Date: Fri, 08 Apr 94 08:15:21 EST
Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler <owner-comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy@uwm.edu>
To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu
Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#050
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 08 Apr 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 050
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
Re: Anonymous Phoning
Re: Anonymous Phoning
Re: Anonymous Phoning
Re: Anonymous phoning
Re: Anonymous Phoning
Re: Anonymous phoning
Re: Anonymous Phoning
Re: Anonymous phoning
Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Re: Activist list subpoenae
Request for Research Help
SSN#: How Could Someone Find Out Mine
Re: CNID vs. ANI
Re: CNID vs. ANI
Re: CNID vs. ANI
Re: CNID vs. ANI
Re: Telemarketing
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@uwm.edu and administrative requests
to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via
anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp"
with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory
"pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 12:22:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning
Organization: Trivializers R Us
roedder@netcom.com (Spencer Roedder) writes: I have always been a
staunch advocate of privacy, but I find I come down on the opposite
side from a lot of people, who bemoan the lack of privacy brought
about by CallerID. They are concerned about the caller's privacy;
I find more to be concerned about in the callee's privacy.
As I see it, the ability to make an anonymous phone call is a
historical anomaly which has only been with us for the last
century. Before that time, if you wanted to talk to someone you
came to their door or confronted them in public; the only
alternative was the much-maligned anonymous letter. I see CallerID
as simply restoring the historic status quo: the _right_ of a
person "called to the door" of his own home to know who is on the
other side of the door.
But this is precisely what Caller ID does _not_ do. If it gave
a name, or a little picture like the one you can see through the
peephole of your door, that might be fine. To use the "called to
the door" metaphor, what it gives is the address of the person on
the other side of the door.
Although people may in the past have presented visiting cards to
announce themselves, I think that society then and now would have
bridled at the idea that giving up your home address should be a
precondition of knocking on someone's door.
------------------------------
From: msieving@cyclone.xnet.com (Mark Sieving)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 02:46:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning
Organization: XNet Information Systems
John Macdonald <jmm@elegant.com> wrote: There has to be a middle
ground which allows anonymous calling to parties that are willing
to accept such calls while not allowing anonymous calls to parties
that wish to insist upon ID.
I've always found that an answering machine meets all my needs for
privacy. I use it to screen calls, and if I don't want to talk to the
caller, or if the caller doesn't speak up and talk to the machine, I
don't pick up the phone. If someone wants leave a harassing message on
the machine, that's OK, it's evidence if I should want to take legal
action.
------------------------------
From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 04:00:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning
Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA
John Macdonald writes: If we're taking about your _home_, we can
get into all the usual privacy issues. But what about you entering
mine? Do the same rights follow you in my door, so to speak? It's
pretty standard expectation that if you want entrance to another's
territory, you'd better be prepared to present ID.
Not all people insist on seeing ID before they are willing to talk
to someone that comes to their door.
There has to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling to
parties that are willing to accept such calls while not allowing
anonymous calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID.
Indeed, and it is truly hard to fathom the lengths some people will go
to to avoid admitting the obvious solution:
"Hello. Who's this?" <click> if you don't like the answer you get
This is fully functional, always works, can't be blocked, doesn't cost
you anything, and doesn't require any technology or the cooperation of
11 phone company switching offices hither and yon. It also works when
someone is calling from a pay phone, from someone else's house, etc
etc.
By the way, when John mentions "all the usual privacy issues", this is
usually a coverup for "there probably isn't a really hard-edged privacy
here but the argument sounds stronger if I say so". I note that
*no*one* in this thread has indicated what definition of 'privacy' they
are using that would make "having to answer the phone and ask "who's
there"" as being their critical-privacy-issue-of-the-day.
--
Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358
------------------------------
From: ejjohn3@borg.it.uswc.uswest.com (Eric J. Johnson)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 09:06:48 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning
Just to clarify a misconception here:
The worst thing is that phone companies seem to think that now that
Call Trace and CLID, available at extra cost, are a replacement for
their annoying call bureaus, always provided as part of basic
service. If the state regulators were on the ball they'd mandate
that Call Trace be provided for free to improve the existing
annoying call bureaus.
At least here at U S WEST Communications, this is the exact opposite of
reality. The two Call Id Centers (formerly the annoyance call bureaus)
have at least doubled their staffs to handle customer call-ins
regarding COT activations.
Please clarify the last comment about improving customer service by
offering COT free. The cost of this service is already mandated by
each state, usually in the $1-2 per-activiation range, and seems much
more cost effective than some of the other solutions to harassing calls
(like purchasing an 800 number and forwarding your calls to it) BTW,
some states already mandate that the activation fee be waved when the
customer calls in to the CIC to follow up on an activation.
--
Eric J. Johnson
Project Leader - Annoyance Call Mechanization - U S WEST Technologies
Minneapolis, MN (612) 663-3077
ejjohn3@borg.mnet.uswest.com
------------------------------
From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:31:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
Nevin Liber (nevin@cs.arizona.edu) wrote: I can still see
legitimate uses for anonymous calling). However, all it identifes
is the location the caller is calling from.
There is a service that provides anonymous calling.. defeats both
caller-id and ANI (and long distance toll recording snooping). It;s
Called 1-900-STOPPER... the name and number are the same... yeah, it
costs ya ($1.95)....
Another point about all of this... people like Unsolved Mysteries
claims that you can make an anonymous report to their 800#... yet they
gets your ph# (and if they don't want it... the police and/or FBI might
get it from the phone company).
Unsolved Mysteries refused to discuss this with me for an article in
Full Disclosure... claiming only that most people didn't want anonomity
when calling them... nicely avoiding the question raised by their
claims of anonomoity on the air vs the technology.
------------------------------
From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:33:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
John R Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: I can't agree that anonymous
phone calling is a privacy right. I also have to note that the
telcos' marketing of CLID has been very disingenuous. They've
marketed CLID primarily as a deterrent to annoying calls, trying to
distract attention from its primary use in collecting telemarketing
lists. Call Trace, a service related to CLID,is the one actually
appropriate for annoying calls. It's not blockable, and it records
numbers where they can be picked up by phone company security
people, much better for legal purposes than a number
You might find that by placing your call through the operator that it
blocks Call-Trace, Caller-ID and ANI. Of course, this is bound to change,
and your toll records will still show the call.
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 1994 00:05:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
jmm@elegant.com (John Macdonald), writes in Comp-privacy: There has
to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling to parties
that are willing to accept such calls while not allowing anonymous
calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID.
There is, and it's already available.
The phone company ought to provide a recipient option that lets the
recipient choose to never receive calls with blocked ID.
That's exactly what is available now.
Their phone would not even ring
This is *exactly* what happens.
(or be busy), and the caller would get an intercept message "The
number you have dialled does not accept calls with blocked ID.".
The caller would know why their call did not get through and could
choose to unblock and call again if they felt that there was a need
to complete the call. (The current situation where the recipient's
display says "number blocked" and the recipient just does not
answer can lead to the caller trying again and again, hoping that
the recipient will eventually get home. While there may be some
desire to cause such callers that sort of nuisance, it also means
that the recipient's phone is busy.)
Where they have caller-id, they can have (subject to political
considerations) exactly the system you mentioned available. In
Virginia and Maryland (DC probably has it if the suburbs do) the
service is called "anonymous call rejection." You dial *77 and from
that point on, if someone calls you by dialing *67, they don't get
through; they are shunted to a recording that tells them that the party
they are calling does not accept anonymous calls; if they want to reach
the party, call again without blocking their number. This remains in
effect until and unless the called party dials *87.
Here, ACR is free with Caller ID (which costs $6.50 a month) or is
$3.50 a month without Caller ID). As strange as that sounds, you *can*
block calls from people who block the transmission of their number even
if you don't have caller-id.
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
------------------------------
From: clifto@tuttoo.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)
Date: 6 Apr 1994 18:49:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning
Organization: as little as possible
johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) writes: I also have to note that the
telcos' marketing of CLID has been very disingenuous. They've
marketed CLID primarily as a deterrent to annoying calls, trying to
distract attention from its primary use in collecting telemarketing
lists.
Just who am I supposedly telemarketing from my home? I subscribe
because
*as you said, it's a deterrent of sorts to annoying calls *I
like to know whether it's worth my time to answer *it's VERY
handy for getting phone numbers when my hands
are full and/or I can't find that pen
Also, the corollary dialback service will come in handy when I get my
"annual abuse call". When I'm able to *69 and say, "I know who you are
and I know where you live <click>," the $114 I spent for the year's
service will have paid for itself, in my estimation.
Call Trace, a service related to CLID, is the one actually
appropriate for annoying calls.
Somehow I'm not sure I want the police going after a friend who plays a
joke, or a newspaper that calls to ask me to subscribe, or even
telemarketing slimes. Even if I wanted them involved, they'd get sort
of aggravated after a few calls every month.
No thanks, I'd rather have CNID and ignore the ring when it says
"Chicago Sun Times".
It's not blockable,
I tried it once here on a number that displayed "Out of area" on my
CNID box. It told me the service couldn't be activated for that call.
It can't be blocked, but it doesn't always work either.
The worst thing is that phone companies seem to think that now that
Call Trace and CLID, available at extra cost, are a replacement for
their annoying call bureaus, always
The one time I used Call Trace successfully, I got the impression that
not only was the Annoyance Bureau alive and well, but they'd also
created a new office especially for the Call Trace action. In any
event, whether that's right or wrong, I started my argosy by calling
the Annoyance Call Bureau.
------------------------------
From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 14:49:58 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
"herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu" <herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu> said: One
of two things is happening here: 1) Clipper is a NSA plot that
actually helps them break the other layers of encryption added on
top of it. 2) The government is planning to outlaw other forms of
encryption and is stupider than even I believed to think that
outlawing other forms of encryption will prevent their use.
Personnally I believe either choice is possible and probably even
likely.
As for #2, It seems to me that the way to go is to encrypt the voice
stream with your method of choice, then clipper then encrypted sequence
(in other words, don't add encryption on top of clipper, add it _below_
clipper). Doing aother form of encryption to already encrypted material
won't weaken it, and if the government does outlaw other forms of
encryption, they won't be able to detect your use of unlawful
encryption without first getting a warrent to tap your clippered
conversation.
And if they _do_ do-clipper your conversation without a warrant, they
can't charge you with using encryption because the evidence was
obtained unlawfully.
------------------------------
From: cme@galt.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison)
Date: 5 Apr 1994 20:26:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA
The danger, to me, with Clipper is that it sets the precedent that We
The People approve giving copies of our encryption keys to the gov't.
I, for one, do not give the gov't the right to access those keys.
They've never been allowed to have my keys in the past and I will never
allow them to have them in the future.
--
Carl M. Ellison cme@sw.stratus.com
RIPEM MD5OfPublicKey: 39D9860686A9F075A9A83D49589C677A
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 1994 21:33:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
I will add a few items to the mess; if it becomes "gasoline on the
fire", well I'll live with the firestorm; I have gotten pretty bad
flames before.
You have to look at the net effect as to what is being done rather than
what is said. For example, the IRS has too much power (ability to
issue its own subpoenas, ability to sieze property on its own
initiative, its own internal court system that is not subject to
judicial review) just for the express purpose of the collection of
income taxes. Ergo, the primary purpose of the IRS is to *frighten*
the populace, and then, secondary purpose(s) is the squeezing of
taxpayers.
So, let's look at Clipper:
1. Security through obscurity doesn't work. We cannot be certain
what, if anything, is hidden in the "classified" algorithms. While
this does not mean that there *is* anything there, there is no way
for the ordinary person to be aware if there was. Bugs in software
programs that are circulated widely get reported; so do security
holes. But if the algorithm is classified, this knowledge base
vanishes.
2. The alleged reason for the algorithm remaining classified is that if
it wasn't, someone could create a chip without the means to read
the material encrypted with it.
3. Ergo, the primary purpose of the chip is to make it easy to read the
material passed through the chip by the government (and perhaps by
organizations the government wants to favor), and then, secondary
purpose is to provide a means to encrypt the material.
If this were offered as an optional system, with full disclosure of the
algorithm so that those who fear hidden traps and flaws can fully check
and verify its operation, then I would have no objection to the
particular concept. It is this overly paranoid insistence on secrecy
that acts as a "red flag warning" that there is something wrong.
The claims that it will be voluntary have about as much credibility as
the original provisions of the medicare act that stated that it would
not be used to affect how doctors performed health care or what they
can charge. Medicare's Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) payment schedule
system sets the maximum that a physician can charge for his services,
and thus this affects how doctors perform health care.
There originally were plans to place absolute limits into the 16th
Amendment to prevent the government from taking too much in income
taxes, but some members of congress were afraid the taxes would go to
that limit if it was set, but others said no, the populace would riot
if taxes ever went as high as two percent of income.
There is also the issue of encryption software being allegedly subject
to rules of export. My personal opinion is such rules, if applied as
broadly as people in the software industry apparently think they are,
are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment as overly broad prior
restraint which does not fall under either of the two restrictable
classes: obscenity or national security; obscenity is not applicable
and national security doesn't apply when the law apparently prohibits
someone from sending back out of the country non-secret, non-classified
public information that came from outside of it.
Also, those who oppose Clipper on privacy grounds are taking the wrong
argument here. There is essentially no privacy or encryption of most
transactions taking place electronically, including E-Mail, phones and
data transmission (not to mention almost all cordless and cellular
phones)
It has been settled that the right of privacy is not absolute. A
prisoner has no right to privacy, and even on ordinary people the
government can get a "mail cover" and get the information off the
outside of every piece of mail someone receives, as well as setting up
a "pen register" to record every number dialed. Among other things
that can be done, including reading the garbage you put on the curb.
There are two very strong reasons to oppose clipper: the one I stated,
that a secret routine could have trapdoors in it: when someone claims a
secret method is required, the onus is on them to show why it is
necessary both to use and to keep secret; the second is that in order
for it to remain secret, it would have to be encapsulated in hardware,
making it inflexible and thus difficult to use in the fast-paced world
of communications when things have to change to take advantage of new
capabilities and features being developed.
------------------------------
From: w1gsl@MIT.EDU
Date: 08 Apr 94 00:57:40 EDT
Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on?
"herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu" <herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu> writes: If
the Federal Government really means what they say about
non-Clipper cryptography _not_ being made illegal than we the
privacy advocates should embrace Clipper. What the Feds would be
doing is actually adding a layer of security, and privacy, where
perhaps there was none before. Though they would have the ability
to bypass this security we are to assume that no one else can.
And since we can always throw on additional layers of security
(encryption) just as we do now than we are not losing anything.
Yes but that is not the point. As the public come to perceive it needs
some form of encription, Clipper is there to give the illusion of
privacy. The illusion is all most of the public needs, or thinks it
needs.
Look at cell phones, every ham and scanner buff knows how easy it is to
listen in but the user base is convinced of their privacy because they
are told it is illegal to listen... mearly the illusion of privacy.
Now if the government is sucessfull in selling CLIPPER most of the
users will feel secure knowing their communication is encrypted. The
details that one branch of the government hold their keys and that it
is likley a good hacker may be able to break their code in time will be
lost on almost everyone. Or that low level clerks could sell the keys
.. oh that will never happen. After all it is good enough for the
Government.
The Government suceeds if it manage to give the illusion of security.
They won't have to outlaw prior encription ( not to say they won't
though). Even though scrambling is technically feasable and legal on
phone circuits how many cell phone users do it?
The effect will be to considerably reduce the development of
independent possibly stronger security- encryption systems by removing
a big segment of their market.
------------------------------
From: Marc Rotenberg <Marc_Rotenberg@washofc.cpsr.org>
Date: 5 Apr 1994 21:44:26 EST
Subject: Re: Activist list subpoenae
Organization: CPSR Washington Office
A few notes about the SCARCNet subpoena:
- Although NAACP v. Alabama (1958) involved a request for membership
records by a government official, courts have ruled that a civil
subpoena may raise Constitutional issues as the state may be called
upon to enforce the request.
- The subpoena may be overly broad given the issues raised in the case
which concerns the basis of an expert's opinion. It is possible that
the subpoena will be quashed without the court ever addressing the
interesting questions.
- Two interesting points about the case. One concerns the application
of an important Constitutional doctrine on the confidentiality of
membership lists to computer networks.
The other is the interesting link between privacy and the First
Amendment. NAACP v. Alabama is one of the noteworthy Supreme Court
cases where privacy protection is viewed as an integral part of the
First Amendment. (Talley v. California (1960), involving the
distribution of anonymous leaflets, and Stanley v. Georgia (1972),
involving the right to possess literature in one's home are two
others).
In asking that the court protect the privacy of the membership
list, the organizers of SCARCNet are actually arguing in defense
of their First Amendment rights.
Stay tuned.
Marc Rotenberg.
------------------------------
From: bcohen@wam.umd.edu (Brad Cohen)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 04:55:12 GMT
Subject: Request for Research Help
Organization: University of Maryland College Park
I am a student at the university of Maryland in College Park. I am
doing research on the use of internet. What I am looking for is
information relating to specific cases concerning the broadcasts of
political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, and advertising. If you
have any helpful information in these areas and/or you know of any such
cases, would you please be kind enough to send me a message about it.
Since I am not a frequent visitor to newsgroups, I would greatly
appreciate a direct mail message.
Thanks very much for your time.....
Brad Cohen
bcohen@wam.umd.edu
------------------------------
From: austin@netcom.com (Tony Austin)
Date: 8 Apr 1994 00:42:32 GMT
Subject: SSN#: How Could Someone Find Out Mine
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
I read the SSN# FAQ and it was a wonderfully written article. What I
can't understand is how an individual, like a detective or such, could
find out what my SSN# is.
Is my SSN# so vulnerable that someone could do a credit check on me and
find out what my SSN# is?
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 1994 00:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
I am sure your other readers also pointed out that ANI (delivered
to the 800 number) is the number to which the call is BILLED - not
the number CALLED_FROM. If you have more than one phone number and
bill them all to one number (phone numbers A, B, Teen, D, E, all
billed to D), then with ANI, only D will be delivered when you call
from any of them.
Not true. I have 4 phone numbers and 3 phone lines. Only one of these
lines is the billed number, but if I dial out from one of the other
lines, that number will be delivered on ANI, not the billing number. I
know, I've tested it.
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
------------------------------
From: RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET
Date: 7 Apr 1994 13:29:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI
After writing that the number delivered for the 800 provider via ANI is
the "billed" number ONLY and not the "calling" number, some of the
readers wrote to me saying that is incorrect. I did some checking with
people in the know and found out it depends entirely on the specific
telephone company. With some, the billed number gets delivered - with
others, the actual calling number (same as CNID) gets delivered to the
800 telephone customer as ANI.
-rathinam
------------------------------
From: gibbs@husc4.harvard.edu (James Gibbs)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:52:41 GMT
Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET wrote: I am sure your other readers also
pointed out that ANI (delivered to the 800 number) is the number to
which the call is BILLED - not the number CALLED_FROM. If you have
more than one phone number and bill them all to one number (phone
numbers A, B, Teen, D, E, all billed to D), then with ANI, only D
will be delivered when you call from any of them.
And if you don't want your phone number to be given by ANI to the owner
of an 800 number, call the operator and ask him/her to dial the 800-
number for you. They can still get your number, but they probably won't
go through the extra hassle to get it.
--
Jim Gibbs gibbs@husc.harvard.edu
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET, wrote to me as follows: Worth writing to
one of the comp.dcom.telecom groups about. May be I am wrong, but I
have read about the method in comp.dcom.telecom about 3-4 months
ago. Will look into it sometime. If you are sure, write back to
comp.risks so we can clear it up.
The situation is like this: if you dial out from an ordinary individual
residential or commercial phone line, whether or not the phone is
billed by itself or as part of a group of lines, that phone will have
its own telephone number, and that number and the ani/cnid for that
line will all be the same.
If, however, you dial out from a "pool" of outgoing telephone trunks,
such as is commonly done for a hotel, a business running a PBX, or any
other service using a group of outgoing lines, then the outgoing number
is not going to be the same as the number you receive calls upon.
However, if you use a PBX service supplied by the Local Exchange
Company, they call that "centrex" and each line _does_ have an
identifyable phone number that it generates on outgoing calls.
This is because for a private PBX, the outgoing number is from a bank
of "outgoing only" trunks that have no other purpose but for making
outgoing calls; they are not intended to receive calls, and a call into
one of them may be diverted to a receptionist or (usually) to a
recording.
In such an instance, your telephone number is an "incoming only" number
on a bank of incoming numbers, called "DID" trunks. These lines can
only receive calls, they cannot place them.
For an ordinary residential (greasy wall phone near the stove in the
kitchen) or commercial (greasy wall phone behind the cash register in a
gas station), that is receiving dial tone from a Local Exchange
Company, whether it is billed by itself or in a group of other lines,
each line will have a specific individual number that is generated on
each call it makes. I know; I have had my service both ways, as
separately billed and as combination billed. The phone number
generated on outgoing calls does not change in either case. (Now the
telephone credit cards that have numbers that match these lines is
another story...)
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
------------------------------
From: gibbs@husc4.harvard.edu (James Gibbs)
Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:46:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Telemarketing
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Chris Call 908-946-1133 (rccall@babel.ho.att.com) wrote: I once saw
an article (I believe in this newsgroup) about laws governing the
behavior of telemarketers; in particular, there was a discussion of
a law that requires telemarketers to supply their company name and
address, and to remove people from their mailing list if they have
called those people twice and the people ask to be "de-listed."
Can anyone post a reference to the law, or quote the law for me?
I saw this nifty tidbit on the news on TV once. There is a federal law
that says if you ask a telemarketer to remove you from their database
and never call you again and they do call you a second time, you can
sue them in small claims court for $300. If they call you a third time,
you can sue again and receive triple damages of $900.
What you have to do is keep a notebook by the phone and record the name
of the individual, the company, the name of the person receiving the
call (you), possibly what they are trying to sell you, and note the
fact that you requested to be taken off their mailing list.
I wish I had known about this a few years ago when TIME-LIFE BOOKS
(those scum) called me on a weekly basis to try to sell me something.
Every time, I told them to take my name off their list and to not
distribute my name to any other organizations. They simply told me that
they had no method of doing this.
--
Jim Gibbs gibbs@husc.harvard.edu
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #050
******************************
.