|
Computer Privacy Digest Vol 2 #016
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
Computer Privacy Digest Thu, 11 Feb 93 Volume 2 : Issue: 016
Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (CNID)
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (C
Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (C
NM Facts
Re: SSN as a red herring
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
[email protected] and administrative requests to
[email protected].
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.pica.army.mil
[129.139.160.133].
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nate Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (CNID)
Date: 2 Feb 93 20:56:44 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>This is how I think CNID (Calling Number ID) should be handled:
>1. Free per-line blocking to those who were paying for unlisted numbers.
> (But no hike in fee because person expected NO publishing...)
>2. Free per-line blocking to those who want unlisted numbers now that
> CNID is available.
>3. Per-call blocking to anyone, for a fee. [Shelters, etc. could be
> exempted]
>Reasoning:
>....1. ...implied...promise of non-publication
>....2. ...could be a fee hik[e]...person knows they are paying
>for per-line blocking as well as non-publishing.
>(IMHO, charging for UNlisting is a bit odd, but...)
kinda like paying more for UNleaded gas... :-)
are you changing your mind slightly here? above you said "Free"....
>
>....3. Times change. There was never any promise of anonymity, expressed
>or implied, by the service provider. CNID has been available for years as
>ANI to 800, 900, and other similar service subscribers.
BUT we should eliminate this. although i know its much harder to undo
something, that still doesnt mean we shouldnt be trying. see below
regarding constitution & bill of rights.....
> I should be able to get the same info for a fee.
i have no objection to any residential phone getting this info,
even for free!
but in addition, you should be able to purchase a reverse-indexed
phone book, so you too can build up names & addresses.
>
>CNID v. DOOR (with window or peephole):
>I have the PRIVILEDGE of finding out who is at my door if I install a
>peephole or window. YOU have a right to wear a bag over your head. I
>have the right to not answer my door. Even if I see who is at my door,
>(assuming no bag...) I still don't have a name and/or address; I do
>know what the person looks like.
analogies never work, as a friend of mine once said....
i can just as easily say this analogy would take the form: the peephole
is like picking up the receiver - you dont know name/address, but you do
know what the person sounds like. there really isnt any comparison,
because a person really outside your door can be a lot more dangerous
than a person at the other end of a phone line.
>
>CNID doesn't tell me the name. But it sure narrows it down.
you mean: EITHER its coming from a phone you recognize, so it most likely
will be _______ OR its coming from anywhere by a stranger who could be a
friend using a payphone OR a stranger would could have a cash prize for
you OR a stranger who wants you to buy this encyclopedia ('well hello
mr smith - i see you have 2 kids getting ready to enter college...we have
a special deal for you...') OR a stranger who wants to insult you OR...?
if some jerk really wants to bother you, he could sneak up to the outside
of your home, open the box where the line comes in and plug in a handset.
then he makes all kinds of obscene calls and unplugs his handset. he
drives off into the night. minutes later at the behest of a dozen
complaints the police knock on your door. there are a dozen witnesses
with CNID records "proving" that you made the calls. look how hard it
is to correct errors in your credit card rating.
>CNID is especially handy for second-time callers.
ok, true. But how often does this happen?
>
>SUMMARY:
>This whole fuss over CNID would not be occurring if CNID had been available
>from Day 1. It is only a problem because most of us got used to being
>"anonymous callers". Of course it changes things.
i see. so if they had just made George Washington king and dealt away
with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we would all be "used to it".
> Any new service makes
>things different. Answering machines made it possbile to screen calls.
>CNID enhances this. The caller does not have to be subjected to your
>outgoing message first.
>
>[email protected] no nifty .sig
i would or could add:
4. free per-line blocking by default to residential homes.
free switch back and forth to either mode via operator.
4a. a per-call switch to the other mode can have a fee.
4b. if you want CNID, a small one-time fee ( ~$1.53 ).
5. pay phones always CNID.
6. business phones by default CNID, but can be line-blocked
for a fee.
7. calls to 911 CNID (i think they are already) to enable
rescue crews to get to the emergency fast.
8. preferred caller ID number list with screening, for the
sensitive ones who need more than CNID.
and finally,
9. ah forget it. its too easy to abuse. it adds another
layer of things that have to be maintained which leads
to more costs which are then passed along to the consumer.
just consider the junk mail...why do we partly subsidize
all that junk mail with some of that 29 cents?.......so,
give it a rest. vote no.
- nate, continuing on from this side of the debate
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (C
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 11:01:01 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
In comp.society.privacy [email protected] writes:
> This is how I think CNID (Calling Number ID) should be handled:
>
> 1. Free per-line blocking to those who were paying for unlisted numbers.
> (But no hike in fee because person expected NO publishing...)
OK
> 2. Free per-line blocking to those who want unlisted numbers now that
> CNID is available.
Not OK. Say I want a published number, but want to block ID by default.
Why? See below...
> 3. Per-call blocking to anyone, for a fee. [Shelters, etc. could be
> exempted]
Not OK at all! Per-call blocking should be free. Besides, shelters
fall under the objection to 2. They will likely have listed numbers,
but it would be very important for them not to send ID with each call.
> For 2. there could be a fee hick because now a person knows they are paying
> for per-line blocking as well as non-publishing. (IMHO, charging for
> UNlisting is a bit odd, but...)
The PhoneCo will appreciate your logic. But the general public will
think non-pub == non-ID, so this one will have a difficult time flying.
> For 3. Times change. There was never any promise of anonymity, expressed
> or implied, by the service provider. CNID has been available for years as
> ANI to 800, 900, and other similar service subscribers. I should be
> able to get the same info for a fee.
In this case, I say fine, get that "same info for a fee". Buy a service
that includes ANI.
Please, remember that ANI and CNID are two _different services_, and you
should not confuse the two. Arguments for one do not necessarily
translate to arguments for the other one. ANI has been available for
years. CNID is just now appearing. You mustn't expect the two services
to behave alike.
FWIW, my opinion of how CNID should work....
For all customers:
Unlisted numbers default to per-line blocking at no extra charge.
Listed numbers may have per-line blocking at a small charge. The small
charge is waived at the time the service is first made available, for
existing listed customers. It's also waived for shelters and
similar locations with a clear need for default per-line blocking.
Per-call-block and per-call-unblock available at no charge.
Per-call-block and per-call-unblock should have _different_ activation
codes. At the very least, there should be a means to determine the
default condition of a given line.
For customers subscribing to incoming CNID:
An option to block blocked-ID calls at the CO, with an appropriate
recorded message. ("I'm sorry, the number you have dialed does not
wish to accept anonymous calls. Please re-place your call with
identification enabled.")
> SUMMARY:
> This whole fuss over CNID would not be occurring if CNID had been available
> from Day 1. It is only a problem because most of us got used to being
> "anonymous callers".
That's true, and some have made quite a tidy sum exploiting that point.
The biggest objection I've had thrown at me is "you won't ever answer a
call if you don't recognize the number!" That's ridiculous, of course.
I would certainly let anonymous calls go to the machine, but would very
likely answer unknown or out-of-area calls. Moreover, I tend to hear
that from people who also say they will block ID by default. So I have
to write it off to bruised ego, since I have effectively said I will
never answer a call from _them_.
> "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious, and wrong"
> --Albert Einstein
Like the ECPA making listening to cellphone calls illegal?
--
Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | "press to test"
roy%[email protected] | main(){ | <click>
[email protected] | float x=1; | "release
| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | to detonate"
------------------------------
From: "Carl M. Kadie" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID (C
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1993 22:39:48 GMT
[email protected] writes:
[...]
>For 3. Times change. There was never any promise of anonymity, expressed
>or implied, by the service provider.
[...]
I think I should be able to try to call Radio Shack without giving
them my phone number, just as I can try to enter their store without
giving them my phone number. I don't see why I should pay the phone
company for the ability to call businesses without disclosing my phone
number.
If Radio Shack will not talk to me without me disclosing my phone
number, they can refuse my call and my business. (When a CLID system
is set up correctly, blocked calls and only blocked calls show up on
the CNID display as "P", for private.)
- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
= [email protected] =
------------------------------
From: thomas ciccateri <[email protected]>
Subject: NM Facts
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 93 23:15:49 MST
Here at the University of New Mexico the state school uses one's SSN
as the student ID Number. The school bookstore demands your SSN
when paying by check and the cashiers office demands it when paying
by credit card. In both cases a school employee writes the number on
the instrument (check or CC form) knowing full well that it will be
circulated outside of the university. When using any computer labs
students are required to sign in with their name and SSN, these logs
are left laying open in public. All attempts to have the university
accept their responsibility and protect students' privacy in this
area have been ignored. The university administration has shown that
it only responds to lawsuits.
The state Division of Motor Vehicles demands your SSN when applying for
a driver's license and prints it on the front of the license. A
state-supported organization, New Mexico Technet, will sell
state-collected data on drivers to anyone willing to pay for it.
The state PUC recently allowed Caller ID but the service that I could
really use, Dial Last Caller (number unknown), was rejected due to
efforts of the state law enforcement lobby who argued that this service
would jepordize their spying and infiltration operations. Citizens'
privacy is of little concern in N.M.
Tom Ciccateri
------------------------------
From: [email protected] (Joe Bowen)
Subject: Re: SSN as a red herring
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1993 18:35:40 GMT
Organization: International Business Machines AWD at Austin
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Philip Hurley) writes:
>
>I have considered the ramifications of writing a virus program (I don't know
>how and never have) that will delete any reference it finds with my name in
>it.
>
>Philip Hurley
Consider first that unauthorized access to somebody else's computer system
is a MAJOR crime, even if only to access/remove data that you really do have
a right to control. The cops can even seize all equipment suspected of
being used in the 'invasion'.
Joe Bowen
I am not a lawyer, but I play one on stage.
------------------------------
End of Computer Privacy Digest V2 #016
******************************
|
|
