Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 13:45:41 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V1#065 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 24 Jul 92 Volume 1 : Issue: 065 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears 800 numbers (Re: Caller ID decision) Re: SSN Required to Buy Car in Calif Re: cellnet privacy? Re: cellnet privacy? Re: 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Gast Subject: 800 numbers (Re: Caller ID decision) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:21:42 GMT >Steve Forrette writes: >> In the case of a "large >> company" getting a direct T1 with 800 ANI, they are paying for the call. So, big deal. >> Certainly those who wish to remain anonymous have no business expecting >> someone else to pay for their calls. I might agree if every organization that published an 800 number said "We will record the numbers, names, and other information of those who call us on our 800 number. If you do not wish for us to know this number, please call us at . Regular number would be guaranteed not to have CID or ISDN or some other method of getting the calling person's phone number. No one forces anyone to get an 800 number. Most 800 numbers receive calls from people to whom the 800 number has advertised itself. >> And that's just what you're doing >> anytime you call an 800 number - asking the recipient to pay for it. Perhaps incidentally. Sometimes it is the only known number. >> there is a long-standing tradition in US telecom that the person paying for >> the call gets to know who both parties are. [...] Wrong. There was a long-standing tradition that 800 numbers, that is WATS lines, did not provide itemized billing. Additionally, in the days of Zenith numbers and the like, I believe that the callee was not told who was calling even though the Zenith number paid. Rather I see a tradition over at least the last couple decades that no one knows who is calling until the person identifies him or herself. Further, the payer has never gotten to know who both parties are. Sometimes he got to know both telephone numbers or the presumed name of the caller, but he never got to know both parties. david ------------------------------ From: David Gast Subject: Re: SSN Required to Buy Car in Calif Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 09:29:04 GMT In article idela!bell@uunet.uu.net (Mark Bell) writes: >Well, I bought a car for our kid a couple of weeks ago and >was stunned to find that they wouldn't sell it to me without SSN! >The law went into effect a few months ago. >Is there anyone out there who can advise how to beat this? I'd be happy >to guinea-pig a court case if someone has any ideas. First, I recommend you write your elected officials. Second, you might try buying a car out of state and bringing it in. Perhpas no SSN will be required then. At the very least, only the DMV should find out. This method could have adverse tax consequences; I don't know for sure. That is, you might have to pay sales tax in two states. Third, since I gather you have already purchased the car, it seems the only recourse you now have is to file a lawsuit. Claim that the law violates the *explicit* privacy clause of the CA Constitution. I don't have any idea on the possible success of your lawsuit. David ------------------------------ From: Leonard Erickson Subject: Re: cellnet privacy? Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:54:05 GMT keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes: > 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? Are you sitting down? Here in the US, rather than deal with this by adding encrypted transmission options, the cellular phone industry got together and convinced Congress to make monitoring cellular calls *illegal*. Even if you *don't* tell anyone. This is *especially* silly when you realize that here, the cellular phone system uses what used to be part of the UHF TV band. *Lots* of old TV sets (especially *small* portables with analog tuning) can listen in. -- Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com FIDO: 1:105/56 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently) ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey Ehlinger Subject: Re: cellnet privacy? Date: 23 Jul 92 23:01:51 GMT Organization: The Tower of Zot - (716)691-3865 keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes: > > 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? I have listened to these types of conversations before on a scanner after a modification of the radio to recieve 800's. Although the ethics i have heard concerning such activities states that one can listen BUT cannot repeat the information to anyone. Is that what you mean by "act on the information" Could someone clear this up for us? ========================================================================== ** Mail to: Augy@toz.buffalo.ny.us <<>> Bflo, NY ** ** Or Prodigy Mail me: HKXS18B ** ** The bus came by and I got on, that's when it all began! ** ------------------------------ From: Greg Earl Webb Subject: Re: cellnet privacy? Organization: North Carolina State University Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:36:58 GMT In article , keith.willis@almac.co.uk writes: > > > 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 What is "cleartext" and at what frequencies do they broadcast conversations. This is very disconcerning to me as I am an owner of a Cellularphone. Is there anyway to scamble conversations so they are not as public. Thanks in advance..... Greg Webb ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V1 #065 ******************************