Date: Fri, 13 May 94 10:19:17 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#065
Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 13 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 065
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
FCC order on interstate Caller ID
Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
Re: FCC Ruling on CNID: Not Good
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: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Date: 9 May 94 12:39:45 EDT
Subject: FCC order on interstate Caller ID
I picked up a copy of the FCC's Caller ID order, which is available by
FTP as /pub/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt or orcc4001.wp. (Kudos
to the FCC for making this info available so easily and quickly, by the
way.)
Much of the order is straightforward and not contentious, e.g.
delivering CNID between local and long distance carriers is so cheap to
implement that neither may charge the other for the data. They also
note that per-call blocking is a good idea, and that *67 should be the
universal code to block CNID delivery.
But the arguments they list against per-line CNID seem, to me, to be
astonishingly specious.
There are three blocking options 1) per call for anyone, 2) per line
for anyone, and 3) per line for special groups. The FCC thinks, not
unreasonably, that it's a mare's nest to ask the telco to implement 3,
since they have to determine who's in the special groups and who
isn't. Then they say:
43. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that per line
blocking unduly burdens calling party number based services overall
by failing to limit its applicability to those calls for which
privacy is of concern to the caller. The Commission noted that
even in the case of law enforcement personnel, there may be a need
to maintain calling number privacy on some calls, but that the same
number may be used to telephone other law enforcement personnel,
victims of crimes, cooperative witnesses, and family or friends.
The Commission asserted that in these types of calls, calling
number privacy is not needed and calling number identification can
actually be a valuable piece of information for both the caller and
called parties. The record reflects the useful nature of CPN based
services, and the comments of Rochester illustrate that callers are
likely to be interested in blocking only a small percentage of
their calls. The comments of USCG illustrate the usefulness of
caller ID to emergency services. In contrast, Missouri Counsel's
analogy to unlisted numbers is inapposite because caller ID only
permits parties called by the calling party to capture the calling
party number, and then only if the calling party has not activated
a per call blocking mechanism. We find that the availability of
per call unblocking does not cure the ill effects of per line
blocking. Moreover, in an emergency, a caller is not likely to
remember to dial or even to know to dial an unblocking code. For
the foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking
requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller ID,
is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize the
privacy interests of callers. Thus, carriers may not offer per
line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate
calls. We agree that certain uses of captured calling numbers need
to be controlled, and address that issue infra.
In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers are
too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although
they're not to dumb to block calls when they want to block them.
In paragraph 47 they note that where per-line blocking is offered,
telcos use *67 as a blocking toggle, so users can't really tell what
*67 does, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that the problem is
easily solved by requiring a different code for unblock than for
block. In paragraph 48 they wave their hands and say that people who
care about privacy can just buy a box for "as little as $40.00 per
unit" that will stuff *67 in front of each call. Thanks, guys.
The docket number is 91-281, with comments due by May 18th. Comments
must reference the docket number. Send ten copies (yes, 10) to:
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Washington DC 20554
Before you fire off a comment, please get a copy of the order, since
there's a lot of material beyond what I've summarized. For people
without FTP access, I've put them on my mail server. Send:
send fcc-cnid.txt (for the text version)
send fcc-cnid.wp.uu (for uuencoded compressed WP version)
to compilers-server@iecc.com.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com
------------------------------
From: poivre@netcom.com (Poivre)
Date: 9 May 1994 17:58:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Poivre (poivre@netcom.com) wrote: Is it possible NOT to give them
your license?? Also, if my license # is not my SSN, is it possible
for them to still check my report?? If i were a rich kid and I
could buy a car with cash without loans, leases, etc, would i be
able to buy one without a credit check??
L. E. de Rivaud (rivaud@rain.org) wrote: You may not be allowed to
test drive the car without showing a licence. TRW does cross
reference driver's licence numbers and social security numbers.
How did they get MY DL #? I live in CA and my DL # [...] ALSO: at
the dealership they ran two different kinds of TRW's, "on screen"
and "printed." An on screen was run if the sale associate wasn't
sure you were going to buy a car. S/he just wants to see if you
are worth spending time on. An on screen is just that: on screen,
you
So no matter how you intend to pay for the car, as long as youre going
to test drive it, you will get checked right?? So people should avoid
a test drive and just test drive their friend's cars or something.
--
poivre@netcom.com : #include <disclaimer.h>
lychees@marble.bu.edu : Altruism Doesn't Pay!!
------------------------------
From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.orl.mmc.com (padgett peterson)
Date: 9 May 1994 21:10:45 GMT
Subject: Re: FCC Ruling on CNID: Not Good
Organization: Martin-Marietta
jjohnson@FirstPerson.COM (Jeff Johnson) said: In response to the
variety of state-imposed requirements, telcos went to the FCC to
try to get a ruling that would apply to the entire nation, and that
would impose less onerous conditions than many state's conditions.
For the time being, it appears that the telcos have got what they
wanted.
Not sure who you are talking about. I have a good friend with a closed
head injury who has no trouble remembering star-six-seven.
As for me, I think that CNID is a Good Thing for anyone who runs an
automated service of any kind as a way to keep from tying up their
service. If you don't have the number on file, many things can happen
other than ignoring it - you can route to a human or a voice messaging
system for instance.
I think that CNID is the greatest thing since sliced bread for any kind
of dial-up service. For one, custom menus can be presented for the
calling number. An appropriate language can be automatically selected
(I've gotten tired of always having to select English at the ATM) and
we are just starting.
There is no question in my mind that it is good. Further I am not
giving up any information that the phone company, 800/900 subscribers,
and anyone with a pen recorder did not already have access to. What
transpired on a public commodity is now and always has been public - I
cannot stop that - IMHO CNID (and I have had it here for well over a
year now) just gives me the same information that others have had for
much longer.
Padgett
include usual_disclaimers_h
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #065
******************************
.