Date: Tue, 07 Sep 93 10:10:00 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#024 Computer Privacy Digest Tue, 07 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 024 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears trouble getting the digest today UK Privacy International Co Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911 Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911 Re: ANI RE: ANI Re: ANI Re: ANI 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 [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 14:42:07 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: trouble getting the digest today it is being sent out with header and footer, but no messages. [Moderator's Note: I had a problem getting out Volume 3, Issue 23. I had two false starts. I 've gotten about 6 messages about this. ._dennis ] ------------------------------------ From comp-privacy-request@fender.pica.army.mil Fri Sep 3 11:12:19 1993 To: Comp-privacy@Pica.Army.Mil Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#023 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 03 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 023 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears 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 [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #023 ****************************** ---------------------- another follows ---------------- ------------------------------ Organization: CPSR Washington Office From: Dave Banisar Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:46:06 EST Subject: UK Privacy International Co UK Privacy International Conference ANNOUNCEMENT ONE DAY PUBLIC CONFERENCE INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IN PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION 30th SEPTEMBER, 1993, MANCHESTER, UK A roundtable hosted jointly by Privacy International and the Law School of the University of Manchester Topics include : Privacy concerns with Caller ID and digital phone services Privacy implications of Electronic Health Care Patient Record Systems and medical smart cards Cryptography, and communications surveillance Implications of the European Commission data protection directive The establishment of guidelines for handling police files in emerging democracies in Central and Eastern Europe Weaknesses in the UK Data Protection Act This programme will include a small number of papers and formal presentations, but will primarily be a forum for general discussion of the issues. A number of key international experts will be present at the meeting. The conference is free for all Privacy International members, independent experts, and privacy and consumer advocates. A fee of 50 (US$75) will apply to representatives of government organisations or companies. 8.30 AM - 2.00 PM, Thursday 30th September 1993 Room 2.22, The Law School, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL For more information, please contact : Simon Davies at Privacy International in London on (44) 81 402 0737 or fax (44) 81 313 3726 (email : Davies @privint.demon.co.uk ) or Dave Banisar at Privacy International in Washington on (1) 202 544 9240, fax (1) 202 547 5482 (email : Banisar@washofc.cpsr.org ) ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911 Date: 3 Sep 1993 23:12:38 GMT Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex Others said: # > How Does Line Blocking Work With Emergency Calls? # > If you have Line Blocking and an emergency service provider # > has Caller ID, the provider will NOT receive your number Typical Bell misdirection..... Notice the modifier "If" in the sentence. 911 does not use CLID. Never has. I suppose if you started up "Joe's Fire Dept. and Storm Door Company" you might get it CLID. But what good will the number do you? Do you go flying out onto the street in your ladder truck, while looking up the number/address in your Haynes Directory ;-? -- A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 6:42:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: Caller ID Blocking and 911 In Computer Privacy Digest V3 #022 "Tansin A. Darcos & Company" <0005066432@mcimail.com> Paul Robinson writes: >Monty Solomon , writes: > >> The following is an excerpt from the "Caller ID And Blocking Fact >> Sheet" I received from New England Telephone. >> >> How Does Line Blocking Work With Emergency Calls? >> If you have Line Blocking and an emergency service provider has >> Caller ID, the provider will NOT receive your number UNLESS you >> unblock your number by pressing *67 (dial 1167 on a rotary/pulse >> phone) before you call '911' or other seven digit emergency numbers. > >I *hope* this is a misprint. Last I heard, 911 *isn't supposed to be unconditionally receive the caller's phone number and address in order >that they can make a quick response to you in an emergency. The Suffolk County, NY, Police Department does not see any numbers when one dials 911. I asked my son-in-law, who is a dispatcher, about this and he said that, no, they do not see the numbers. Dave Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, LI, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 Senior Technical Specialist: Scientific Computer Facility ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 21:02 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: ANI Kelly Bert Manning writes: > Does paying for an 800/900 call give someone carte blance to do anything > they want with the callers number, such as using it to retrieve an address > from a reverse directory and peddling it to porno magazines as a hot sales > prospect? Why would they bother unless you were calling a porn service to begin with? What do you and others really think a company is going to do with your phone number? It isn't the key to your house, your savings passbook number, your Swiss bank account number, or your winning lotto ticket. It is just your phone number for crissake! The only legitimate concern expressed here has been that some telemarketer MIGHT call some evening. Horrors! What a thought! Even if true (it more than likely is not), I know many people who have survived telemarketing calls and lived to tell about it. Telemarketing is a shotgun enterprise. No telemarketer that I am aware of has people calling selected lists taken from ANI-generated databases. It simply does not make any logistic or economic sense except in some very specialized areas. I use ANI heavily. I use it for internal purposes and to protect myself against fraud. Please do not pontificate about how it is unnecessary or how it is not effective compared to the "harm" it causes until you have my credentials in the use of ANI and about eight years of experience in the field of customer-delivered ANI processing. Dennis is absolutely correct in his assertion that most people do not care. Yes, I have extensively observed people's reactions and attitudes concerning it. I have yet to find anyone other than net.posters who has so much as raised an eyebrow over the issue. I make it a point to tell people about the availability of ANI delivery on 800 numbers, so it is not as though I expect to keep it a deep, dark secret. Again, no one is surprised; no one seems to care. With ANI, I am able to open accounts on the spot; without it the new customer would have to wait some period of time for a validity check. People in the real world appreciate that and consider it worth the "privacy" trade-off. > [Moderator's Note: Paying for it or not does not give "carte blance to > do anything they want with the callers number" What give them carte > blance is the knowledge of the number. Quite simple if you don't want > a party to know you phone number don't call them from that phone. > ._dennis ] Did anyone ever hear the fable about the silly women who sat around crying because they were afraid that an axe stuck in the ceiling would fall and hit someone on the head? When it comes to discussions of ANI and Caller-ID we hear endless jawbone-ing about all the what-ifs and what we would need to do to prevent them. How about simply using the remedies that are available to everyone when harmed by another? If you feel that you have action against someone who has made improper use of your phone number, then ask for compensation. If he refuses take him to court. You cannot prevent every possible harm (real or unreal) that may befall someone in this life. You cannot make the world a rubber room. In that regard, can someone cite one single documented case where someone was harmed by either CNID or ANI and took action against the number recipient? Is the problem real, or is it arm.chair.fantasy? In my experience, the latter is definitely the case. If you have more experience than I, let us hear about your case histories. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 08:54:43 PDT From: Kelly Bert Manning Subject: RE: ANI Reply-To: ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca In a previous article, ua602@freenet.victoria.bc.ca writes >Does paying for an 800/900 call give someone carte blance to do anything >they want with the callers number, such as using it to retrieve an address >from a reverse directory and peddling it to porno magazines as a hot sales >prospect? > >In some cases 800 service numbers are mentioned in product documentation >as a selling point. If a customer buys a product on the basis of it being >warranted and backed up by an 800 support number haven't they already >paid for the 800 calls as an integral part of the product price? > >[Moderator's Note: Paying for it or not does not give "carte blance to >do anything they want with the callers number" What give them carte >blance is the knowledge of the number. Quite simple if you don't want >a party to know you phone number don't call them from that phone. > ._dennis ] > Whatever happened to the US Code of Fair Information Practices? The ACM recently affirmed it's support for this, which should lend it some strength as a moral imperative even if it doesn't have the force of law. Most people feel that information that is given for one purpose should not be used for another unrelated purpose without their consent, or transferred to a third party. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association recently affirmed it's support for this principle, according to a report in "Privacy Journal" and other media. Members cannot send mail to addresses on their exclusion list, must not sell or exchange addresses without consent, and must inform targets of who sold them an address when asked, so that targets can exercise their full right to civil remedy for breach of privacy under statutes such as the BC Credit Reporting act and the BC Privacy Act(deals with private sector breach privacy). The CDMA code is mandatory, unlike the US equivalent. My cynical impression is that it is primarily a PR move intended to stall legislation that was almost sure to get passed in Ontario, and Quebec, which would cover over half the population in Canada. It's really ironic that these direct marketing organizations have been relying on the anonymity/privacy of their sources of addresses as a way of preventing civil prosecution for invasion of privacy. BC doesn't need new legisltion to make it possible to sue for revealing an address. All you need is to be able to prove who sold or transferred it. In the past they've pretended that they have no way of tracking who sold them an address, so I've used the technique of putting coded initials in magazine subscriptions, and will be taking one publisher to small claims court. I got this idea from the PBS documentary "Computers Spies and Private Lives". It seems to be a variation on the old practice of including phoney names in address lists. Address list peddlars have always done this to let them know if "their" addresses were resold or used for more mailings than were paid for. I guess that there isn't much honour among privacy thieves. ------------------------------ From: Duncan Frissell Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy Subject: Re: ANI Date: 4 Sep 1993 17:26:49 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC G.>There was *no way* to place the call, because they had no non-800 G.>number listed. I finally ended up calling my secretary and having her G.>call the place from stateside. G.> G.>--Lynn Grant G.> Grant@Dockmaster.NCSC.MIL G.> Now of course, you can call US 800 numbers if you have, say, an AT&T Credit Card and use USA Direct. They do charge you for the call however. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ From: Duncan Frissell Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy Subject: Re: ANI Date: 4 Sep 1993 17:26:52 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC U.>One point that didn't get mentioned is that the use of ANI to record U.>numbers allows the payer to prevent nuisance callers from programming U.>their modems to dial an expensive 800 number repeatedly. I think ... U.>that"Stopper" must do this U.>because they gave me a busy signal after the first call. I didn't have U.>a pen by the phone and they only mentioned the new caller ID demo U.>number once before they disconnected. I had to call from a pay phone to U.>hear it again. U.> Stopper puts out a notorized statement from a telecoms security consultant that says they specifically do not accept the ANI of incoming calls so that it is harder to trace calls made via the service. U.>900 numbers cannot be used from here in BC. BC Tel terminated this U.>"service" after getting a lot of very bad publicity about teenagers U.>running up huge bills for dial-a-porn. I'm not sure why "Stopper" U.>includes BC in it's 800 advertising number service area since nobody U.>here can use their 900 number to block caller ID or ANI. Stopper also has a service that lets you prepay for calls and use an 800 number. Duncan Frissell --- WinQwk 2.0b#0 ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #024 ******************************