Date: Fri, 08 Apr 94 08:15:21 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#050 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 08 Apr 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 050 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine Re: Anonymous Phoning Re: Anonymous Phoning Re: Anonymous Phoning Re: Anonymous phoning Re: Anonymous Phoning Re: Anonymous phoning Re: Anonymous Phoning Re: Anonymous phoning Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Re: Activist list subpoenae Request for Research Help SSN#: How Could Someone Find Out Mine Re: CNID vs. ANI Re: CNID vs. ANI Re: CNID vs. ANI Re: CNID vs. ANI Re: Telemarketing 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@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) Date: 5 Apr 1994 12:22:58 -0400 Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: Trivializers R Us roedder@netcom.com (Spencer Roedder) writes: I have always been a staunch advocate of privacy, but I find I come down on the opposite side from a lot of people, who bemoan the lack of privacy brought about by CallerID. They are concerned about the caller's privacy; I find more to be concerned about in the callee's privacy. As I see it, the ability to make an anonymous phone call is a historical anomaly which has only been with us for the last century. Before that time, if you wanted to talk to someone you came to their door or confronted them in public; the only alternative was the much-maligned anonymous letter. I see CallerID as simply restoring the historic status quo: the _right_ of a person "called to the door" of his own home to know who is on the other side of the door. But this is precisely what Caller ID does _not_ do. If it gave a name, or a little picture like the one you can see through the peephole of your door, that might be fine. To use the "called to the door" metaphor, what it gives is the address of the person on the other side of the door. Although people may in the past have presented visiting cards to announce themselves, I think that society then and now would have bridled at the idea that giving up your home address should be a precondition of knocking on someone's door. ------------------------------ From: msieving@cyclone.xnet.com (Mark Sieving) Date: 6 Apr 1994 02:46:33 GMT Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: XNet Information Systems John Macdonald wrote: There has to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling to parties that are willing to accept such calls while not allowing anonymous calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID. I've always found that an answering machine meets all my needs for privacy. I use it to screen calls, and if I don't want to talk to the caller, or if the caller doesn't speak up and talk to the machine, I don't pick up the phone. If someone wants leave a harassing message on the machine, that's OK, it's evidence if I should want to take legal action. ------------------------------ From: bernie@fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: 6 Apr 1994 04:00:06 GMT Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: Fantasy Farm, Pearisburg, VA John Macdonald writes: If we're taking about your _home_, we can get into all the usual privacy issues. But what about you entering mine? Do the same rights follow you in my door, so to speak? It's pretty standard expectation that if you want entrance to another's territory, you'd better be prepared to present ID. Not all people insist on seeing ID before they are willing to talk to someone that comes to their door. There has to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling to parties that are willing to accept such calls while not allowing anonymous calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID. Indeed, and it is truly hard to fathom the lengths some people will go to to avoid admitting the obvious solution: "Hello. Who's this?" if you don't like the answer you get This is fully functional, always works, can't be blocked, doesn't cost you anything, and doesn't require any technology or the cooperation of 11 phone company switching offices hither and yon. It also works when someone is calling from a pay phone, from someone else's house, etc etc. By the way, when John mentions "all the usual privacy issues", this is usually a coverup for "there probably isn't a really hard-edged privacy here but the argument sounds stronger if I say so". I note that *no*one* in this thread has indicated what definition of 'privacy' they are using that would make "having to answer the phone and ask "who's there"" as being their critical-privacy-issue-of-the-day. -- Bernie Cosell bernie@fantasyfarm.com Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA (703) 921-2358 ------------------------------ From: ejjohn3@borg.it.uswc.uswest.com (Eric J. Johnson) Date: 6 Apr 1994 09:06:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning Just to clarify a misconception here: The worst thing is that phone companies seem to think that now that Call Trace and CLID, available at extra cost, are a replacement for their annoying call bureaus, always provided as part of basic service. If the state regulators were on the ball they'd mandate that Call Trace be provided for free to improve the existing annoying call bureaus. At least here at U S WEST Communications, this is the exact opposite of reality. The two Call Id Centers (formerly the annoyance call bureaus) have at least doubled their staffs to handle customer call-ins regarding COT activations. Please clarify the last comment about improving customer service by offering COT free. The cost of this service is already mandated by each state, usually in the $1-2 per-activiation range, and seems much more cost effective than some of the other solutions to harassing calls (like purchasing an 800 number and forwarding your calls to it) BTW, some states already mandate that the activation fee be waved when the customer calls in to the CIC to follow up on an activation. -- Eric J. Johnson Project Leader - Annoyance Call Mechanization - U S WEST Technologies Minneapolis, MN (612) 663-3077 ejjohn3@borg.mnet.uswest.com ------------------------------ From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:31:07 GMT Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL Nevin Liber (nevin@cs.arizona.edu) wrote: I can still see legitimate uses for anonymous calling). However, all it identifes is the location the caller is calling from. There is a service that provides anonymous calling.. defeats both caller-id and ANI (and long distance toll recording snooping). It;s Called 1-900-STOPPER... the name and number are the same... yeah, it costs ya ($1.95).... Another point about all of this... people like Unsolved Mysteries claims that you can make an anonymous report to their 800#... yet they gets your ph# (and if they don't want it... the police and/or FBI might get it from the phone company). Unsolved Mysteries refused to discuss this with me for an article in Full Disclosure... claiming only that most people didn't want anonomity when calling them... nicely avoiding the question raised by their claims of anonomoity on the air vs the technology. ------------------------------ From: glr@rci.ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:33:42 GMT Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL John R Levine (johnl@iecc.com) wrote: I can't agree that anonymous phone calling is a privacy right. I also have to note that the telcos' marketing of CLID has been very disingenuous. They've marketed CLID primarily as a deterrent to annoying calls, trying to distract attention from its primary use in collecting telemarketing lists. Call Trace, a service related to CLID,is the one actually appropriate for annoying calls. It's not blockable, and it records numbers where they can be picked up by phone company security people, much better for legal purposes than a number You might find that by placing your call through the operator that it blocks Call-Trace, Caller-ID and ANI. Of course, this is bound to change, and your toll records will still show the call. ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 7 Apr 1994 00:05:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Anonymous Phoning Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA jmm@elegant.com (John Macdonald), writes in Comp-privacy: There has to be a middle ground which allows anonymous calling to parties that are willing to accept such calls while not allowing anonymous calls to parties that wish to insist upon ID. There is, and it's already available. The phone company ought to provide a recipient option that lets the recipient choose to never receive calls with blocked ID. That's exactly what is available now. Their phone would not even ring This is *exactly* what happens. (or be busy), and the caller would get an intercept message "The number you have dialled does not accept calls with blocked ID.". The caller would know why their call did not get through and could choose to unblock and call again if they felt that there was a need to complete the call. (The current situation where the recipient's display says "number blocked" and the recipient just does not answer can lead to the caller trying again and again, hoping that the recipient will eventually get home. While there may be some desire to cause such callers that sort of nuisance, it also means that the recipient's phone is busy.) Where they have caller-id, they can have (subject to political considerations) exactly the system you mentioned available. In Virginia and Maryland (DC probably has it if the suburbs do) the service is called "anonymous call rejection." You dial *77 and from that point on, if someone calls you by dialing *67, they don't get through; they are shunted to a recording that tells them that the party they are calling does not accept anonymous calls; if they want to reach the party, call again without blocking their number. This remains in effect until and unless the called party dials *87. Here, ACR is free with Caller ID (which costs $6.50 a month) or is $3.50 a month without Caller ID). As strange as that sounds, you *can* block calls from people who block the transmission of their number even if you don't have caller-id. --- Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ From: clifto@tuttoo.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp) Date: 6 Apr 1994 18:49:30 GMT Subject: Re: Anonymous phoning Organization: as little as possible johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) writes: I also have to note that the telcos' marketing of CLID has been very disingenuous. They've marketed CLID primarily as a deterrent to annoying calls, trying to distract attention from its primary use in collecting telemarketing lists. Just who am I supposedly telemarketing from my home? I subscribe because *as you said, it's a deterrent of sorts to annoying calls *I like to know whether it's worth my time to answer *it's VERY handy for getting phone numbers when my hands are full and/or I can't find that pen Also, the corollary dialback service will come in handy when I get my "annual abuse call". When I'm able to *69 and say, "I know who you are and I know where you live ," the $114 I spent for the year's service will have paid for itself, in my estimation. Call Trace, a service related to CLID, is the one actually appropriate for annoying calls. Somehow I'm not sure I want the police going after a friend who plays a joke, or a newspaper that calls to ask me to subscribe, or even telemarketing slimes. Even if I wanted them involved, they'd get sort of aggravated after a few calls every month. No thanks, I'd rather have CNID and ignore the ring when it says "Chicago Sun Times". It's not blockable, I tried it once here on a number that displayed "Out of area" on my CNID box. It told me the service couldn't be activated for that call. It can't be blocked, but it doesn't always work either. The worst thing is that phone companies seem to think that now that Call Trace and CLID, available at extra cost, are a replacement for their annoying call bureaus, always The one time I used Call Trace successfully, I got the impression that not only was the Annoyance Bureau alive and well, but they'd also created a new office especially for the Call Trace action. In any event, whether that's right or wrong, I started my argosy by calling the Annoyance Call Bureau. ------------------------------ From: kadokev@ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Date: 5 Apr 1994 14:49:58 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? "herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu" said: One of two things is happening here: 1) Clipper is a NSA plot that actually helps them break the other layers of encryption added on top of it. 2) The government is planning to outlaw other forms of encryption and is stupider than even I believed to think that outlawing other forms of encryption will prevent their use. Personnally I believe either choice is possible and probably even likely. As for #2, It seems to me that the way to go is to encrypt the voice stream with your method of choice, then clipper then encrypted sequence (in other words, don't add encryption on top of clipper, add it _below_ clipper). Doing aother form of encryption to already encrypted material won't weaken it, and if the government does outlaw other forms of encryption, they won't be able to detect your use of unlawful encryption without first getting a warrent to tap your clippered conversation. And if they _do_ do-clipper your conversation without a warrant, they can't charge you with using encryption because the evidence was obtained unlawfully. ------------------------------ From: cme@galt.sw.stratus.com (Carl Ellison) Date: 5 Apr 1994 20:26:48 GMT Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA The danger, to me, with Clipper is that it sets the precedent that We The People approve giving copies of our encryption keys to the gov't. I, for one, do not give the gov't the right to access those keys. They've never been allowed to have my keys in the past and I will never allow them to have them in the future. -- Carl M. Ellison cme@sw.stratus.com RIPEM MD5OfPublicKey: 39D9860686A9F075A9A83D49589C677A ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 7 Apr 1994 21:33:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA I will add a few items to the mess; if it becomes "gasoline on the fire", well I'll live with the firestorm; I have gotten pretty bad flames before. You have to look at the net effect as to what is being done rather than what is said. For example, the IRS has too much power (ability to issue its own subpoenas, ability to sieze property on its own initiative, its own internal court system that is not subject to judicial review) just for the express purpose of the collection of income taxes. Ergo, the primary purpose of the IRS is to *frighten* the populace, and then, secondary purpose(s) is the squeezing of taxpayers. So, let's look at Clipper: 1. Security through obscurity doesn't work. We cannot be certain what, if anything, is hidden in the "classified" algorithms. While this does not mean that there *is* anything there, there is no way for the ordinary person to be aware if there was. Bugs in software programs that are circulated widely get reported; so do security holes. But if the algorithm is classified, this knowledge base vanishes. 2. The alleged reason for the algorithm remaining classified is that if it wasn't, someone could create a chip without the means to read the material encrypted with it. 3. Ergo, the primary purpose of the chip is to make it easy to read the material passed through the chip by the government (and perhaps by organizations the government wants to favor), and then, secondary purpose is to provide a means to encrypt the material. If this were offered as an optional system, with full disclosure of the algorithm so that those who fear hidden traps and flaws can fully check and verify its operation, then I would have no objection to the particular concept. It is this overly paranoid insistence on secrecy that acts as a "red flag warning" that there is something wrong. The claims that it will be voluntary have about as much credibility as the original provisions of the medicare act that stated that it would not be used to affect how doctors performed health care or what they can charge. Medicare's Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) payment schedule system sets the maximum that a physician can charge for his services, and thus this affects how doctors perform health care. There originally were plans to place absolute limits into the 16th Amendment to prevent the government from taking too much in income taxes, but some members of congress were afraid the taxes would go to that limit if it was set, but others said no, the populace would riot if taxes ever went as high as two percent of income. There is also the issue of encryption software being allegedly subject to rules of export. My personal opinion is such rules, if applied as broadly as people in the software industry apparently think they are, are unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment as overly broad prior restraint which does not fall under either of the two restrictable classes: obscenity or national security; obscenity is not applicable and national security doesn't apply when the law apparently prohibits someone from sending back out of the country non-secret, non-classified public information that came from outside of it. Also, those who oppose Clipper on privacy grounds are taking the wrong argument here. There is essentially no privacy or encryption of most transactions taking place electronically, including E-Mail, phones and data transmission (not to mention almost all cordless and cellular phones) It has been settled that the right of privacy is not absolute. A prisoner has no right to privacy, and even on ordinary people the government can get a "mail cover" and get the information off the outside of every piece of mail someone receives, as well as setting up a "pen register" to record every number dialed. Among other things that can be done, including reading the garbage you put on the curb. There are two very strong reasons to oppose clipper: the one I stated, that a secret routine could have trapdoors in it: when someone claims a secret method is required, the onus is on them to show why it is necessary both to use and to keep secret; the second is that in order for it to remain secret, it would have to be encapsulated in hardware, making it inflexible and thus difficult to use in the fast-paced world of communications when things have to change to take advantage of new capabilities and features being developed. ------------------------------ From: w1gsl@MIT.EDU Date: 08 Apr 94 00:57:40 EDT Subject: Re: Clipper - who's side are they on? "herronj@maroon.tc.umn.edu" writes: If the Federal Government really means what they say about non-Clipper cryptography _not_ being made illegal than we the privacy advocates should embrace Clipper. What the Feds would be doing is actually adding a layer of security, and privacy, where perhaps there was none before. Though they would have the ability to bypass this security we are to assume that no one else can. And since we can always throw on additional layers of security (encryption) just as we do now than we are not losing anything. Yes but that is not the point. As the public come to perceive it needs some form of encription, Clipper is there to give the illusion of privacy. The illusion is all most of the public needs, or thinks it needs. Look at cell phones, every ham and scanner buff knows how easy it is to listen in but the user base is convinced of their privacy because they are told it is illegal to listen... mearly the illusion of privacy. Now if the government is sucessfull in selling CLIPPER most of the users will feel secure knowing their communication is encrypted. The details that one branch of the government hold their keys and that it is likley a good hacker may be able to break their code in time will be lost on almost everyone. Or that low level clerks could sell the keys .. oh that will never happen. After all it is good enough for the Government. The Government suceeds if it manage to give the illusion of security. They won't have to outlaw prior encription ( not to say they won't though). Even though scrambling is technically feasable and legal on phone circuits how many cell phone users do it? The effect will be to considerably reduce the development of independent possibly stronger security- encryption systems by removing a big segment of their market. ------------------------------ From: Marc Rotenberg Date: 5 Apr 1994 21:44:26 EST Subject: Re: Activist list subpoenae Organization: CPSR Washington Office A few notes about the SCARCNet subpoena: - Although NAACP v. Alabama (1958) involved a request for membership records by a government official, courts have ruled that a civil subpoena may raise Constitutional issues as the state may be called upon to enforce the request. - The subpoena may be overly broad given the issues raised in the case which concerns the basis of an expert's opinion. It is possible that the subpoena will be quashed without the court ever addressing the interesting questions. - Two interesting points about the case. One concerns the application of an important Constitutional doctrine on the confidentiality of membership lists to computer networks. The other is the interesting link between privacy and the First Amendment. NAACP v. Alabama is one of the noteworthy Supreme Court cases where privacy protection is viewed as an integral part of the First Amendment. (Talley v. California (1960), involving the distribution of anonymous leaflets, and Stanley v. Georgia (1972), involving the right to possess literature in one's home are two others). In asking that the court protect the privacy of the membership list, the organizers of SCARCNet are actually arguing in defense of their First Amendment rights. Stay tuned. Marc Rotenberg. ------------------------------ From: bcohen@wam.umd.edu (Brad Cohen) Date: 7 Apr 1994 04:55:12 GMT Subject: Request for Research Help Organization: University of Maryland College Park I am a student at the university of Maryland in College Park. I am doing research on the use of internet. What I am looking for is information relating to specific cases concerning the broadcasts of political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, and advertising. If you have any helpful information in these areas and/or you know of any such cases, would you please be kind enough to send me a message about it. Since I am not a frequent visitor to newsgroups, I would greatly appreciate a direct mail message. Thanks very much for your time..... Brad Cohen bcohen@wam.umd.edu ------------------------------ From: austin@netcom.com (Tony Austin) Date: 8 Apr 1994 00:42:32 GMT Subject: SSN#: How Could Someone Find Out Mine Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I read the SSN# FAQ and it was a wonderfully written article. What I can't understand is how an individual, like a detective or such, could find out what my SSN# is. Is my SSN# so vulnerable that someone could do a credit check on me and find out what my SSN# is? ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 7 Apr 1994 00:01:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA I am sure your other readers also pointed out that ANI (delivered to the 800 number) is the number to which the call is BILLED - not the number CALLED_FROM. If you have more than one phone number and bill them all to one number (phone numbers A, B, Teen, D, E, all billed to D), then with ANI, only D will be delivered when you call from any of them. Not true. I have 4 phone numbers and 3 phone lines. Only one of these lines is the billed number, but if I dial out from one of the other lines, that number will be delivered on ANI, not the billing number. I know, I've tested it. --- Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ From: RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET Date: 7 Apr 1994 13:29:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI After writing that the number delivered for the 800 provider via ANI is the "billed" number ONLY and not the "calling" number, some of the readers wrote to me saying that is incorrect. I did some checking with people in the know and found out it depends entirely on the specific telephone company. With some, the billed number gets delivered - with others, the actual calling number (same as CNID) gets delivered to the 800 telephone customer as ANI. -rathinam ------------------------------ From: gibbs@husc4.harvard.edu (James Gibbs) Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:52:41 GMT Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET wrote: I am sure your other readers also pointed out that ANI (delivered to the 800 number) is the number to which the call is BILLED - not the number CALLED_FROM. If you have more than one phone number and bill them all to one number (phone numbers A, B, Teen, D, E, all billed to D), then with ANI, only D will be delivered when you call from any of them. And if you don't want your phone number to be given by ANI to the owner of an 800 number, call the operator and ask him/her to dial the 800- number for you. They can still get your number, but they probably won't go through the extra hassle to get it. -- Jim Gibbs gibbs@husc.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:46:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: CNID vs. ANI Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA RATHINAM@INS.INFONET.NET, wrote to me as follows: Worth writing to one of the comp.dcom.telecom groups about. May be I am wrong, but I have read about the method in comp.dcom.telecom about 3-4 months ago. Will look into it sometime. If you are sure, write back to comp.risks so we can clear it up. The situation is like this: if you dial out from an ordinary individual residential or commercial phone line, whether or not the phone is billed by itself or as part of a group of lines, that phone will have its own telephone number, and that number and the ani/cnid for that line will all be the same. If, however, you dial out from a "pool" of outgoing telephone trunks, such as is commonly done for a hotel, a business running a PBX, or any other service using a group of outgoing lines, then the outgoing number is not going to be the same as the number you receive calls upon. However, if you use a PBX service supplied by the Local Exchange Company, they call that "centrex" and each line _does_ have an identifyable phone number that it generates on outgoing calls. This is because for a private PBX, the outgoing number is from a bank of "outgoing only" trunks that have no other purpose but for making outgoing calls; they are not intended to receive calls, and a call into one of them may be diverted to a receptionist or (usually) to a recording. In such an instance, your telephone number is an "incoming only" number on a bank of incoming numbers, called "DID" trunks. These lines can only receive calls, they cannot place them. For an ordinary residential (greasy wall phone near the stove in the kitchen) or commercial (greasy wall phone behind the cash register in a gas station), that is receiving dial tone from a Local Exchange Company, whether it is billed by itself or in a group of other lines, each line will have a specific individual number that is generated on each call it makes. I know; I have had my service both ways, as separately billed and as combination billed. The phone number generated on outgoing calls does not change in either case. (Now the telephone credit cards that have numbers that match these lines is another story...) --- Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM ------------------------------ From: gibbs@husc4.harvard.edu (James Gibbs) Date: 7 Apr 1994 23:46:24 GMT Subject: Re: Telemarketing Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Chris Call 908-946-1133 (rccall@babel.ho.att.com) wrote: I once saw an article (I believe in this newsgroup) about laws governing the behavior of telemarketers; in particular, there was a discussion of a law that requires telemarketers to supply their company name and address, and to remove people from their mailing list if they have called those people twice and the people ask to be "de-listed." Can anyone post a reference to the law, or quote the law for me? I saw this nifty tidbit on the news on TV once. There is a federal law that says if you ask a telemarketer to remove you from their database and never call you again and they do call you a second time, you can sue them in small claims court for $300. If they call you a third time, you can sue again and receive triple damages of $900. What you have to do is keep a notebook by the phone and record the name of the individual, the company, the name of the person receiving the call (you), possibly what they are trying to sell you, and note the fact that you requested to be taken off their mailing list. I wish I had known about this a few years ago when TIME-LIFE BOOKS (those scum) called me on a weekly basis to try to sell me something. Every time, I told them to take my name off their list and to not distribute my name to any other organizations. They simply told me that they had no method of doing this. -- Jim Gibbs gibbs@husc.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #050 ****************************** .