PHONE PRIVACY

> A 1-900 number to ensure non-tracibility. Does anyone have this number?

I would not trust this for hiding from law enforcement.
You can get the 900 service's fone records with a warrant.
If not law enforcement, then who do you need this to hide from?
You can use a pay fone to fool caller-id boxes.  Well, I guess
they dont hide the city.

> I would not trust this for hiding from law enforcement.
> You can get the 900 service's fone records with a warrant.
> If not law enforcement, then who do you need this to
> hide from?  You can use a pay fone to fool caller-id boxes.
> Well, I guess they dont hide the city.

Well, if you have a pair of pay phones nearby, and the wires are
concealed but accessable, you could rig it to answer calls on one line
and then let the caller dial out on the other line.  Only problem is
that you have to use a calling card...unless you have a red box or rig a
COCOT. ;)

We take for granted that long distance companies must record who 
called whom, and when, in order to tally the bill.  The 900 redialer 
doesn't obviate this; it simply adds an expensive level of
indirection.  Could not the need for such records be eliminated by 
real-time payment of digital postage?  Debit cards for phone calls
already exist along these lines, but they are restricted to
public phones; I envision home use to eliminate the need for
monthly bills and the accompanying recordkeeping.

Scenario: long distance company receives a call from one of its
customer phones.  It doesn't know which phone, only that the phone's
local service area provider is requesting a connection.  It notes 
the area code/country to and from to determine the rate, and receives
the proper digital postage payment from the calling phone.  It 
notes the destination phone number only in order to pass it on and 
complete the circuit.  The long distance provider doesn't know 
the caller's phone number and doesn't keep a permanent record of the 
other information.

The incoming d-stamp serial numbers are checked to make sure they have 
not already been used, added to the used list, and a corresponding amount 
of time is added to the call.  A simple LED on the customer's phone 
displays the duration and amount of billing as the call progresses.  
When the phone runs out of d-stamps it could be refreshed from magnetic 
strips on cards bought at the local drugstore.

In addition to new-found privacy, real-time billing would be more 
customer-friendly, providing the real-time feedback on 
charges that is expected for most other transactions (eg retail 
purchase of a good).  No more phone bill surprises!
(But please, let's not replace bills with rude robot operators: 
"deposit fifty cents, please").

Alas, there might be regulations requiring some kind of traffic recording
to be dealt with in some jurisdictions.  But then again maybe not,
since such recording has been taken for granted.

During the Ma Bell breakup here in the U.S. there sprung up a bunch 
of Mom & Pop long distance companies.  Some of these, providing 
specialized services, still exist.  Assuming no deadly flaws in this 
real-time postage scheme, if none of the major long-distance companies 
are willing to implement it, a small startup might rent bulk long-distance 
time from the majors and concentrate on the anonymous real-time billing
system.

Nick Szabo					szabo@netcom.com

> We take for granted that long distance companies must record who 
> called whom, and when, in order to tally the bill.  The 900 redialer 
> doesn't obviate this; it simply adds an expensive level of
> indirection.  Could not the need for such records be eliminated by 
> real-time payment of digital postage?

Better yet, use an Internet based phone system.  The phone companies
draconian policies of billing for distance, time, and social standing
are antiquated With the Internets method of billing for maximum
usable bandwidth or connect time, it costs the same to send e-mail
to another continent or just accross town costs the same.  Distance
based billing isolates people by preventing them from communicating
with anyone but their neighbors.  Internet style billing serves to
create a sense of global unity limited more by language and access
to technologie instead of geographical or political boundaries.

A side effect of simplified billing and connectionless systems is
that no records are kept of who contacted whom.  In fact, it would be
difficult even to make such records w/o having a specific target.


brad

Nick Szabo <szabo@netcom.com> writes:

> Scenario: long distance company receives a call from one of its
> customer phones.  It doesn't know which phone, only that the
> phone's local service area provider is requesting a connection.  It
> notes the area code/country to and from to determine the rate, and
> receives the proper digital postage payment from the calling phone.
> It notes the destination phone number only in order to pass it on and
> complete the circuit.  The long distance provider doesn't know
> the caller's phone number and doesn't keep a permanent record of the
> other information.

It's been tried before.  That's how calling cards worked in the mid
1980's.  The long distance company had no idea where the call was coming
from when it went into their credit card port.  It didn't take the
hackers long to figure out how to exploit the anonimnity of that system!
 Now all credit card calls are automatically traced.

I like the billing indicator on a LED on the phone tho...  It would be
easy to implement too.  Right after the call was dialed, the phone
company could send a short tone to indicate the cost per minute, which
would be interpreted by a microchip in the display.  When the receiving
party answered, a second connect tone (or even a click by change in
voltage) could signal the indicator to start counting time...  The call
would still be billed at the end of the month, but at least you could
see what your phone bill would be before you got it.