Can't block caller ID in Massachusetts?
My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line. They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when calling them. Not even *67." Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing. I know 800 number owners probably used to be able to get lists of calling phone numbers on their phone bills, but this is less disturbing as it would take significant effort to match up the lists after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say, for instance, "If I buy your product, can it do X?" as opposed to, for instance, "I'm stuck with your product, can it do X?". People are often more helpful in the former case. Now, though, they'll know exactly who I am before they even say hello. David
David Mazieres enscribed thusly:
My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line.
They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when calling them. Not even *67."
Might want to poke your nose into the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup. This is very VERY old news. The people with 800 (and 900) numbers don't have special software - they have a different service. Instead of CLID, they have ANI and have had it for YEARS! One particular difference between these two services is that CLID returns the "calling number" while ANI returns the "billing number" (i.e. they number they would charge services to). For most of us, these numbers are identical. For some of us, they are different.
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing.
You are about a decade late on this one...
I know 800 number owners probably used to be able to get lists of calling phone numbers on their phone bills, but this is less disturbing as it would take significant effort to match up the lists after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say, for instance, "If I buy your product, can it do X?" as opposed to, for instance, "I'm stuck with your product, can it do X?". People are often more helpful in the former case. Now, though, they'll know exactly who I am before they even say hello.
Not everyone has the ANI service but not all of those who do will admit to it. The story is told of an American Express customer who got extremely agitated after an American Express customer support representative asked them if they has recently changed their phone number. The answer was "no - why do you ask". The rep replied, "well, the number you're calling from is different". The customer got so upset that American Express no longer asks when someone calls in from a number different than the number on file. This is also how you unlock those credit cards by calling an 800 number. They warn you to call from your home number. If you do, your card is automagically activated. If you don't, you have to jump through hoops.
David
Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
I wrote David backchannel about this, explaining it in lurid detail. Now, to the whole list, if you didn't know, Here's how you STOP the 800 people from getting your number: DIAL THE OPERATOR and have her put the call through... Take Care, Millie
FYI - AT&T Wireless had announced they would begin passing through CLID information on cellular phones in the Austin, Texas area effective June 15, 1996. I don't know how this affects ANI or what other areas are doing, but I wouldn't assume your cellular phone # is not being passed through. On 13 Jul 1996 12:25:07 -0500, you wrote:
"Millie" == sfuze@tiac net <sfuze@sunspot.tiac.net> writes:
Here's how you STOP the 800 people from getting your number:
DIAL THE OPERATOR and have her put the call through...
Or place the call with your cellular phone -- AFAIK, CLID and ANI information doesn't get passed along on cell phone calls.
-- Roger Williams finger me for my PGP public key Coelacanth Engineering consulting & turnkey product development Middleborough, MA wireless * DSP-based instrumentation * ATE tel +1 508 947-8049 * fax +1 508 947-9118 * http://www.coelacanth.com/
"Millie" == sfuze@tiac net <sfuze@sunspot.tiac.net> writes:
Here's how you STOP the 800 people from getting your number:
DIAL THE OPERATOR and have her put the call through...
Or place the call with your cellular phone -- AFAIK, CLID and ANI information doesn't get passed along on cell phone calls. -- Roger Williams finger me for my PGP public key Coelacanth Engineering consulting & turnkey product development Middleborough, MA wireless * DSP-based instrumentation * ATE tel +1 508 947-8049 * fax +1 508 947-9118 * http://www.coelacanth.com/
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:55:27 -0400 (EDT) From: David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say,
I just want to be able to go to my local steakhouse joint, feed myself and a couple of bimbos, and tell them to charge it to David Mazieres. .....What?!? I'm supposed to _pay_ for my way in life? They didn't teach me that at MIT! Write a letter to Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank - my human rights are being violated!
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, David Mazieres wrote:
They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when calling them. Not even *67."
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing.
I know 800 number owners probably used to be able to get lists of calling phone numbers on their phone bills, but this is less disturbing as it would take significant effort to match up the lists after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say, for instance, "If I buy your product, can it do X?" as opposed to, for instance, "I'm stuck with your product, can it do X?". People are often more helpful in the former case. Now, though, they'll know exactly who I am before they even say hello.
This is nothing new. 800, 900 and some other similiar numbers have been able to subscribe to a service called Automatic Number Identification (ANI) for many years now. While it is related to Caller ID, it doesn't operate with necessarily the same restrictions/options. Many companies use ANI in addition with special software to actually look at where you are calling from and either pull up your records, transfer you to a region specific extension, etc. I've heard rumors that some carriers pull their ANI information from CID thereby enabling you to block it just like you would the normal signal. Other methods of remaining anonymous can be achieved by going through long distance companies that don't pass on ANI information or paying companies who offer you ANI blocking dial-throughs. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Bruce M. wrote:
I've heard rumors that some carriers pull their ANI information from CID thereby enabling you to block it just like you would the normal signal. Other methods of remaining anonymous can be achieved by going through long distance companies that don't pass on ANI information or paying companies who offer you ANI blocking dial-throughs.
Another way to defeat ANI or whatever is to call 800 numbers by using a pre-paid calling card. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Bruce M. wrote:
I've heard rumors that some carriers pull their ANI information from CID thereby enabling you to block it just like you would the normal signal. Other methods of remaining anonymous can be achieved by going through long distance companies that don't pass on ANI information or paying companies who offer you ANI blocking dial-throughs.
Another way to defeat ANI or whatever is to call 800 numbers by using a pre-paid calling card.
It would still be possible for the LD company to just pass through your information for ANI, although I wonder what percentage actually do. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, on wrote:
Another way to defeat ANI or whatever is to call 800 numbers by using a pre-paid calling card.
In response to which Bruce M. wrote:
It would still be possible for the LD company to just pass through your information for ANI, although I wonder what percentage actually do.
Not being technically oriented, I may be venturing into deep water here, but I don't think ANI "pass through" is likely at all. When you use a pre-paid calling card, TWO separate calls and call set-ups are made, your call to the card company and the card companies call to your ultimate destination. While many (most?) card companies keep records of all calls placed, there are some who keep no records at all. Unless this hypothetical "pass through" capability is somehow built into the the phone infrastructure and is transparent to the card companies, I seriously doubt the card companes would invest any resources in doing such a "pass through." After all, the same information is available, albeit with a bit more work, from their operational logs if they even keep those. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
In response to which Bruce M. wrote:
It would still be possible for the LD company to just pass through your information for ANI, although I wonder what percentage actually do.
Not being technically oriented, I may be venturing into deep water here, but I don't think ANI "pass through" is likely at all. When you use a pre-paid calling card, TWO separate calls and call set-ups are made, your call to the card company and the card companies call to your ultimate destination. While many (most?) card companies keep records of all calls placed, there are some who keep no records at all. Unless this hypothetical "pass through" capability is somehow built into the the phone infrastructure and is transparent to the card companies, I seriously doubt the card companes would invest any resources in doing such a "pass through." After all, the same information is available, albeit with a bit more work, from their operational logs if they even keep those.
I'm not positive, but I think that there may be some standards on what types of signals and information that they must pass through. I don't know that ANI signals would be among those, but I know that LD companies have been 'encouraged' for quite some time to pass on the information. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
Re: Prepaid Calling Cards -- This might work with some telemarketing companies, but I certainly wouldn't be passing on anything of worth. Especially something which might be construed as "wrong" by any legal authorities. While I doubt any telemarketers would go to such great lengths to find out who you are, you are indeed passing along a nice dossier of numbers to whomever the calling card company chooses to disburse such info to. Be wary. And for godsakes, if you are that paranoid, use a payphone 50 miles away. I'd never use a cellular to place a call of importance anyway. We all know how easily cellular can be intercepted, I hope... And EVERY number you ever call on a cellular is logged too. Quid pro quo, Millie
"Millie" == sfuze@tiac net <sfuze@sunspot.tiac.net> writes:
I'd never use a cellular to place a call of importance anyway.
We all know how easily cellular can be intercepted, I hope... And EVERY number you ever call on a cellular is logged too.
Yes, except that we weren't talking about securing the privacy of the conversation; we were discussing methods of keeping the identity of the caller from being reported to WATS-line customers. Until recently at least, ANI and CLID information was not available on calls from cellular phones (the rationale was that the cellular phone customer has to pay for *incoming* calls as well). I thought that this was mandated by law, in Mass anyway. Certainly, though, if I was calling the BATF toll-free to rat on my neighbourhood Uzi dealer, I'd never call from my own phone, anonymous re-phoner or not. -- Roger Williams finger me for my PGP public key Coelacanth Engineering consulting & turnkey product development Middleborough, MA wireless * DSP-based instrumentation * ATE tel +1 508 947-8049 * fax +1 508 947-9118 * http://www.coelacanth.com/
They lie. ("why would anyone need another?") You can avoid ANI by placing an operator assisted toll free call. Dial 0, and say, "Hi, I'm getting funny beeps when I try to dial 800-905-1514. Could you help me place the call?" (Thats the OKBOMB FBI tip number. Oddly, the FBI is still offering a $2m reward for information. And I thought they had their scapegoat.) Incidentally, Use of the NAME, INITIALS, or SEAL of the FBI is restricted by law and may be used only with written permission of the FBI. (www.fbi.giv) Adam David Mazieres wrote: | | | My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in | addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called | Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line. | | They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it | when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special | software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when | calling them. Not even *67." | | Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can | never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about | something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible | inconvenience, and how truly depressing. | | I know 800 number owners probably used to be able to get lists of | calling phone numbers on their phone bills, but this is less | disturbing as it would take significant effort to match up the lists | after the fact. I just want to be able to call up companies and say, | for instance, "If I buy your product, can it do X?" as opposed to, for | instance, "I'm stuck with your product, can it do X?". People are | often more helpful in the former case. Now, though, they'll know | exactly who I am before they even say hello. | | David | -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
David Mazieres writes:
My last phone bill said that Nynex is now giving out people's names in addidtion to their phone numbers over caller-id. I therefore called Nynex and told them to block caller-id on my phone line.
They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when calling them. Not even *67."
Same in Pacific Bell land. We get two options- "partial blocking" which really means tht you have to use *67 to block CID to non-800/900 numbers, and "complete blocking" which blocks CID to non-800/900 numbers. When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing.
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers. They're willing to pay for that service, enough to make it worth the while of the phone companies to spend many millions on a campaign of lies (excuse me, "PR") to convince us that we need CID for "safety". -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
Eric Murray enscribed thusly:
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers. They're willing to pay for that service, enough to make it worth the while of the phone companies to spend many millions on a campaign of lies (excuse me, "PR") to convince us that we need CID for "safety".
BULLSH*T! Pure, unadulterated, BULLSH*T! Businesses don't NEED Caller ID! They've got (and have had for a long time) ANI! Most businesses don't even WANT CLID! You can block CLID. You can't block ANI. This was the ultimate and supreme LIE behind all of the fights over CLID. All the arguements about how businesses would then abuse this and that and would invade our privacy was all a crock of SH*T. All CLID did was give to the consumer SOME of what businesses have had for years. The whole business abuse arguement was pure red herring... Even in California, where CLID was stopped for a while, businesses still had ANI. Do you actually think your numbers were safe just because they weren't delivered to residences? Hell no! Businesses could still get them if they wanted them and there was nothing you could do about it! To top it off - you THOUGHT you were safe! I know of some businesses whose sole reason for getting a 1-800 number was to be able to log and track that information. Every wonder about those local companies who still had you call a 1-800 number. Guess what. That was the easiest (and sometimes the cheapest) way to get ANI. I ran a Harris 20/20 PBX switch for a company over 6 years ago and remember looking over and discussing the ANI specs with the management. We decided not to pursue trying to get ANI on our DID lines but the switch supported it and that switch was considered out of date technology at THAT time!
-- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
Mike -- Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@WittsEnd.com (The Mad Wizard) | (770) 925-8248 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Alan Horowitz writes:
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers. They're willing to pay for that service, enough
Privacy isn't for parasites.
800 numbers aren't free. They're just paid out of a different account. I don't pay for them directly, but I do indirectly through the increased prices of the goods and services sold by the company with the 800 number. I'd hardly call that being a 'parasite'.
It's for people who are willing to pay for their own phone calls.
Too bad there's not always a choice, a lot of companies use only 800 numbers for service hotlines etc. -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com ericm@motorcycle.com http://www.lne.com/ericm PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers. They're willing to pay for that service, enough
Privacy isn't for parasites. It's for people who are willing to pay for their own phone calls.
That is interesting as I don't recall ever being offered a choice of toll free or being billed when I dial an 800 number (sometimes the only number offered for a company). ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
Privacy isn't for parasites. It's for people who are willing to pay for their own phone calls.
That is interesting as I don't recall ever being offered a choice of toll free or being billed when I dial an 800 number (sometimes the only number offered for a company).
I haven't noticed too many business telephones that don't appear in Directory Assistance.
On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote:
Bruce M. wrote:
That is interesting as I don't recall ever being offered a choice of toll free or being billed when I dial an 800 number (sometimes the only number offered for a company).
I haven't noticed too many business telephones that don't appear in Directory Assistance.
That is assuming that you know which area they are located in. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84
Eric Murray wrote:
They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers.
CID != ANI, which has been around for a long time. 800 numbers have always had ANI available, to my knowledge.
Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
Correcto-mundo.
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing.
Not "never again", but "never ever, past or future". All you 800 calls you made in the past went out with your phone number delivered to the recipient.
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers.
Bull cookies. I have caller ID boxes on my lines. If somebody want to make noise in my house in an effort to get my attention, I damn well want to know who they are. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being, m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In list.cypherpunks, ericm@lne.com writes:
When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
A little simplistic, perhaps, but nevertheless accurate. 800 and 900 numbers do not receive CNID (Calling Number ID). They receive ANI (Automatic Number Identification). In the case of 800 (or 888) numbers, they're paying for the call. For 900's, you're paying a premium charge. In both cases, the calling number is delivered for billing purposes. This isn't new... ANI has been around for years.
Caller ID isn't for people, it's for businesses who want to track callers.
Speak for yourself. I have CNID, and I find it to be damn useful in deciding which calls go to voicemail. - -- Roy M. Silvernail [ ] roy@scytale.com PGP Public Key fingerprint = 31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54 13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6 Key available from pubkey@scytale.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMedLNxvikii9febJAQGTOAP9Ffsbp51yUz6aunjmmLdDXbHb83g4rlBY 8oRyz7oSJyqOQAyXYpUVH3yQCMCRZGsrH8gxacpJjYVIHvLSq7vYEYyiP5IDz3n1 Zfc74odlZplI3McDtglWhcg1IJ1Rcp+6WH+Ayel3onLLEUMSSuBXHmml9+QdI8B2 vViJsmxDByo= =Sh7x -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, Eric Murray wrote:
They said no problem, but... They said nothing I can do will block it when I call 800 numbers. "The people with 800 numbers have special software, and there is nothing you can do to block your identity when calling them. Not even *67."
Same in Pacific Bell land. We get two options- "partial blocking" which really means tht you have to use *67 to block CID to non-800/900 numbers, and "complete blocking" which blocks CID to non-800/900 numbers.
When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
It has been this way since the advent of electronic switching, and it will always be this way. 800/888/900 numbers get ANI, which is, basicly, the same way 911 knows who you are. While not exactly identical to E911, they are strikingly similar. I beleive that somebody else has, correctly, suggested that if you wish to know more about this sort of thing, read the alt.2600 FAQ. --Deviant -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMeilvTAJap8fyDMVAQEfSAf+PrrTzw0hOWC2TlPO2eXfQXLfwFs+kDwn DIb7GH1wby3t7vmc91QITi0mR4GybCX3HZTXaNJ+MzqWEcjhC6gCK3zAwmtIrUtE 0hcE1qM06O2JdQcPTjhZEf483a5NK88bczTpMXRXeAayFHERgOnVUr7hfHwSaahA ZBkPBhCf0jQHsImLyAMcwuNsLdvZbiCtcNAYDYNtEQv9XhLCH7smNkVCfW/OzYd2 7N2RUe9lTmc+fzeoTQSYlXuWVg510lVUIoMl/uuWq+6R3J9bfmjbjHos1Nay8b4+ ugih/0LetvhG41CLFTHiMPqchL5Fh6sjVNpT6axCnZ1yA29q/9KGGQ== =uuvK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
The reason that caller ID cannot be blocked to 800 and 900 numbers is that it is used for billing purposes by the telephone company to the person or business who owns that 900 or 800 number. EX: L.L.Bean ( alarge mailorder sporting goods store in Freeport,Maine) gets thousands of calls from their clientele around the country.The 800s because they are not charged to the person calling the L.L.Bean must be charged to someone to pay the expenses of running the telephone equiptment and the profits going to the stckholders so who pays ? The businesses pay. A way must be found to figure out what they owe and the only way to do that is to keep records. They records as they stand now include the phone number from which they were dialed and the length of the call. My phone call to them from Scranton ,Pa will cost the L.L.Bean less then Tim Mays from California because I am closer. That is unless I perhaps have a package missing and need to stay on the customer service line for twenty minutes or longer when he just placed an order and got off in under five. THe phone company looks at the L.L.Bean phone records and send them a bill that includes how much it cost me to make that phone call to them to find out if the package got lost and Tim's to order that wheelbarrow and all the other callers. Each caller will have cost the L.L.Bean a different amount of money. The telephone number on the reords. It can be used to track down teenage hackers who want to upgrade their disk drives(Bean has none) and other stuff too dependent upon the size of the company (not Bean)and the integrity of the employees. It could conceivably be used by an unscrupulous employee from Sadie's S and M to blackmail someone or the whole clientele list. This is unforunate. What could concevably be done is that the software could be reprogrammed to delete the phone number immediatley after the computation. Or to have the computation done immediately and deltion to accompany it. third, the phone company could reprogram it so the mileage and time is computed somhow without the logging of the caller. All of this has to do computer programming and I find none of the aforementioned an impossibility to achieve. moroni
On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Moroni wrote:
The reason that caller ID cannot be blocked to 800 and 900 numbers is that it is used for billing purposes by the telephone company to the person or business who owns that 900 or 800 number.
They would get your phone number and information on their bill regardless of whether they have ANI/CID/etc. That comes from the phone company and not from their own systems.
to keep records. They records as they stand now include the phone number from which they were dialed and the length of the call. My phone call to them from Scranton ,Pa will cost the L.L.Bean less then Tim Mays from California because I am closer.
Not necessarily. I get charged a flat 13 cents a minute for all connects to my 800 number, regardless of where they are calling from.
What could concevably be done is that the software could be reprogrammed to delete the phone number immediatley after the computation. Or to have the computation done immediately and deltion to accompany it. third, the phone company could reprogram it so the mileage and time is computed somhow without the logging of the caller. All of this has to do computer programming and I find none of the aforementioned an impossibility to achieve.
There is a big difference, and change in the way they could operate their records, between having instant access to your number when you call or having access to it when they receive the telco bill at the end of the month. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84 So, what is your excuse now?
Eric Murray writes:
When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
There is a really easy reason for this. When you call an 800 number, the other guy gets billed. The person that gets billed has a legal right to know the call details of a toll call they are paying for. If you don't want them to know where you are calling from, don't ask them to pay for it. Perry
Sometimes if you have the operator dial the number, the caller ID won't work (and neither will ANI). On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Eric Murray writes:
When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
There is a really easy reason for this.
When you call an 800 number, the other guy gets billed. The person that gets billed has a legal right to know the call details of a toll call they are paying for. If you don't want them to know where you are calling from, don't ask them to pay for it.
Perry
On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Eric Murray writes:
When I called the Pac Bell customer service droids to get my "complete" blocking I asked them why they won't block CID to 800 numbers. Their answer: "that's just the way it works".
There is a really easy reason for this.
When you call an 800 number, the other guy gets billed. The person that gets billed has a legal right to know the call details of a toll call they are paying for. If you don't want them to know where you are calling from, don't ask them to pay for it.
Well put. I guess a lot of folks forget the basic premise of an 800 call. It's a non-operator assisted collect call and, _yes_, the calling party should know who's calling so they can decide if they want to take the call (yes, there are "out of service area" screening services already available for inbound 800 numbers). HOWEVER, ANI is available to anyone who wants to pay for it, not just those folks with inbound 800 service. Thus, I'd contend that there should be ANI blocking services, but that they should not be used against 800 numbers. This lack of anonymity via the phone service presents a disturbing precedent in terms of it being used as model for the Internet, particularly once "pay for it" services become more common. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |Just as the strength of the Internet is |Mark Aldrich | |chaos, so the strength of our liberty |GRCI INFOSEC Engineering | |depends upon the chaos and cacophony of |maldrich@grci.com | |the unfettered speech the First Amendment|MAldrich@dockmaster.ncsc.mil | |protects - District Judge Stewart Dalzell| | |_______________________________________________________________________| |The author is PGP Empowered. Public key at: finger maldrich@grci.com | | The opinions expressed herein are strictly those of the author | | and my employer gets no credit for them whatsoever. | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, David Mazieres wrote:
[Nynex] said nothing I can do will block [Caller ID] when I call 800 numbers...
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone.
I've discussed this before, but it makes a lie of all those narc lines that advertise, "We don't want your name, bust the drug dealer's." S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Fri, 12 Jul 1996, David Mazieres wrote:
Wow. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, but I never expected this. I can never again call an 800 number anonymously to get information about something unless I go out to a pay phone. What an incredible inconvenience, and how truly depressing.
They're paying for the call. They've got a right to know. Otherwise, you could cause a lot of damage with a robo-dialer. It would certainly be nice if the phone company told you about this up-front, though. If you need it, a free anonymous re-phoner is documented at: http://pages.ripco.com:8080/~glr/block.html - -rich http://www.c2.org/~rich/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMebxtpNcNyVVy0jxAQEi7QH9HsqdhmW0m0/wCVPH2CO9PlP2HVjVhaic tSLOsh/dQZM36tB8SLWlPhJRoQw2mXFfefH2BkRfv9gx74sRFTLFXw== =btXH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Mazieres <dm@amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu> notes that he can't prevent his phone number from going to 800 number providers. 800 numbers are, effectively, collect phone calls. The receiving party is paying all call costs, including a surcharge for the collect and number delivery services. Even if you make a "normal" collect call to a residential number, the calling phone number will appear on the receiver's phone bill. That said, there are a few additional points that may be of interest: -- even if David's name is not delivered to the 800 (or caller ID) receiver, there are a variety of commercial services that can link a published phone number with it's owner's name and address. Non-published numbers can be linked to a (fairly small) geographical area, giving useful economic and marketing information. -- a large commercial site can link phone number to name and address while the phone is ringing. This lets them do a variety of triage on the call. For example: -- Never seen this number? Good demographics? Must be a new customer. Answer quickly. -- Ordered lots from us before? Answer quickly. -- Whiner, always complaining? "Your call will be answered by the next available representative." Play 20 minutes of Gershwin. -- Bad demographics? "Your call will be ..." Play 10 minutes of Gershwin. And so forth. Martin Minow minow@apple.com
participants (19)
-
Adam Shostack -
Alan Horowitz -
Bruce M. -
charris＠eden.com -
David Mazieres -
Eric Murray -
Erika -
Mark O. Aldrich -
Martin Minow -
Michael H. Warfield -
Mike McNally -
Moroni -
Perry E. Metzger -
Rich Graves -
Roger Williams -
roy＠sendai.scytale.com -
Sandy Sandfort -
sfuze＠tiac.net -
The Deviant