Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 13:04:26 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@PICA.ARMY.MIL Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V3#032 Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 11 Sep 93 Volume 3 : Issue: 032 Today's Topics: Moderator: Dennis G. Rears Caller ID vs Name System UK Privacy organisation formed (longish posting) Something to Consider Re: Caller ID; a different view Re: Caller ID; a different view Re: does anyone care about ANI? Re: does anyone care about 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]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rogerj@otago.ac.nz Subject: Caller ID vs Name System Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 21:24:37 GMT With regard to the issue of subscribers to 0800 numbers being provide to the telephone numbers of callers. In New Zealand I believe 0800 subsribers are only provided a summary of the charges for a geographical area. Not the actual tlephone number of the caller. Subscribers of a service known as freephone were givent the telephone numbers of callers but this service has been removed as Telecom was concerned of the privacy issues. I would be interested in what people would think about this method of Caller Id. Instead of display the telephone number of the caller the initial of their first name (and maybe the initial of their middle) and their surname gets printed on the screen. Thus instead of 477-9229 being displayed J. Bloggs is displayed on the screen. The following comments refer to the residential use of caller id and not to business. My reasons for supporting this idea are. 1. I do not believe displaying the number of the caller would (NZ doesn't have caller-id yet) deter abusive calls since these calls can be made from a pay phone, someone elses number or from different locations. The use of a naming system would not identify the caller of abusive calls but would provide more information to the police than a non identifying system, but not as much information as Caller ID. 2. Since the name system does not provide the answer with information about the location or identify of the caller, vigilante action could not be instigate. Hopefully any action brought against a caller would be made by the police, this how abusive phone calls are handled in New Zealand. The telephone numbers of people calling are handed over to the police rather then the answerer. 3. In an report by Longwood Associates on Telecommunciation and Privacy Issues they said that propents of Caller Id argue that there has always been an unwritten law that the caller discloses their identity. Even in the old manual system the operator would ask if you wanted to take a call from "Mr J. Bloggs". However a name does not constitue as an unique identifier (hence the need for a telephone number) so the identity of the caller remains unknown. Further disclosing the telephone number of the caller provides the answerer with additional information about the caller that the caller may not wish to disclose (especially if they have dialled a wrong number). Such as location of residence from their phone number, (NZ numbers are allocated based in geographical reference), address from directory inquiries or reverse telephone books, and their unique identifier. This information may not be avaliable to the answer using a name system since their may be more than one J. Bloggs. 4. Most people, I assume are interested in knowing who is the caller so that they can decide that they don't wish to answer the call (if they didn't care who was calling them then they would find out who was speaking when they answered the call.) Most people would be familiar with the names of people they associate with and maybe also the people who they do not want to socialise with. The use of a naming system would still provided with a means of identifying callers who they did not wish to contact with. In fact the name system would provide the answerer with a greater ability to identify caller as people are usually familiar with other peoples names rather than their phone numbers. People are still currently greeted more often by their name than by their phone numer (slight sarcasim, but perish the day that this happens) 5. Finally identifying people by numbers is dehumanising. Over the past few thousand years most people have been identified by name rather than a number, we are even labled with a name at birth, why do we want to start labeling people as numbers? Is humanity the price of effeciency. Any critisms or additions to my comments would be gladly appreciated. Cheers. Roger Rogerj@otago.ac.nz Otago University Dunedin New Zealand These views are my own unless someone agrees with them ------------------------------ From: davies@privint.demon.co.uk (Simon Davies) Subject: UK Privacy organisation formed (longish posting) Organization: Privacy International, London Office Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 18:48:21 GMT Here's some info on a new privacy organisation that has just been formed in the UK Anyone interested in joining is welcomed to contact me Simon Davies __________________________________ An Introduction to The UK Privacy Council A new Non-Government organisation established for the protection of personal privacy The UK Privacy Council is a newly formed organisation of independent experts and advocates specialising in the field of privacy, data protection and surveillance. The Privacy Councils members include leading academic experts, civil liberties advocates, information technology professionals, lawyers and journalists from throughout the UK. The Privacy Council has been formed because the United Kingdom has no specialist non-government organisation in the field of privacy. Bodies such as Liberty, which are already responsible for a wide spectrum of concerns, have provided an excellent response to this point. However, the increasing complexity of the privacy issue, together with the growing number of aspects of privacy invasion and surveillance, make this situation increasingly difficult. The Data Protection Registrar has a very limited jurisdiction, and a great many aspects of surveillance and privacy invasion are not covered by the Data Protection Act. For all these reasons, we believe that a new and independent body is timely and useful. SOME EMERGING PRIVACY PROBLEMS Installation of surveillance cameras (CCTV) throughout Britain has increased four-fold in the past few years. While there may be some benefit in terms of reduction of crime in the immediate vicinity of the cameras, this trend involves significant concerns, including questions of who has access to visual images, how the images are used, and the length of time they are stored. British Telecom is currently piloting a technology known as Calling Number Identification or Caller ID. This process will automatically send the calling parties number to the person being called. In North America, this technology has caused one of the most bitter privacy debates in recent history. Anonymity on the telephone line is removed by telephone companies anxious to sell this service. The establishment of a national identity card is favoured by police and many members of the government. The Prime Minister has pledged to review such a scheme on a time to time basis. Other countries, such as Australia, have rejected the introduction of a national identity card. Modern computers are capable of being linked, and their data can easily be matched. This process of data matching, in which personal information from different sources is matched to determine inconsistencies, is already underway in the UK. It involves significant privacy problems. The proposal to establish a national database of DNA fingerprints raises numerous scientific, legal and ethical issues. WHAT WILL THE PRIVACY COUNCIL ACHIEVE ? The Privacy Council aims to achieve three broad goals : (a) To assess the nature and impact of privacy violations of all kinds, (b) To respond authoritatively to media, parliament and other organisations on privacy issues as they arise, and (c) To act as a resource and educational body for organisations which have an interest in privacy issues (human rights organisations, professional bodies, trades unions, academic institutions etc). The Privacy Councils aims and structure are based on similar organisations overseas. The Privacy Council is a non-partisan and non-profit organisation which has a principle role of education. MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION The Privacy Council has been established under the auspices of the world-wide watchdog group, Privacy International. An inaugural meeting of experts was held in London during March 1993. This meeting agreed that such a body would be an important vehicle to raise awareness about privacy issues, and proposed that the organisation should "uphold, protect and promote individual privacy as an intrinsically important component of a free and open society". Privacy International will manage the administration of the Privacy Council until such time as the organisation develops its own structure and administration. We envision that these will be in place by March 1994, by which time a full legal structure will have been developed, and office bearers appointed. A Steering Committee of UK academic experts has been appointed to provide a policy focus for the new organisation. Simon Davies, (Privacy International's London-based Director General) is the convenor of the Privacy Council. The Steering Committee of the Council consists of independent experts and advocates, although membership and support of all interested people is welcomed. Membership fees will be used for postage, communications, and the production of literature about privacy issues. Meetings of members will be held on the first Thursday of each month at 5.00 pm. Members will be notified of the venue prior to each meeting, until a permanent arrangement is settled. The UK Privacy Council MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION Name......................................................................................................................................... Address..............................................................................................................................................................................................................Organisation.............................................................................................................................. Telephone........................................................ Fax................................................................... Areas of Interrest.............................................. .................................................................................................................................................. 25 (full membership) 5 (low income) 200 (organisations) Please make cheques payable to "Privacy International - UK Privacy Council project" Address for correspondence : Simon Davies, Convenor, UK Privacy Council Morgan Towers Bromley BR1 3QE Ph 081 402 0737 Fax 081 313 3726 MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Simon Davies (convenor) Director General Privacy International David Goldberg Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Glasgow, Professor Brian Napier, Head, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, University of London Professor Charles Oppenheim, Head, Department of Information Science, University of Strathclyde Stephen Saxby Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law University of Southampton Address for corespondence : 1 Morgan Road Bromley BR1 3QE Telephone 081 402 0737 Fax 081 313 3726 ABOUT PRIVACY INTERNATIOAL Privacy International is an independent Non Government Organization established in 1990 to protect personal privacy and to monitor surveillance by governments and other organizations. Over the past three years it has established an outstanding and very active network of human rights advocates, jurists, information technology experts, academics, and data protection experts from more than 40 countries. Privacy International has worked on surveillance issues in such countries as The Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Hungary. Privacy International has recently been funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States to establish international guidelines for police files in emerging democracies. -- -- ----------------------------------------------- Simon Davies Privacy International Morgan Towers, Bromley, BR1 3QE U.K. Ph (44) 81 402 0737 fax (44) 81 313 3726 email davies@privint.demon.co.uk ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 19:01:00 +0000 (GMT) From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us Subject: Something to Consider Organization: The Courts of Chaos * 501-985-0059 * Public Access Usenet -> Again, it is ONLY your phone number--which can be changed with a -> phone call. ONLY a phone call. Here, with GTE, there's a $50 charge for changing your phone number and it takes up to two weeks for them to get around to it. And you must go to the main office in person and sign the papers. ------------------------------ From: Carl M Kadie Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 01:53:58 GMT Kenneth Ingham writes: [...] >Since it comes with both name as well as number, it makes an excellent >screening device for phone calls (we just need one for each phone :-). >If we do not recognize the name or if it is an anonymous call, we simply >do not answer the phone. We let the machine get it. [...] I happy that you are happy with caller id. I note that you apparently don't mind if people use call blocking, since you just route those calls to your answering machine. I think this shows that caller id with call blocking (and block blocking) works well. It is a shame that some phone companies refuse to offer this set. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ From: Jiri Baum Subject: Re: Caller ID; a different view Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 18:20:42 +0930 (CST) Kenneth Ingham says: > Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy > > I would like to present a differnt view of the caller id discussion. > > We have caller id here in New Mexico. We purchased it. > > Since it comes with both name as well as number, it makes an excellent > screening device for phone calls (we just need one for each phone :-). ... I would like to agree - my only suggestion is that a smarter machine is needed, so that it screens the calls automatically, based on a list of telemarketers, and delivers different messages to different people. After all, even the phone just ringing is annoying - make it ring only for people you want to talk to. This would also serve an "I don't want to be disturbed" function better than switching the ringer off - you could make all but a few friends leave a message (except for the telemarketers who would as usual be told what to go do with themselves) at some times of the day (or night) Somebody would have to keep and distribute a list of telemarketers. I wonder how they would respond to this? Of course, this list is for people who want the general public to be able to call them. If you only want a select group of friends to call you, simply ignore all others. (*) Which leaves only travelling friends to be taken care of - perhaps these could have an identification card which works over the phone, so the machine answers and they request that it actually ring the phone? (*) This is actually not new - one old method is to ignore all phone calls, and have your friends phone, let it ring twice, hang up and then phone again. Jiri. -- "You are being tested, Riker! What is the answer?" -- The Last Outpost, ST:TNG "Forty-two." -- The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 01:22:13 PDT From: Kelly Bert Manning Subject: Re: does anyone care about ANI? >In a previous not the moderator says: >[Moderator's Note: ANI really doesn't contribute to it. You can get the >same information when somebody mails you a letter from the return >address. 800 numbers are mainly used by businesses, for the most part >they are used immediately then tossed. Rarely, are they used for >telephone call backs. I have a residential 800 number, I don't get real >time ANI, I do get a bill which every number who call me. A unlisted >number means that number is not given out to directory assistance or >published in the phone book. I get the impression that you are trying to make some kind of a point about asking explicit questions on matters instead of making assumptions. You don't have real time ANI. Well, do you have Caller ID, and does it give you the numbers of callers using Caller ID Blocking? We seem to have established that US Carriers seem to be reproducing Caller ID signals on long distance calls, using ANI signals that you mentioned have to be passed along whenever a system requests them. This seems to raise the possibility that a Telco could recreate a Caller ID signal at will for a long distance call, defeating what the caller assumes is a Caller ID block. There are some unique aspects to the ANI issue, such as who is billed for the call, but in many ways it overlaps with Caller ID. I think that the fact that STOPPER is in operation shows that someone is investing money in it because they feel that there is an interest in making calls without revealing phone numbers. If STOPPER can't stay in business that would be convincing evidence that nobody cares. If it keeps on going and prospers the opposite conclusion can be drawn. What concern there is seems to be amplified by the abilty of computer systems and data networks to make and distribute copies of phone numbers, leaving them disseminated far beyond the control of an individual. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 93 13:02:27 EDT From: Computer Privacy List Moderator Subject: Re: does anyone care about ANI? Kelly Bert Manning writes: > >>In a previous not the moderator says: >>[Moderator's Note: ANI really doesn't contribute to it. You can get the >>same information when somebody mails you a letter from the return >>address. 800 numbers are mainly used by businesses, for the most part >>they are used immediately then tossed. Rarely, are they used for >>telephone call backs. I have a residential 800 number, I don't get real >>time ANI, I do get a bill which every number who call me. A unlisted >>number means that number is not given out to directory assistance or >>published in the phone book. > >I get the impression that you are trying to make some kind of a point >about asking explicit questions on matters instead of making assumptions. > >You don't have real time ANI. Well, do you have Caller ID, and does it >give you the numbers of callers using Caller ID Blocking? We seem to have >established that US Carriers seem to be reproducing Caller ID signals on >long distance calls, using ANI signals that you mentioned have to be >passed along whenever a system requests them. This seems to raise the >possibility that a Telco could recreate a Caller ID signal at will for >a long distance call, defeating what the caller assumes is a Caller ID >block. I personnally do not have Caller Id. I see no need for it, especially at $6 a month. I have occasionally used Call Return. A TelCO needs both the calling number and recieving number in order to place the call. > >What concern there is seems to be amplified by the abilty of computer >systems and data networks to make and distribute copies of phone numbers, >leaving them disseminated far beyond the control of an individual. I think the concern is mainly the existence of data bases that can associate address numbers, addresses, names, and other bits of data. dennis ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V3 #032 ******************************