Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 12:50:18 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#064 Computer Privacy Digest Wed, 22 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 064 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Re: Caller ID Decision Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries "Paying = Knowing" Re: Caller ID Decision (are cellular providers telcos?) cellnet privacy? 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: Sat, 18 Jul 92 10:11:47 -0700 From: Robert Lenoil Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision Organization: Robert S. Lenoil, Independent Consultant In article mcb@presto.ig.com (Michael C. Berc h) writes: >This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service. >Cellular customers pay air time for incoming calls (which are generally >free to callers in the area), but incoming calls are listed on the bill >with the customer's own cellular number (in most cases, mine included), >or simply as "INCOMING" on other systems' bills. That's not the same thing as 800 service. I still pay standard phone charges to call you on your cellular phone. The fact that you have opted for a phone service that charges you for incoming calls is your business, not mine. Robert Lenoil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 09:55:23 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: Emerging Privacy Issues in Libraries Would appreciate comments on the following scenario: Although libraries and related professional groups have traditionally been strong defenders of user/patron information privacy and have reflected this' posture in appropriate policy statements; an expected confluence or somewhat predictable interplay of a number of influences on the horizon would appear to present some emerging issues of privacy/information integrity for the library environment of kind that are unlike those libraries are used to dealing with. Some of the influences coming into increasing play in this library environment might include increasing automation and use of information technologies, and an increasing movement in the direction of imposing fees for services that, in large measure, employ just this automation and such technologies. According to this scenario, the rather predictable consequence would, in the primry instance, be one of significant increase in the flow, and the nature and quantity of transaction-generated information; which, in turn, would involve a rather new set of both internal and external interests in access to, and uses of, such TGI; thus giving rise to a resulting set of emerging, and, for libraries, non-traditional, emerging questions of information privacy. Related questions having to do with commoditizing information, and commercialization and privatization, may also be of relevance in such a scenario as they are in other privacy areas; and such tendencies may be facilitated by ideological influences provided, for example, by REINVENTING GOVERNMENT. Peter Marshall ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 19 JUL 92 22:42 Subject: "Paying = Knowing" In recent Digests, it has been stated that the party paying for a call is entitled to know the number of the phone at the other end, for example, ANI on an 800 number. In a recent discussion with a GTE media representative, I was told that "Call Return" would not be offered with the initial GTE CLASS services, because returning a toll call would disclose the number. The rep said there was some thought to modifying the billing system to blank out the last four digits of the number. ===================================================================== = sua cuique voluptas (everyone has his own pleasures) = = Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com = = >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< = = Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself = Randomly selected tag: Please ignore previous fortune. ------------------------------ From: "Michael C. Berch" Subject: Re: Caller ID Decision (are cellular providers telcos?) Date: 22 Jul 92 09:19:10 GMT Organization: IntelliGenetics, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA In the referenced article, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > "Michael C. Berch" writes: > > > This tradition has already been broken -- by cellular phone service. > > I disagree. Cellular providers are not in the position to either make > or break "telephone tradition". As entities that are neither LEC nor > IEC, whatever a cellular provider does or does not do applies only to > itself. There is not even any consistency, standard, or tradition among > the hundreds of providers across the country. The rules and procedures > change on apparent whim. Cellular providers have a long way to go > before they can claim "telephone company" status. John, (as usual) I agree with you, or in this case I should say I wish I could agree with you, but let's face it, cellular providers are de facto LECs. The fact that they collectively seem to be run by a set of people who have no deep knowledge of, or respect for, telecom tradition and usage notwithstanding, they're telcos. "Ya gets yer service, ya dials yer number, and ya pays the bill." And rather than having tradition and usage rub off on them, I fear the opposite will occur, and real (landline) service will end up looking more like cell service. You know, where you can't even report a network outage after office hours. > So I will restate Mr. Forrette's position: tradition and usage dictates > that the party paying for the call knows the calling number. This is > true on 800 service, both in real time and on billing; collect calls; > and even on third-party calls where the billed party is not a > participant, the billed party has the numbers of both ends of the > conversation. Just one gloss on the above -- increasingly, in the case of collect and third party calls, there is no actual NXX-XXXX number on the bill, merely something like FROM SAN FRAN CA PUBLIC PHONE and I wonder if the information (number of the public phone) is even permanently recorded, should it ever be a matter of legal, law enforcement (etc.) interest. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com ------------------------------ From: keith.willis@almac.co.uk Subject: cellnet privacy? Date: 21 Jul 92 20:45:51 GMT Organization: ALMAC PC Board I wonder how long it is going to be before the business Cellphone users realise that all their conversations made over the Cellnet are easily intercepted, in 'cleartext', with a cheap shortwave scanner? I managed, completely invertantly, to overhear a conversation between the Personel Director of the company I was working for, and the local Personel Manager, discussing imminent staff redundancies. Pure coincidence, of course, but a systematic search is not unrealistic. Presumably the legal position on this is similar to police radio; one can overhear, but not act on the information received? --- ~ PQ 2.15 194 ~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** Keith Willis **** email: keith.willis@almac.co.uk **** bangpath: ...mcsun!uknet!almac!keith.willis -- ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371 Call for details! ALMAC PC Board BBS 0324-665371 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #064 ******************************