Computer Privacy Digest Mon, 11 Jul 94 Volume 5 : Issue: 004 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine SSN's on Local Radio Card Video Camera on Utility Poles Callerid and the FCC Re: CID is not the same as 800 or 911 ANI Re: Question About CallerID Re: Question About CallerID Re: What's a Cop to Do? Re: What's a Cop to Do? Re: Get Your Files & More Re: SSNs at Car Dealership 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: newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe) Date: 11 Jul 1994 08:57:35 UNDEFINED Subject: SSN's on Local Radio Card Organization: Clayton State College A local radio station in Atlanta (99.7 FM) have come out with a "Freeloading" card that gets you discounts at places (movies, music, etc...). On the application, they have the usual name, address, household info, along with a field labled SS#. What the hell do they need that for. Oh well, time for a "My Blue Heaven" :) Rick Moranis: "So, I'll just need your social security #" Steve Martin: "Okay...2" RM: "Uh huh" waiting for more after each number SM: "5...7...3...6...1...8...2...24" SM: "Oh...that's one too many." SM: "Drop the 4" -- Dan Newcombe newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia ------------------------------ From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Date: 11 Jul 1994 16:07:34 GMT Subject: Video Camera on Utility Poles Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL It might not be widespread yet, however, my sources tell me that they are one of the most popular surveillance items (to the law enforcement markert place). What are they? Remote control, pan, tilt, zoom, video cameras (some of the literature I've seen also says they have audio). They are mounted inside a utility transformer (looks like a Edison Transformer on a telephone pole). Also, telephone splicing boots and boxes. Pretty neato. I've seen one, up close. One side of the box is replaced with a infrared filter. It looks opaque to the human eye (black), but the video camera sees though it just dandy. I've seen price tags around $20,000 for these units! -- Glen L. Roberts, Publisher, Directory of Elect Surv Equip Suppliers Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central) Box 734, Antioch, Illinois 60002 Fax: (708) 838-0316 Voice/FAX on demand: (708) 356-9646 ------------------------------ From: "Prof. L. P. Levine" Date: 11 Jul 1994 19:26:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Callerid and the FCC Organization: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee I have been on the mailing list (paper) for arguments before the FCC in the matter of Rules and Policies Regarding Calling Number ID. I do not know how I got on the list but it consists of about 100 names of which only 9 do not show a corporate or agency affiliation. The arguments that arrive at my home all seem to concern the cost of handling the FCC decision to implement "between the states" callerid. This decision currently permits blocking only if the originator entered *67 before the called number (per call blocking) and does not permit blocking if the user and the state had allowed per line blocking for "in the state" service. The main problem seems to be the cost of the implementation of this service and the signalling problems that arise. I have not seen even one submitted comment that addresses the issues of personal privacy. It is now clear that anyone will be able to prepend *67 and get blocking even in between the states calls. People who have unlisted numbers, service organizations who shelter battered people, undercover police numbers, all will have their phone numbers posted when they call another state, if the FCC regulations go through, unless the caller is alert enough to remember to dial *67 first. Most serious is the confusion. If you have per line blocking in those states where it is allowed, you do not have to dial *67 except when calling another state, and then you must. Lotsa luck. At this moment it seems that the issue of privacy is no longer being addressed, the question of costs seems to be the only question open now. It is becoming clear that equipment is becoming available (for $70 or so?) that will force your phone to dial *67 every time you pick up the handset, so per line blocking between the states will be possible if you wish to buy back your privacy. -- Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu Professor, Computer Science Office 1-414-229-5170 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Fax 1-414-229-6958 Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201 ------------------------------ From: Michael Travers Date: 09 Jul 94 18:57:33 -0400 Subject: Re: CID is not the same as 800 or 911 ANI The other solution is line blocking, in which all calls have the id blocked. Downside: what if you had to call 911 and the number was blocked because you forgot to dial the extra numbers to send your number. And telemarkters would pay a one time fee to block the number so you would be in the same boat you are now. Pick up phone, listen to pitch, hang-up rudely... The 911 systems which provide calling number, name, and address, are not blocked by the caller-id blocking system- the same goes for calling 1-800 numbers- the owner of the 800 system always gets your number. This is not always true. In the Boston area, the recently introduced caller-id system only has a line-blocking feature that DOES block 911 calls. They say this will be fixed sometime in late 1995. In the meantime, you have to choose between privacy and safety. ------------------------------ From: Paul Robinson Date: 10 Jul 1994 00:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Question About CallerID Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company, Silver Spring, MD USA dunn@nlm.nih.gov (Joe Dunn, MSD), writes: A big advantage of having per id blocking on a call by call basis is that it would be prohibitively expensive for a telemarketing company to block their number. It's 'prohibitively expensive' for a telemarketer to either use outgoing-only lines (which return a message saying the line does not accept incoming calls) or to have their phones dial *67 first, before each outgoing call? There is no charge to place *67 before a dialed call. The other solution is line blocking, in which all calls have the id blocked. Downside: what if you had to call 911 and the number was blocked because you forgot to dial the extra numbers to send your number. 911 is supposed to use a different system and should not be blocked at all. Another problem is, calling an 800 number. The courts have ruled since the company with the 800 number is paying for the call they own the call and have the right to getting your number. So, how do you handle not giving out your unlisted number when you call an 800 number, even when you pay to have your number blocked?? This has been possible for many years, and it's only been since people found out about it that there was a problem. I believe the new FCC ruling on CID has included this issue by restricting use of the ANI information to limited circumstances. I have an 800 number, and at the end of the month, along with the bill, AT&T sends me a list of every telephone number that called my number. --- Paul Robinson - Paul@TDR.COM Voted "Largest Polluter of the (IETF) list" by Randy Bush ------------------------------ From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: 10 Jul 1994 21:59:24 CST Subject: Re: Question About CallerID Organization: The Villa CyberSpace, executive headquarters bernie@fantasyfarm.com writes: Joe Dunn, MSD writes: "J. Shickel" writes: Does 'Caller ID' return the telephone number of callers with unlisted numbers? This is the primary reason for all the legal challanges to the caller id service. People who have unlisted numbers would be giving out their numbers unless there is a mechanism of blocking the number. But there's an interesting standoff [at least here in Bell Atlantic land]. One option you can purchase is "refused blocked calls". As a point of information, USWest Minneapolis offers this as a no-cost feature of the basic CNID subscription (and it defaults to 'on', which I thought was a nice touch). So you, with your unpub number, may discover that you're caught between a rock and a hard place: either you give out your unpub number, or you can't call the person _at_all_. I'm afraid I don't see the problem. This is a simple and (at long last) equitable negotiation. If you want to call me, and I'm blocking anonymous calls, you have to send ID. The fact is, I don't block anon calls now. But I will most assuredly let my answering machine take anything that shows "PRIVATE" on the ID box. If you know me, I probably already know your number. If you don't know me, why are you concealing your telephonic "face" when calling? I don't see CNID delivery as publishing. -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include | PGP 2.3 public roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org | main(){ | key available | int x=486; | upon request | printf("Just my '%d.\n",x);} | (send yours) ------------------------------ From: wmccarth@t4fsa-gw.den.mmc.com (Wil McCarthy) Date: 11 Jul 1994 14:13:52 GMT Subject: Re: What's a Cop to Do? Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver patchman@netcom.com (J. Patrick Henry) writes: My question regarding the Clipper is this: If a law enforcement official suspects illegal activity behind electronic enemy lines, what would he/she do for surveillance if he/she didn't have the Clipper? Point a boom mike at the suspect's house, go through his trash, pay off his friends to snitch... You know, all the usual. -- The ideal state provides its Wil McCarthy (wmccarth@t4fsa-gw) citizens with the tools to succeed Martin Marietta Corporation and the freedom to fail. I made this stuff up myself. ------------------------------ From: dunn@nlm.nih.gov (Joe Dunn, MSD) Date: 11 Jul 94 14:21:36 GMT Subject: Re: What's a Cop to Do? Organization: National Library of Medicine patchman@netcom.com (J. Patrick Henry) writes: My question regarding the Clipper is this: If a law enforcement official suspects illegal activity behind electronic enemy lines, what would he/she do for surveillance if he/she didn't have the Clipper? How much information is gathered now from phone taps?? Do you think that law-breakers use phones in which they can be easily tapped now?? Do you think they are going to start using the phones with clipper chips?? The whole idea of the clipper chip is a joke. Exactly when did the federal government get so powerful that they mandate what products we must buy for our houses. It's sheeple who think they are making the jobs of law enforcement agencies easier. Haven't we learned our lesson from RICO?? Honest law-abiding people are losing houses because they unknowlingly recieved money from someone who earned their money from the drug trade. The government has no use of this technology, so don't give it to them. In any event, law enforcement agencies don't use phone taps because they are worthless. They use long-range directed microphones that can pick up conversation in buildings at great distances. There is no threat of detection because no equipment is placed on premises. Phones taps are an obsoleted technology is use against criminals. So what do the feds need them for?? ------------------------------ From: glr@ripco.com (Glen Roberts) Date: 11 Jul 1994 16:02:24 GMT Subject: Re: Get Your Files & More Organization: RCI, Chicago, IL Phil Albert (palbert@netcom.com) wrote: Maybe I'm missing something. If I call this number, listen and respond to the Automatic Response Unit, which converts DTMF signals to commands for an automated faxing system, I can receive documents by fax? For this to work, the documents must be on-line. Why can't I get them on-line via e-mail, ftp, gopher, www, etc.? Isn't that easier, and much cheaper? Yes, you select document numbers by DTMF and then it selects those and faxes them to you (after entering the selection, you press start). Yes, SOME of the materials could be online. However, lots of people don't have online access... and some of the documents, such as the Medical Information Bureau file request form cannot be online, as those people are SUPER-SNOBS and refuse to accept a request on anything but their own form (even though, they need little more than a name, address, dob and signature). (Aside, the CEO sent me "authorized commentary" about the MID... ). Some of the other documents, such as excerpts from my FBI file, loose much, if simply typed in, as the black magic marker, and handwritting in the margins would be lost. I could make other information available by ftp, gopher, www or whatever, if someone wanted to give me some assistance on that. -- Glen L. Roberts, Publisher, Directory of Elect Surv Equip Suppliers Host Full Disclosure Live (WWCR 5,810 khz - Sundays 7pm central) Box 734, Antioch, Illinois 60002 Fax: (708) 838-0316 Voice/FAX on demand: (708) 356-9646 ------------------------------ From: poivre@netcom.com (Poivre) Date: 11 Jul 1994 22:57:20 GMT Subject: Re: SSNs at Car Dealership Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Jeremy Epstein -C2 PROJECT (jepstein@cordant.com) wrote: I was getting my car serviced today at the local Mercury dealership, and hanging on a wall by the cashier's office was a framed plaque giving the names and SSNs of mechanics who are authorized to perform emissions and safety inspections. Wonder how the Commonwealth of Virginia justifies requiring dealerships to post the list and then includes SSNs. Sort of like the court case they just lost on requiring SSNs to vote, and making the voting records public. Virginia is really into SSNs. They also use them as drivers licence numbers. What other state loves the SSN as much as Virginia?? I would never permanently reside there! -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . poivre@netcom.com : #include : Altruism Doesn't Pay!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V5 #004 ******************************