Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 16:56:02 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#060 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 10 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 060 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Caller ID decision Re: Can Merlins be used as bugs? Re: Caller ID decision Re: Caller ID decision 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 [129.139.160.200]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 16:46 PDT From: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Caller ID decision "David H. Close" writes: > Has anyone else commented on the general availability of ANI versus the > general unavailability of CLID? If you can afford a T1 link and an 800 > number, there is no privacy issue mentioned when you get ANI from your > carrier. This has been the case for MANY years. And you bring up one of the foremost disadvantages of "rule making through activism". Activists have a narrow, limited agenda and more often than not are shockingly uninformed. I must have mentioned on this and other forums more times than I can count that big business can have "super Caller-ID" anytime it wants. ANI transcends LATAs, state boundaries, SS7 capability and most rules and regulations. It is unblockable. > Its only the analog > customer with limited (home, small business) needs who faces the big > bruhaha over alleged "privacy". How about that! The saviours of our "privacy" (I was the one who mentioned that it is really an anonymity issue) will only be successful in denying the small players (you, I, and our fellow small businessmen) the ability to have a second-class (no pun intended) imitation of what the big boys have been enjoying for years and years. I do not suppose that we can thank them enough. > But another, very real, issue is the > discrimination against smaller users who can't get the service which is > readily available today to large companies. Don't ask me. Don't ask the telcos. Ask the yahoo anti-Caller-ID people who have decided in their collective infinite wisdom that the common man is not to know who is ringing his phone, disturbing his PRIVACY! -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Can Merlins be used as bugs? Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 23:32:11 GMT >Daniel P. B. Smith (dpbsmith@world.std.com) writes: >>Our office AT&T Merlin systems offer a built-in speakerphone mode >> ... [and lots of other features besides -ed] ... >>Potentially, it seems as if the system could be >>used to eavesdrop on offices. The phone installer assured me that >>this was impossible (translation: if there IS a way, they don't tell >>him how). But I wonder if there are really engineered protections, >>or whether eavesdropping is simply not a feature supported by the >>"standard" software. Could a hacker reprogram it somehow? ... There was a posting in comp.dcom.telecom a few months ago about an engineer who worked for a PBX company in designing the station sets. He and his fellow engineers thought about the possibility of someone hacking the firmware to turn on the mic without anyone knowing it. They decided to build into the hardware of the set a feature such that it was impossible to turn on the mic without also the 'mic' LED being turned on. Although there would be no audible indication that the mic was on, it would be pretty foolish for someone seriously trying to bug someone's office (they would have to be quite serious to hack the PBX firmware in the first place) and have the 'mic' LED turned on. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Caller ID decision Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 02:25:03 GMT In article dhclose@cco.caltech.edu (David H. Close) writes: >Has anyone else commented on the general availability of ANI versus the >general unavailability of CLID? If you can afford a T1 link and an 800 >number, there is no privacy issue mentioned when you get ANI from your >carrier. The caller is usually totally unaware. Its only the analog >customer with limited (home, small business) needs who faces the big >bruhaha over alleged "privacy". As someone else mentioned, privacy isn't >the issue, anonimity (sp?) is. But another, very real, issue is the >discrimination against smaller users who can't get the service which is >readily available today to large companies. I think you are overlooking a big difference here. In the case of a "large company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call. Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting someone else to pay for their calls. And that's just what you're doing anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it. Also, there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for the call gets to know who both parties are. Whenever you place a toll call, the called number is listed on your bill. Manual collect calls have the caller announced by the operator, as well as the calling number itemized on the bill (in most areas). Similarly, virtually all 800 service has had the calling number for each call itemized on the bill for several years now. The only new thing is that you can now get it in real time. I do think that more public education would be a good thing to inform people of the 800 ANI issue. But I don't think blocking is really a necessity here - again, don't expect someone else to pay for your "privacy"/anonymity. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) Subject: Re: Caller ID decision Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp. Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1992 21:33:12 GMT But who can doubt the right of the 800 call recipient, who is paying for the call, to know who is calling? [Moderator's Note: Anyone who has an 800 number gets a list of all calling numbers on their bill. I even get one for my residential 800 number. ._dennis ] -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #060 ******************************