Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 13:04:26 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#032
Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 11 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 032
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Caller ID vs Name System
UK Privacy organisation formed (longish posting)
Something to Consider
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: does anyone care about ANI?
Re: does anyone care about 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: rogerj@otago.ac.nz
Subject: Caller ID vs Name System
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 21:24:37 GMT
With regard to the issue of subscribers to 0800 numbers being provide to the
telephone numbers of callers. In New Zealand I believe 0800 subsribers are only
provided a summary of the charges for a geographical area. Not the actual
tlephone number of the caller. Subscribers of a service known as
freephone were givent the telephone numbers of callers but this service has
been removed as Telecom was concerned of the privacy issues.
I would be interested in what people would think about this method of
Caller Id. Instead of display the telephone number of the caller the
initial of their first name (and maybe the initial of their middle) and
their surname gets printed on the screen. Thus instead of 477-9229 being
displayed J. Bloggs is displayed on the screen.
The following comments refer to the residential use of caller id and
not to business. My reasons for supporting this idea are.
1. I do not believe displaying the number of the caller would (NZ doesn't
have caller-id yet) deter abusive calls since these calls can be made from
a pay phone, someone elses number or from different locations.
The use of a naming system would not identify the caller of abusive calls
but would provide more information to the police than a non identifying
system, but not as much information as Caller ID.
2. Since the name system does not provide the answer with information about
the location or identify of the caller, vigilante action could not be
instigate. Hopefully any action brought against a caller would be
made by the police, this how abusive phone calls are handled in New Zealand.
The telephone numbers of people calling are handed over to the police rather
then the answerer.
3. In an report by Longwood Associates on Telecommunciation and Privacy Issues
they said that propents of Caller Id argue that there has always been an
unwritten law that the caller discloses their identity. Even in the old
manual system the operator would ask if you wanted to take a call from
"Mr J. Bloggs". However a name does not constitue as an unique identifier
(hence the need for a telephone number) so the identity of the caller
remains unknown. Further disclosing the telephone number of the caller
provides the answerer with additional information about the caller that the
caller may not wish to disclose (especially if they have dialled a wrong
number). Such as location of residence from their phone number, (NZ numbers
are allocated based in geographical reference), address from directory
inquiries or reverse telephone books, and their unique identifier. This
information may not be avaliable to the answer using a name system since
their may be more than one J. Bloggs.
4. Most people, I assume are interested in knowing who is the caller so that
they can decide that they don't wish to answer the call (if they didn't
care who was calling them then they would find out who was speaking when
they answered the call.) Most people would be familiar with the names of
people they associate with and maybe also the people who they do not want to
socialise with. The use of a naming system would still provided with a means
of identifying callers who they did not wish to contact with. In fact the
name system would provide the answerer with a greater ability to identify
caller as people are usually familiar with other peoples names rather than
their phone numbers. People are still currently greeted more often by their
name than by their phone numer (slight sarcasim, but perish the day that this
happens)
5. Finally identifying people by numbers is dehumanising. Over the past
few thousand years most people have been identified by name rather than a
number, we are even labled with a name at birth, why do we want to start
labeling people as numbers? Is humanity the price of effeciency.
Any critisms or additions to my comments would be gladly appreciated.
Cheers.
Roger
Rogerj@otago.ac.nz
Otago University
Dunedin
New Zealand
These views are my own unless someone agrees with them
------------------------------
From: davies@privint.demon.co.uk (Simon Davies)
Subject: UK Privacy organisation formed (longish posting)
Organization: Privacy International, London Office
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 18:48:21 GMT
Here's some info on a new privacy organisation that has just been
formed in the UK
Anyone interested in joining is welcomed to contact me
Simon Davies
__________________________________
An Introduction to The UK Privacy Council
A new Non-Government organisation established for the protection of
personal privacy
The UK Privacy Council is a newly formed organisation of independent
experts and advocates specialising in the field of privacy, data protection
and surveillance.
The Privacy Councils members include leading academic experts, civil
liberties advocates, information technology professionals, lawyers and
journalists from throughout the UK.
The Privacy Council has been formed because the United Kingdom has no
specialist non-government organisation in the field of privacy. Bodies
such as Liberty, which are already responsible for a wide spectrum of
concerns, have provided an excellent response to this point. However,
the increasing complexity of the privacy issue, together with the
growing number of aspects of privacy invasion and surveillance, make
this situation increasingly difficult.
The Data Protection Registrar has a very limited jurisdiction, and a great
many aspects of surveillance and privacy invasion are not covered by the
Data Protection Act.
For all these reasons, we believe that a new and independent body is timely
and useful.
SOME EMERGING PRIVACY PROBLEMS
Installation of surveillance cameras (CCTV) throughout Britain has
increased four-fold in the past few years. While there may be some benefit
in terms of reduction of crime in the immediate vicinity of the cameras,
this trend involves significant concerns, including questions of who has
access to visual images, how the images are used, and the length of time
they are stored.
British Telecom is currently piloting a technology known as Calling
Number Identification or Caller ID. This process will automatically send
the calling parties number to the person being called. In North America,
this technology has caused one of the most bitter privacy debates in recent
history. Anonymity on the telephone line is removed by telephone companies
anxious to sell this service.
The establishment of a national identity card is favoured by police
and many members of the government. The Prime Minister has pledged to
review such a scheme on a time to time basis. Other countries, such as
Australia, have rejected the introduction of a national identity card.
Modern computers are capable of being linked, and their data can easily
be matched. This process of data matching, in which personal information
from different sources is matched to determine inconsistencies, is already
underway in the UK. It involves significant privacy problems.
The proposal to establish a national database of DNA fingerprints
raises numerous scientific, legal and ethical issues.
WHAT WILL THE PRIVACY COUNCIL ACHIEVE ?
The Privacy Council aims to achieve three broad goals :
(a) To assess the nature and impact of privacy violations of all kinds,
(b) To respond authoritatively to media, parliament and other organisations
on privacy issues as they arise, and
(c) To act as a resource and educational body for organisations which have
an interest in privacy issues (human rights organisations, professional
bodies, trades unions, academic institutions etc).
The Privacy Councils aims and structure are based on similar organisations
overseas.
The Privacy Council is a non-partisan and non-profit organisation which has
a principle role of education.
MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The Privacy Council has been established under the auspices of the
world-wide watchdog group, Privacy International. An inaugural meeting of
experts was held in London during March 1993. This meeting agreed that such
a body would be an important vehicle to raise awareness about privacy
issues, and proposed that the organisation should "uphold, protect and
promote individual privacy as an intrinsically important component of a
free and open society".
Privacy International will manage the administration of the Privacy Council
until such time as the organisation develops its own structure and
administration. We envision that these will be in place by March 1994, by
which time a full legal structure will have been developed, and office
bearers appointed. A Steering Committee of UK academic experts has been
appointed to provide a policy focus for the new organisation. Simon Davies,
(Privacy International's London-based Director General) is the convenor of
the Privacy Council.
The Steering Committee of the Council consists of independent experts and
advocates, although membership and support of all interested people is
welcomed. Membership fees will be used for postage, communications, and
the production of literature about privacy issues.
Meetings of members will be held on the first Thursday of each month at
5.00 pm. Members will be notified of the venue prior to each meeting, until
a permanent arrangement is settled.
The UK Privacy Council
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Name.........................................................................................................................................
Address..............................................................................................................................................................................................................Organisation..............................................................................................................................
Telephone........................................................
Fax...................................................................
Areas of Interrest..............................................
..................................................................................................................................................
25 (full membership) 5 (low income) 200 (organisations)
Please make cheques payable to "Privacy International - UK Privacy Council
project"
Address for correspondence :
Simon Davies,
Convenor,
UK Privacy Council
Morgan Towers Bromley BR1 3QE
Ph 081 402 0737
Fax 081 313 3726
MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Simon Davies (convenor)
Director General
Privacy International
David Goldberg
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law,
University of Glasgow,
Professor Brian Napier,
Head, Centre for Commercial Law Studies,
University of London
Professor Charles Oppenheim,
Head, Department of Information Science,
University of Strathclyde
Stephen Saxby
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law
University of Southampton
Address for corespondence :
1 Morgan Road
Bromley BR1 3QE
Telephone 081 402 0737
Fax 081 313 3726
ABOUT PRIVACY INTERNATIOAL
Privacy International is an independent Non Government Organization
established in 1990 to protect personal privacy and to monitor surveillance
by governments and other organizations. Over the past three years it has
established an outstanding and very active network of human rights
advocates, jurists, information technology experts, academics, and data
protection experts from more than 40 countries. Privacy International has
worked on surveillance issues in such countries as The Philippines,
Thailand, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Hungary. Privacy International
has recently been funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States
to establish international guidelines for police files in emerging
democracies.
--
--
-----------------------------------------------
Simon Davies
Privacy International
Morgan Towers, Bromley, BR1 3QE U.K.
Ph (44) 81 402 0737 fax (44) 81 313 3726
email davies@privint.demon.co.uk
-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 19:01:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us
Subject: Something to Consider
Organization: The Courts of Chaos * 501-985-0059 * Public Access Usenet
-> Again, it is ONLY your phone number--which can be changed with a
-> phone call.
ONLY a phone call. Here, with GTE, there's a $50 charge for changing
your phone number and it takes up to two weeks for them to get around to
it. And you must go to the main office in person and sign the papers.
------------------------------
From: Carl M Kadie <kadie@cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 01:53:58 GMT
Kenneth Ingham <ingham@i-pi.com> writes:
[...]
>Since it comes with both name as well as number, it makes an excellent
>screening device for phone calls (we just need one for each phone :-).
>If we do not recognize the name or if it is an anonymous call, we simply
>do not answer the phone. We let the machine get it.
[...]
I happy that you are happy with caller id. I note that you apparently
don't mind if people use call blocking, since you just route those
calls to your answering machine.
I think this shows that caller id with call blocking (and block
blocking) works well. It is a shame that some phone companies refuse
to offer this set.
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
------------------------------
From: Jiri Baum <j0baum@teaching.cs.adelaide.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 18:20:42 +0930 (CST)
Kenneth Ingham <ingham@i-pi.com> says:
> Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
>
> I would like to present a differnt view of the caller id discussion.
>
> We have caller id here in New Mexico. We purchased it.
>
> Since it comes with both name as well as number, it makes an excellent
> screening device for phone calls (we just need one for each phone :-).
...
I would like to agree - my only suggestion is that a smarter machine
is needed, so that it screens the calls automatically, based on a list
of telemarketers, and delivers different messages to different people.
After all, even the phone just ringing is annoying - make it ring only
for people you want to talk to.
This would also serve an "I don't want to be disturbed" function better
than switching the ringer off - you could make all but a few friends
leave a message (except for the telemarketers who would as usual be
told what to go do with themselves) at some times of the day (or night)
Somebody would have to keep and distribute a list of telemarketers.
I wonder how they would respond to this?
Of course, this list is for people who want the general public to be
able to call them. If you only want a select group of friends to call
you, simply ignore all others. (*)
Which leaves only travelling friends to be taken care of - perhaps
these could have an identification card which works over the phone, so
the machine answers and they request that it actually ring the phone?
(*) This is actually not new - one old method is to ignore all phone
calls, and have your friends phone, let it ring twice, hang up and
then phone again.
Jiri.
--
"You are being tested, Riker! What is the answer?"
-- The Last Outpost, ST:TNG
"Forty-two."
-- The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 01:22:13 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: does anyone care about ANI?
>In a previous not the moderator says:
>[Moderator's Note: ANI really doesn't contribute to it. You can get the
>same information when somebody mails you a letter from the return
>address. 800 numbers are mainly used by businesses, for the most part
>they are used immediately then tossed. Rarely, are they used for
>telephone call backs. I have a residential 800 number, I don't get real
>time ANI, I do get a bill which every number who call me. A unlisted
>number means that number is not given out to directory assistance or
>published in the phone book.
I get the impression that you are trying to make some kind of a point
about asking explicit questions on matters instead of making assumptions.
You don't have real time ANI. Well, do you have Caller ID, and does it
give you the numbers of callers using Caller ID Blocking? We seem to have
established that US Carriers seem to be reproducing Caller ID signals on
long distance calls, using ANI signals that you mentioned have to be
passed along whenever a system requests them. This seems to raise the
possibility that a Telco could recreate a Caller ID signal at will for
a long distance call, defeating what the caller assumes is a Caller ID
block.
There are some unique aspects to the ANI issue, such as who is billed for
the call, but in many ways it overlaps with Caller ID. I think that the
fact that STOPPER is in operation shows that someone is investing money
in it because they feel that there is an interest in making calls without
revealing phone numbers. If STOPPER can't stay in business that would be
convincing evidence that nobody cares. If it keeps on going and prospers
the opposite conclusion can be drawn.
What concern there is seems to be amplified by the abilty of computer
systems and data networks to make and distribute copies of phone numbers,
leaving them disseminated far beyond the control of an individual.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 13:02:27 EDT
From: Computer Privacy List Moderator <comp-privacy@Pica.Army.Mil>
Subject: Re: does anyone care about ANI?
Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> writes:
>
>>In a previous not the moderator says:
>>[Moderator's Note: ANI really doesn't contribute to it. You can get the
>>same information when somebody mails you a letter from the return
>>address. 800 numbers are mainly used by businesses, for the most part
>>they are used immediately then tossed. Rarely, are they used for
>>telephone call backs. I have a residential 800 number, I don't get real
>>time ANI, I do get a bill which every number who call me. A unlisted
>>number means that number is not given out to directory assistance or
>>published in the phone book.
>
>I get the impression that you are trying to make some kind of a point
>about asking explicit questions on matters instead of making assumptions.
>
>You don't have real time ANI. Well, do you have Caller ID, and does it
>give you the numbers of callers using Caller ID Blocking? We seem to have
>established that US Carriers seem to be reproducing Caller ID signals on
>long distance calls, using ANI signals that you mentioned have to be
>passed along whenever a system requests them. This seems to raise the
>possibility that a Telco could recreate a Caller ID signal at will for
>a long distance call, defeating what the caller assumes is a Caller ID
>block.
I personnally do not have Caller Id. I see no need for it, especially
at $6 a month. I have occasionally used Call Return. A TelCO needs
both the calling number and recieving number in order to place the call.
>
>What concern there is seems to be amplified by the abilty of computer
>systems and data networks to make and distribute copies of phone numbers,
>leaving them disseminated far beyond the control of an individual.
I think the concern is mainly the existence of data bases that can
associate address numbers, addresses, names, and other bits of data.
dennis
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #032
******************************