the service.
U.>900 numbers cannot be used from here in BC. BC Tel terminated this
U.>"service" after getting a lot of very bad publicity about teenagers
U.>running up huge bills for dial-a-porn. I'm not sure why "Stopper"
U.>includes BC in it's 800 advertising number service area since nobody
U.>here can use their 900 number to block caller ID or ANI.
Stopper also has a service that lets you prepay for calls and use an 800
number.
Duncan Frissell
--- WinQwk 2.0b#0
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #024
******************************