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 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!

> 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.

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

>>>>> "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/

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/
>

> 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!

-----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-----

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 <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

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/