Date: Mon, 20 Sep 93 10:13:51 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#039
Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 20 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 039
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Finding out the Caller's Number (was ANI)
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: Caller ID; a different view
Re: About Selling Phone Numbers
Re: John misses the point
Re: Something to Consider
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: Mon, 20 Sep 93 08:50:31 CDT
From: varney@ihlpe.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
Subject: Re: Finding out the Caller's Number (was ANI)
Organization: AT&T
In article <comp-privacy3.37.1@pica.army.mil> gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes:
>#A number of correspondents have taken issue with my belief that
>#calling an 800 number does not give them a right to know the number
>#I am calling from.
>24. > One, TPC is not selling the number, they are providing the number as
> > required to complete the call. TPC is not making any money off of it.
>
># I don't understand. Of course, they are making money; the TPC is selling
># the ANI information (or CLID information). They don't give it away for
># free.
In some tariffs, the IXC may receive ANI as part of the FG-D interface.
So "TPC" is "giving it away" to the IXC.
At least for 800 calls, I wouldn't object to an ANI-block
mechanism. (I must acknowledge I work for a part of AT&T that could
benefit from any mandated new features.) Even better would be a
"presentation restricted" indicator in the ANI field, as the Caller-ID
information contains. As a rate-payer, I would expect the users of
this feature to pay for it, either in monthly charges, per-use charges
(whether the call was answered or not) or a fixed charge for every
BLOCKED attempt to call an 800 number that will not accept non-ANI
calls. Each of these should use minimal network resources; either the
calls should be blocked in the LEC network or some fraction of the
charges should be shared with the IXC for use of the IXC network.
[Moderator's Note: Any idea of the total costs that would be incurred
by various telecom entities in blocking ANI? ._dennis ]
Al Varney - my opinion only
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 16:25:46 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
In article <comp-privacy3.29.2@pica.army.mil> Richard Blauvelt
<rblauvel@world.nad.northrop.com> writes:
>
> 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?
>
Have you read the Internet Privacy and Anonymity FAQ posting? Unless
you are using a Cellular Phone or Radio Phone your number identifies a
particular geographical location. Your internet address shows little
unless you use a work node. I've had Bitnet and Internet connectivity
for years, but didn't start posting until I had personal access through
Victoria Freenet. From this Freenet I can connect to a variety of other
Freenets, such as Ottawa, Carleton, or even US ones such as Boulder.
Most of these allow anyone with Internet Connectivity to become a
registered user. There are probably commercial ones that could be used
as well. Did you notice the "what are these" posting that appeared in
all the unmoderated newsgroups a while back. The poster who tried to
trick people into making expensive long distance calls to a "free"
porno line may as well have been anonymous. It seemed to be from an
alias(Warren Victorian?) instead of a real name. An internet ID and
node don't have to tell anything about where you are located.
------------------------------
From: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 06:00:44 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.34.1@pica.army.mil> Geoff Kuenning <geoff@reddog.la.locus.com> writes:
| It doesn't attach a name. (Of course, if you worked for IBM or
| another such people-disoriented company, you'd be identified as
| "as1265@ibm.com" and things would be closer to Calling Number ID...)
---
At least the constructed name doesn't pretend that it really is the
user's name and doesn't imply that knowing something about the user may
allow you to guess what her mail address might be. Do you consider it a
sign of people disorientation that your physical mail is addressed to a
unique street address assigned to your dwelling by some outside agency?
There are places where you could call the fire department and say "Hi,
this is Bill, my house is on fire" and expect the fire engines to arrive
at the right place, but there aren't many.
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
From: Richard Blauvelt <rblauvel@world.nad.northrop.com>
Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view
Organization: Northrop Information Services Center, Hawthorne, CA
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 06:10:04 GMT
In article <comp-privacy3.34.1@pica.army.mil> Geoff Kuenning <geoff@reddog.la.locus.com> writes:
>
>> Caller ID is the electronic
>> equivalent of the peep-hole in my front door.
>
>No it's not. Calling Number ID is the electronic equivalent of having
>a small slot on your door through which a business card can be
>inserted, except that instead of having a name, the business card has
>a cryptic number. There is no guarantee that a particular business
>card was actually slipped through your door by the person you normally
>associate with that card, nor is there any guarantee that a particular
>person will always use the same business card.
OTOH, there is a fairly strong guarantee that the call was made from
the displayed phone number. OK, no analogy is perfect. My intent was
to point-out that without Calling Number ID, the recipient of a call
has little protection against abuse, fraud, threats, etc...
Sure, the caller always has the option to call from a public phone,
but in those cases, I can let my answering machine pick up. For
numbers I recognize, I can answer the phone myself and avoid
subjecting my friend (or my client or my boss or my sister...etc...)
to my answering machine.
-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"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 93 22:44:05 PDT
From: Kelly Bert Manning <ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: About Selling Phone Numbers
In a previous article, eravin@panix.com (Ed Ravin) says:
>In article <comp-privacy3.35.1@pica.army.mil>,
>Carl Oppedahl <oppedahl@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>Two days after getting a new phone line here in Tucson, the local paper
>>>was calling to "FIRST, welcome me to my new neighborhood, and SECOND..."
>>>of course they wanted me to buy their paper.
>>
>>Yes, most telcos peddle lists of people who have just gotten new
>>service, and you can be sure they are very popular among many service
>>industries including newspaper delivery.
The first experience my wife and I had with having an unlisted
addresses peddled within a week of moving has a simpler explanation. A
snooping busybody who ran a Welcome Wagon clone called Victoria Welcome
Services was in the practice of going around to apartment buildings and
condominiums and noting changes in the directories. Our unit was listed
as Manning-Bull because we postponed our marriage till December to
exploit a peculiarity of the Canadian Income tax rules. This allowed us
to spot how our "name" and address were obtained and passed around. One
of the local daily papers started leaving papers in the hall outside
our unit. We left them alone in the hall, but the no-mind delivering
them continued to stack them for 2 more days until we left a note
saying that we were not subscribers and would not pay. For the next 4
months were awakened at about 7:00 Sunday Morning by collectors trying
to get us to pay for 2 weeks of papers that they insisted that "Mr.
Manning-Bull" owed.
The individual collectors always accepted our explanation, but this
campaign continued in a an apparent attempt by the collection manager
to extort money from us. A phone call to the manager proved difficult
to arrange, since the paper insisted that we had to leave a number. I
persisted in calling and eventually spoke with him. When I stated that
any additonal harrassment would result in me seeing him in court he
snorted and hung up on me. The next time they sent someone around to
harass us I contacted the local fraud squad, since an attempt, particularly
such a persistent one, to collect for goods that were not ordered or
delivered is fraud, pure and simple. The result was an end to the
harassment and a very politely worded letter from them appologizing,
with a copy to the sergeant who told them what they had to do to stay
out of court. By chance I also observer one of their staff groveling
to the condo manager. I eavesdropped from around the corner and learned
that I could have ended the harrassment much earlier, and cut off all
their revenue from the building, by making an issue of the fact that
newspaper delivery staff had one of the high security "do not duplicate"
keys to the outside doors.
Getting back to the subject of preserving privacy, if you move into an
apartment unit or condo and don't want it publicized have the manager
exclude your name if there is a directory beside the buzzer panel.
>
>But let's not forget the biggest offender in this department: the US
>Postal Service. When you file a change-of-address, it immediately
>gets delivered to a whole bunch of junk mail lists. The junk mail at
>your new address often gets there before you do.
This has been mentioned in "Privacy Journal" several times. The most
recent stories left me with the impression that this had been found to
be contrary to federal privacy statutes and would end.
Here in Canada it is definitely contrary to Federal laws covering Public
Sector bodies. Canada Post Corp. gets around it by adding some fine print
to mail forwarding application forms saying that your signature constitutes
consent for them to supply the new address to any correspondents. I got
around this by having mail from my last house forwarded to a box at a Retail
Postal Outlet. Something similar would probably work in the US. Tell whoever
you want to know about your real address if you want to, but let the junkers
address trail end at the PO box.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 03:42:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: John misses the point
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
-----
Dave Ptasnik <davep@cac.washington.edu>, writes:
> If the service chooses to reject calls from blocked numbers, that
> is their privilege.
>
> > The custom and usage of caller anonymity, a legacy of the limited
> > technology of the past, will die hard.
>
> John, you are the one who wants to limit technology. The
> technology exists to send Caller ID and/or ANI. The technology
> exists to prevent the sending of both or either. The technology
> exists to reject blocked calls.
There is a way to block ANI? And a way to allow someone to selectively
receive or not receive it? That's a new one on me.
---
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
"Don't say yes until I finish talking."
-- Darryl F. Zanuck
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 03:47:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Reply-To: "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Something to Consider
From: Paul Robinson <TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM>
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
-----
> Kirsi M. Vivolin <vivo@hardy.u.washington.edu> discussed the
> well-known risks (see Risks-Digest archives for complete
> discussions on the topic) of pooled databases by phone
> companies, credit organizations, etc. She says, in part:
>
> | On the other hand, if data from many different points starts
> | converging into one database, privacy becomes impacted. Not
> | only can we expect this to happen(it is happening now), but we
> | can expect little guidance from the existing body of law,
> | simply because there has never been any precedent to this.
>
> Notice how she slipped in "(it is happening now)" near the end
> of the posting. A key point in the ANI debate on this forum
> is whether "it" is happening or not. If corporations are
> collecting ANI data and using it for nefarious reasons, let's
> have at least one concrete example, rather than a litany of
> what "could" happen. Let's not suggest legislating as illegal
> acts which haven't yet been observed.
Who said this necessarily had anything to do with ANI alone? "If data
from many different points starts converging...(it is happening
now)..." was what she said. Companies do trade information with one
another. It is happening now. And the possibilty of one company
cross-indexing data with other data is done all the time; that's why
there are often complaints of "red lining" where an insurance company,
for example charges more for people that live in high-crime areas or
won't insure them at all. (This is, by the way, statistically valid as
a means of determining risk, but it's an easy target of politically
biased regulating bodies so it's often illegal.)
Any company that has information that it can use to improve its sales
or reduce its cost - or can obtain that information at reasonable cost -
will use it in any way the people running that company see fit. It is
of interest to some people to consider that some times this information
may, while factual, be used to the detriment of people involved.
For example, in the District of Columbia it is against the law to
discriminate against people on the basis of "sexual preference".
This primarily was a sop thrown to the Queer community even though
the practice of homosexuality was a felony offense in the Disteict.
I once figured out that if I, for example, wanted to figure a way
to refuse to hire homosexuals, without violating the law, I could do
so by requiring that people who are employed agree not to commit any
felony crimes and to do so is grounds for termination. (Put in as
part of the "war on drugs" requirements it could be used for that
purpose).
If there was a question involved, the person can be asked if they
are; if they say no, or refuse to say so, then the company can wait
until there is evidence of such. If the person says yes, they are,
then the company can fire them for admitting to the practice of
criminal behavior. (A law effective Saturday repealed the law and
legalized the practice.)
Databases can be used and combined in ways that are undesirable,
even though the information is true and correct. Everyone has
something to hide, even if they have done nothing wrong.
---
Paul Robinson - TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
-----
The following Automatic Fortune Cookie was selected only for this message:
When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is
not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space
travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere.
-- Robert Heinlein
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #039
******************************