Date: Fri, 10 Sep 93 12:34:15 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#029
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 10 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 029
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Spousal Signatures
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: Does Anybody Care About the Right to Privacy?
Re: Does Anybody Care About the Right to Privacy?
what is ANI?
Re: ANI and CNID
Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#026
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: Chris Nelson <nelsonc@colossus.cs.rpi.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Spousal Signatures
Date: 9 Sep 1993 17:56:13 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA
In article <comp-privacy3.22.2@pica.army.mil>,
Tansin A. Darcos & Company <0005066432@mcimail.com> wrote:
>Two men can walk into a car rental agency. One is a deadbeat who has no
>assets except a secured VISA card with $400 available credit. The other
>has $5,000 in cash. The deadbeat with the secured VISA will drive out with
>a rental car. The guy with $5,000 will be turned away if they don't call
>the DEA first for the reward for turning in people with large amounts of
>money.
Preferring cash myself, I called around to all the major car rental
agencies. Most want a $300 deposit to rent a car and they WON'T issue
you the difference between the rental and the deposit when you return
the car (they don't have cash registers full of cash out of which to
give you refunds), you get a check in the mail 2-3 weeks later.
HOWEVER, Hertz has a program where you can apply to use cash. They do
a credit check, etc. to give them some assurance that you aren't the
sort of person who would steal or trash their car then they send you a
plastic card which you can present at Hertz locations in-lieu of
credit; no deposit, nothing. Just pay cash on return. Guess who's
getting my business?
Chris
--
------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Chris Nelson | Rens-se-LEER is a county.
Internet: nelsonc@cs.rpi.edu | RENS-se-ler is a city.
CompuServe: 70441,3321 | R-P-I is a school in Troy!
------------------------------
From: Richard Blauvelt <rblauvel@world.nad.northrop.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
Organization: Northrop Information Services Center, Hawthorne, CA
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 18:29:05 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.27.5@pica.army.mil> Kenneth Ingham <ingham@i-pi.com> writes:
>I would like to present a differnt view of the caller id discussion.
(interesting stuff deleted)
>I realize that most of the discussion is around businesses obtaining your
>number when you call, but it works both ways... Now I can fight back by
>ignoring the phone if they call me and I don't want to talk with them.
At the rish of repeating others who may have drawn the same analogy:
My phone is an electronic door to my home. In a virtual reality sense,
I use it for exiting my home, and others use it for entering my home.
Now, when someone rings my phone, I consider that a potential intrusion
which is no different than when someone rings my doorbell. I and many
others would never open the door without first looking through the peep-
hole to see who is requesting entry, but for years, we have all had to
put-up with lifting the phone receiver without any idea of whether the
caller is likely to have hostile intent. Caller ID is the electronic
equivalent of the peep-hole in my front door.
Answering machines, in my opinion, are not an adequate substitute for
caller ID. When someone rings my door-bell, I don't expect them to
write a note and slip it under my door before I even acknowledge that
I am home, but that is essentially what I am doing when I screen my
calls with my answering machine. If someone wants to slip a note under
my door, that's fine, but I also want to have the peep-hole. I want
my answering machine and I want my caller ID.
Too many people are hung-up on the fact that caller ID gives businesses
access to personal information. In my opionion, as long as that so-called
personal information is limited to a name and phone number, then the worst
that will happen is that the business will call you back and you will
have the option to screen that call with your own caller ID capability.
And with per-call blocking, the customer maintains anonymity.
I don't expect many businesses or individuals would open the door to
someone who arrived wearing a stocking over their face. Without caller
ID, everyone who calls me is potentially able to violate my privacy and
threaten my security with almost no risk to themselves, much like the
man who shows up on my doorstep wearing a ski-mask. Businesses and
their employees are also potential victems of telephone threats and
fraud. Should they have less rights to privacy and security simply
because they are engaged in earning a living?
When I post to a news-group or send electronic mail, my name and
internet address are attached to the message. How is caller ID any
different?
-Richard
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Blauvelt | Internet: rblauvel@world.nad.northrop.com
Northrop Corp. Aircraft Div. | "In this message, I speak only for
Hawthorne, California, USA | myself and not for any organization"
------------------------------
From: David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@burn.network.com>
Subject: Re: Does Anybody Care About the Right to Privacy?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 18:31:57 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.25.2@pica.army.mil> ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca writes:
>Direct marketers claim that somebody out there just loves all the waste
>paper and time wasting phone calls they harasses us with. I have never in
>my life met one of these people. Everyone I've ever discussed this with
>has no use for junk mail and resents their address being passed around
>by anonymous companies without their consent. Is there anyone who likes
>getting tele-marketing cold calls? By using coded initials and confronting
>entities that refuse to treat my addresses as confidential I have been
>able to eliminate all personalized junk mail at my home.
I've found a number of interesting things I never would have learned of
otherwise in junk mail. While the quantity of it is mildly annoying,
and there are certainly some ecological issues, I don't just throw it
out unread; I actually look at a fair percentage of it. I like getting
catalogs in particular. So perhaps I'm one of those hypothetical
people you've never met. On the other hand, most people I've asked
feel the same way. Obviously we're surveying different populations, or
our surveys (informal) aren't as unbiased as we'd like.
I *don't* know anybody who likes getting telemarketing calls, though;
our samples seem to agree on that. I don't mind getting upgrade
reminder calls from companies from whom I've purchased software,
though. And that's essentially a sales call (but not a cold call).
While I'm generally in favor of "privacy" and enhanced privacy rights,
it's largely an intellectual rather than an emotional feeling. I don't
understand people with unlisted phone numbers; I spend considerable
effort trying to keep in touch with friends and acquaintances, and
quite often my listed phone has been the thing that brought me back
together with somebody I thought I'd lost. People coming through town
who suddenly remember I live here can find me easily.
(Well, I understand some cases of unlisted phone numbers; celebrities, people
with a stalker problem, that kind of thing.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet Network Systems Corporation
ddb@network.com Brooklyn Park, MN (612) 424-4888 x3333
ddb@tdkt.kksys.com My postings represent at most my own opinions.
Geek code 0.3 extended: GCS/O d* p--- c++ l m+ s+/+ ++!g w+++ t- r f+++ x+
------------------------------
From: David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@burn.network.com>
Subject: Re: Does Anybody Care About the Right to Privacy?
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 18:34:59 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.25.2@pica.army.mil> ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca writes:
>The statistics for unlisted
>numbers show quite the opposite. "Privacy Journal" recently published a
>table of these for a number of US Cites. Rates ranged from the 30%s in
>places like Seattle to over 60% in Los Angeles. Should Caller ID even
>be offerred in cities where about 2 out of 3 home numbers/addresses are
>unlisted?
I just don't get it; the argument I keep seeing presented is that
having your phone number, that is to say being able to call you, is an
invasion of your privacy. Yet, the way I get that number is by
accepting a call from you. You've *already* invaded my privacy before
I acquire the opportunity to maybe invade yours in the same way at some
future time. This makes no sense; obviously this isn't really the
argument people intend to make. But it's what I see over and over
again. Somebody help me! What's the real argument?
--
David Dyer-Bennet Network Systems Corporation
ddb@network.com Brooklyn Park, MN (612) 424-4888 x3333
ddb@tdkt.kksys.com My postings represent at most my own opinions.
Geek code 0.3 extended: GCS/O d* p--- c++ l m+ s+/+ ++!g w+++ t- r f+++ x+
------------------------------
From: "John P. Quinn" <p00737@psilink.com>
Subject: what is ANI?
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 93 19:07:04 -0500
Organization: Q-CADD
Hello to all,
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to this group and after reading some
of the interesting posts I have a couple of stupid questions.
1. What does ANI stand for?
2. How can I block caller I.D.?
3. What effect does *67 before the fone # string do for me, and what
numbers and/or business's can over-ride the *67?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages for me to have caller I.D?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages for an outsider to have
caller I.D. and caller I.D. blockage?
6. How come some people dial in *67 on there phone before dialing the
rest of the number and it doesn't work for them?
7. Why are people confused about the difference between ANI and PBX
and other type of devices?
8. How long has this technology been around, and in what other types
of similar devices?
I think thats all that bugging me for now. (No pun intended)
^^^^^^^
[Moderator's Note: Anybody want to take a stab at answering *ALL* these
questions? ._dennis ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 93 12:46 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Reply-To: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: ANI and CNID
"Glenn S. Tenney" <tenney@netcom.com> writes:
> When I was campaigning for Congress last year, in
> talk after talk I do not recall a single person in my district who knew
> about ANI, yet when told about it were aghast that 800 calls were not
> anonymous.
Of the hundreds of people with whom I have discussed this matter, I
have yet to have one single individual respond with anything more
provacative than a yawn. "Interesting." "Huh!" That is about as
agitated as it gets.
> Try asking your coworkers if they know anyone who has ever called 800
> numbers such as: Witness-a-crime, child abuse hotline, runaways, suicide
> prevention hotline, cocaine users anonymous, etc. and THEN ask them if they
> would *ever* call such hotline if they knew that their calls were NOT
> anonymous.
Why not approach reality just a little? Try asking your coworkers if
they have ever called such a number and had any evidence whatsoever
that 1) their number was even captured; 2) there was any misuse of any
information collected; or 3) any harm of any kind resulted from the
call. I believe that if you cannot quantify or objectively describe
"harm" that it did not happen. And it is up to the claimant to prove
such harm, not for others to prove the negative. How would one go about
proving that the stepping on a sidewalk crack was NOT the cause of my
mother's accident in which she broke her back?
> Regardless of what you or John says, it is NOT just a phone number --
It IS just a phone number! My home phone is 408 264-4115. Take your
best shot at causing me grief with it. All reading my articles have
seen it at the bottom of every message from me published on the net.
Who bloody cares? (Be sure to remove 408 723-1395 from your dossier; I
changed my number last year.) A telephone number is an identifier you
use to ring a telephone on the public switched network. It is not a
lifetime government ID number. I would be more worried about "national
ID cards" than ANI.
> Some have said that ANI is essential because the person paying for the call
> should know the number. If that were so, then every call coming in to
> every cellular phone should show up on their bill, since *they* are paying
> for all calls.
On some systems they do.
> I have call-return (dials last number that called you --
> doesn't work too often) and toll calls are listed as area-exchance-XXXX
> even though *I* am paying for the call, so these numbers shouldn't be
> hidden...
If you call Pac*Bell and tell them you refuse to pay for a call where
the number is not completely specified, the current tariffs require
that they remove it. Yes, that's right--you can have every one of those
calls removed from your bill. Of course, you will probably also get
Call Return removed as well, but current tariffs recognize the right of
the payee to know where his money went precisely.
> You see, I believe that ANI and CNID both are invasions of my anonymity and
> privacy, and violate the ECPA...
That is really reaching, but if you feel so strongly about it, take
someone to court. Of course, your face may really be red if you find
out that the company you call is NOT capturing ANI (as most do not).
And I suspect that most courts would require you to demonstrate harm
rather than just attitude.
> [Moderator's Note:
> Can anyone produce one
> horror story of ANI being used to breach the privacy or anonymity of
> somebody. ._dennis ]
I am afraid not, Dennis. I have asked that question for years and have
yet to receive anything other than opinion, attitude, hypothesis, and
mythical studies (proving something or other that is irrelevant). The
fact is that most companies do NOT capture ANI. Those that do, do so
for a specific reason to accomplish a particular purpose that usually
has nothing to do with marketing outside the proximate transaction.
ANI seems to be becoming the cause celebre of a very small group of
telecom laymen. I know of no one who works in the industry who so much
as raises an eyebrow at the topic. As has been pointed out, the
practice is detailed in tariff so it is not exactly a deep, dark
secret.
I have no problem with any kind of mass market campaign to inform the
ignorant masses about ANI. However, it would end up like California's
Prop. 65 which requires "hazardous subtance" warning labels in stores,
restaurants, etc. Millions have been spent on this silly business, yet
I have seen no evidence of any improvement in quality of life as a
result. Think about it: if there were real harm coming from ANI
delivery, it would be front page news. As it is, no one has yet come up
with one single example of a real case where harm resulted from a
company capturing ANI. "Not one case" is hardly a "call to action".
My 800 number delivers calling number AND class of service. You are now
fully warned.
--
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: Thu, 9 Sep 93 17:45 PDT
From: John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Computer Privacy Digest V3#026
John Macdonald <jmm@elegant.com> writes:
> Sure you can always call companies from a pay phone unless you trust
> them to not do anything that you consider abusive with the data they
> collect from your call, but it would be nice it there was some way
> of making the default go the other way and making consent necessary
> to collect ANI information into a database that will be sold outside
> the collecting company (and possibly also requiring consent to use
> that information for unsolicited marketing calls by the collecting
> company).
My 800 number is for setting up new accounts. If you call from a pay
phone, I will reject your call with a recording. Since I am opening a
"deliver first/pay after" service, I want some thread of a way to track
you down if you give me totally bogus information. No, I will not give
you a POTS line to call because I need that ANI info. Since I am
putting out first (both paying for the call AND delivering product), I
have a right to have at least that much done MY way.
I do not keep the information (if it is never needed), nor do I sell it
to others. No, I am not willing to give up any amount of utility or
convenience for your concept of what is "good for society". I know you
glibly dismissed my years of experience, so you must be saying that
your non-experience is better.
You are claiming that ANI delivery causes harm. Prove it. You haven't
even given anyone any reason to put his head in the sand in the first
place. No facts, no information, no case histories. Would you like my
customer list? In no case, were any of these people harmed by ANI
delivery.
What this country does NOT need are even more laws to prevent imaginary
harm from occurring. I am a crusader for rights second to none, but
this ultra-paranoia over a practice where there is not one single shred
of evidence of harm to anyone is a gross spinning of the wheels. The
whole thread is a good example of how we have progressed in this
country from a practical approach of dealing with real problems as they
happen to an emotion-based frenzy fueled by people who have no
expertise in the fields in which they pontificate.
If that is putting my head in the sand, then, sir, you do not even know
where the desert is. You and others are making assertions and claims of
harm. Let us see some evidence. (Don't worry if you cannot come up with
any; no one has in the years I have been working in this field.)
--
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
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #029
******************************