Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 11 Jul 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 004
Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine
SSN's on Local Radio Card
Video Camera on Utility Poles
Callerid and the FCC
Re: CID is not the same as 800 or 911 ANI
Re: Question About CallerID
Re: Question About CallerID
Re: What's a Cop to Do?
Re: What's a Cop to Do?
Re: Get Your Files & More
Re: SSNs at Car Dealership
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: newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 08:57:35 UNDEFINED
Subject: SSN's on Local Radio Card
Organization: Clayton State College
A local radio station in Atlanta (99.7 FM) have come out with a
"Freeloading" card that gets you discounts at places (movies, music,
etc...). On the application, they have the usual name, address,
household info, along with a field labled SS#. What the hell do they
need that for. Oh well, time for a "My Blue Heaven" :)
Rick Moranis: "So, I'll just need your social security #"
Steve Martin: "Okay...2"
RM: "Uh huh" waiting for more after each number
SM: "5...7...3...6...1...8...2...24"
SM: "Oh...that's one too many."
SM: "Drop the 4"
--
Dan Newcombe newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia
------------------------------
From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 16:07:34 GMT
Subject: Video Camera on Utility Poles
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
It might not be widespread yet, however, my sources tell me that they
are one of the most popular surveillance items (to the law enforcement
markert place).
What are they? Remote control, pan, tilt, zoom, video cameras (some of
the literature I've seen also says they have audio). They are mounted
inside a utility transformer (looks like a Edison Transformer on a
telephone pole). Also, telephone splicing boots and boxes.
Pretty neato. I've seen one, up close. One side of the box is replaced
with a infrared filter. It looks opaque to the human eye (black), but
the video camera sees though it just dandy.
I've seen price tags around $20,000 for these units!
--
Glen L. Roberts, Publisher, Directory of Elect Surv Equip Suppliers
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
Box 734, Antioch, Illinois 60002 Fax: (708) 838-0316
Voice/FAX on demand: (708) 356-9646
------------------------------
From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" <levine@blatz.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: 11 Jul 1994 19:26:40 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Callerid and the FCC
Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
I have been on the mailing list (paper) for arguments before the FCC
in the matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number ID. I do
not know how I got on the list but it consists of about 100 names of
which only 9 do not show a corporate or agency affiliation.
The arguments that arrive at my home all seem to concern the cost of
handling the FCC decision to implement "between the states" callerid.
This decision currently permits blocking only if the originator entered
*67 before the called number (per call blocking) and does not permit
blocking if the user and the state had allowed per line blocking for
"in the state" service. The main problem seems to be the cost of the
implementation of this service and the signalling problems that arise.
I have not seen even one submitted comment that addresses the issues of
personal privacy. It is now clear that anyone will be able to prepend
*67 and get blocking even in between the states calls. People who have
unlisted numbers, service organizations who shelter battered people,
undercover police numbers, all will have their phone numbers posted
when they call another state, if the FCC regulations go through, unless
the caller is alert enough to remember to dial *67 first.
Most serious is the confusion. If you have per line blocking in those
states where it is allowed, you do not have to dial *67 except when
calling another state, and then you must. Lotsa luck.
At this moment it seems that the issue of privacy is no longer being
addressed, the question of costs seems to be the only question open
now. It is becoming clear that equipment is becoming available (for
$70 or so?) that will force your phone to dial *67 every time you pick
up the handset, so per line blocking between the states will be
possible if you wish to buy back your privacy.
--
Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu
Professor, Computer Science Office 1-414-229-5170
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Fax 1-414-229-6958
Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201
------------------------------
From: Michael Travers <mt@media.mit.edu>
Date: 09 Jul 94 18:57:33 -0400
Subject: Re: CID is not the same as 800 or 911 ANI
The other solution is line blocking, in which all calls have the id
blocked. Downside: what if you had to call 911 and the number was
blocked because you forgot to dial the extra numbers to send your
number. And telemarkters would pay a one time fee to block the
number so you would be in the same boat you are now. Pick up phone,
listen to pitch, hang-up rudely...
The 911 systems which provide calling number, name, and address,
are not blocked by the caller-id blocking system- the same goes for
calling 1-800 numbers- the owner of the 800 system always gets your
number.
This is not always true. In the Boston area, the recently introduced
caller-id system only has a line-blocking feature that DOES block 911
calls. They say this will be fixed sometime in late 1995. In the
meantime, you have to choose between privacy and safety.
------------------------------
From: Paul Robinson <PAUL@TDR.COM>
Date: 10 Jul 1994 00:13:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Question About CallerID
Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA
dunn@nlm.nih.gov (Joe Dunn, MSD), writes: A big advantage of having
per id blocking on a call by call basis is that it would be
prohibitively expensive for a telemarketing company to block their
number.
It's 'prohibitively expensive' for a telemarketer to either use
outgoing-only lines (which return a message saying the line does not
accept incoming calls) or to have their phones dial *67 first, before
each outgoing call? There is no charge to place *67 before a dialed
call.
The other solution is line blocking, in which all calls have the id
blocked. Downside: what if you had to call 911 and the number was
blocked because you forgot to dial the extra numbers to send your
number.
911 is supposed to use a different system and should not be blocked at
all.
Another problem is, calling an 800 number. The courts have ruled
since the company with the 800 number is paying for the call they
own the call and have the right to getting your number. So, how do
you handle not giving out your unlisted number when you call an 800
number, even when you pay to have your number blocked??
This has been possible for many years, and it's only been since people
found out about it that there was a problem. I believe the new FCC
ruling on CID has included this issue by restricting use of the ANI
information to limited circumstances.
I have an 800 number, and at the end of the month, along with the bill,
AT&T sends me a list of every telephone number that called my number.
---
Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM
Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
------------------------------
From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: 10 Jul 1994 21:59:24 CST
Subject: Re: Question About CallerID
Organization: The Villa CyberSpace, executive headquarters
bernie@fantasyfarm.com writes: Joe Dunn, MSD writes: "J. Shickel"
writes: Does 'Caller ID' return the telephone number of callers
with unlisted numbers? This is the primary reason for all the legal
challanges to the caller id service. People who have unlisted
numbers would be giving out their numbers unless there is a
mechanism of blocking the number.
But there's an interesting standoff [at least here in Bell Atlantic
land]. One option you can purchase is "refused blocked calls".
As a point of information, USWest Minneapolis offers this as a no-cost
feature of the basic CNID subscription (and it defaults to 'on', which
I thought was a nice touch).
So you, with your unpub number, may discover that you're caught
between a rock and a hard place: either you give out your unpub
number, or you can't call the person _at_all_.
I'm afraid I don't see the problem. This is a simple and (at long
last) equitable negotiation. If you want to call me, and I'm blocking
anonymous calls, you have to send ID. The fact is, I don't block anon
calls now. But I will most assuredly let my answering machine take
anything that shows "PRIVATE" on the ID box. If you know me, I
probably already know your number. If you don't know me, why are you
concealing your telephonic "face" when calling? I don't see CNID
delivery as publishing.
--
Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | PGP 2.3 public
roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org | main(){ | key available
| int x=486; | upon request
| printf("Just my '%d.\n",x);} | (send yours)
------------------------------
From: wmccarth@t4fsa-gw.den.mmc.com (Wil McCarthy)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 14:13:52 GMT
Subject: Re: What's a Cop to Do?
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
patchman@netcom.com (J. Patrick Henry) writes: My question
regarding the Clipper is this: If a law enforcement official
suspects illegal activity behind electronic enemy lines, what would
he/she do for surveillance if he/she didn't have the Clipper?
Point a boom mike at the suspect's house, go through his trash, pay off
his friends to snitch... You know, all the usual.
--
The ideal state provides its Wil McCarthy (wmccarth@t4fsa-gw)
citizens with the tools to succeed Martin Marietta Corporation
and the freedom to fail. I made this stuff up myself.
------------------------------
From: dunn@nlm.nih.gov (Joe Dunn, MSD)
Date: 11 Jul 94 14:21:36 GMT
Subject: Re: What's a Cop to Do?
Organization: National Library of Medicine
patchman@netcom.com (J. Patrick Henry) writes: My question
regarding the Clipper is this: If a law enforcement official
suspects illegal activity behind electronic enemy lines, what would
he/she do for surveillance if he/she didn't have the Clipper?
How much information is gathered now from phone taps?? Do you think
that law-breakers use phones in which they can be easily tapped now??
Do you think they are going to start using the phones with clipper
chips?? The whole idea of the clipper chip is a joke. Exactly when did
the federal government get so powerful that they mandate what products
we must buy for our houses. It's sheeple who think they are making the
jobs of law enforcement agencies easier. Haven't we learned our lesson
from RICO?? Honest law-abiding people are losing houses because they
unknowlingly recieved money from someone who earned their money from
the drug trade. The government has no use of this technology, so don't
give it to them.
In any event, law enforcement agencies don't use phone taps because
they are worthless. They use long-range directed microphones that can
pick up conversation in buildings at great distances. There is no
threat of detection because no equipment is placed on premises. Phones
taps are an obsoleted technology is use against criminals. So what do
the feds need them for??
------------------------------
From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 16:02:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Get Your Files & More
Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL
Phil Albert (palbert@netcom.com) wrote: Maybe I'm missing
something. If I call this number, listen and respond to the
Automatic Response Unit, which converts DTMF signals to commands
for an automated faxing system, I can receive documents by fax?
For this to work, the documents must be on-line. Why can't I get
them on-line via e-mail, ftp, gopher, www, etc.? Isn't that
easier, and much cheaper?
Yes, you select document numbers by DTMF and then it selects those and
faxes them to you (after entering the selection, you press start).
Yes, SOME of the materials could be online. However, lots of people
don't have online access... and some of the documents, such as the
Medical Information Bureau file request form cannot be online, as those
people are SUPER-SNOBS and refuse to accept a request on anything but
their own form (even though, they need little more than a name,
address, dob and signature). (Aside, the CEO sent me "authorized
commentary" about the MID... ).
Some of the other documents, such as excerpts from my FBI file, loose
much, if simply typed in, as the black magic marker, and handwritting
in the margins would be lost.
I could make other information available by ftp, gopher, www or
whatever, if someone wanted to give me some assistance on that.
--
Glen L. Roberts, Publisher, Directory of Elect Surv Equip Suppliers
Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central)
Box 734, Antioch, Illinois 60002 Fax: (708) 838-0316
Voice/FAX on demand: (708) 356-9646
------------------------------
From: poivre@netcom.com (Poivre)
Date: 11 Jul 1994 22:57:20 GMT
Subject: Re: SSNs at Car Dealership
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Jeremy Epstein -C2 PROJECT (jepstein@cordant.com) wrote: I was
getting my car serviced today at the local Mercury dealership, and
hanging on a wall by the cashier's office was a framed plaque
giving the names and SSNs of mechanics who are authorized to
perform emissions and safety inspections. Wonder how the
Commonwealth of Virginia justifies requiring dealerships to post
the list and then includes SSNs. Sort of like the court case they
just lost on requiring SSNs to vote, and making the voting records
public.
Virginia is really into SSNs. They also use them as drivers licence
numbers. What other state loves the SSN as much as Virginia?? I would
never permanently reside there!
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
poivre@netcom.com : #include <disclaimer.h>
: Altruism Doesn't Pay!!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #004
******************************