nelson%odin.corp.sgi.com@sgi.com (Nelson Bolyard) (10/03/90)
In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance >> calls). While Ramparts was in rather illegal territory with that >> article, the actions Ma Bell took were probably the issue here. Bell >> agents were ordered to find all extant copies of the offending >> {Ramparts Magazine}, trying to get the subscription lists, going after >> newsstand dealers, threatening any radio stations that mentioned the >> action, etc. >My mother was working for Los Angeles County Library at the time the >Ramparts article appeared; orders came down from the top to cut out >the offending article and destroy it. But she made a copy first and >brought it home. (Not that we ever did anything with it -- she just >felt uncomfortable having stuff disappear into "the memory hole"). I would imagine, and hope, that now in our modern age of 5ESS switches &c that nothing one could do on a POTS line would be able to "suppress call supervision on incoming long distance calls" and thus the information in that (in)famous article would no longer be a threat to the phone system. I'm under the impression that fifteen years ago, there was little difference between a POTS line and a line inside the phone system, between switches. If one knew how to construct the right device to generate the right switching and routing signals, one could do interesting things form an ordinary POTS line, like tie up all the LD trunks between two cites, or something. I think this was due to "in-band" signalling. But now, with advancements in "signalling", e.g. things like Signalling System Number 7, I'm under the impression that signalling is done largely "out of band" and no amount of the right tones and clicks will have these effects. If my impressions are basically right, then that old Ramparts article could finally be published, under the heading of "Fifteen years ago, this would have been a big scoop." Can anybody say with certainty if the article is still a threat? If the answer is a definite "no", then would somebody please publish it? (Does you mother still have her copy, Clay ?) Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. [Moderator's Note: Mother (NOT Clay's mother!) has always hated {Ramparts Magazine} with a passion since back in the middle sixties when the magazine announced they would print AT&T's credit card check-digit formula in their next issue. AT&T went to the highest court in the nation to get a prior-restraint order against Ramparts to prevent publication of the article, which Ramparts said 'will explain how to create your own telephone credit card.' Remember, thirty years ago the AT&T card number formula was a simple-minded thing which involved a 'key letter' based on the fourth or fifth digit of the phone number, and it changed yearly. The issue hit the streets just as AT&T got the court order; Ramparts had to pick up copies from the news dealers and destroy them. The magazine, whose name comes from the first stanza of 'The Star Spangled Banner' ("...whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming ...") vowed then to get even; Ma Bell triumphantly vowed to squash anyone else who tried to give away corporate secrets. For the curious, the word 'rampart' is an archaism, an erstwhile term from the Middle English which literally means 'a hole in the ground with a mound of dirt in front of it behind which someone can hide to observe the actions of others.' PAT]
BRUCE@ccavax.camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (10/04/90)
In article <12764@accuvax.nwu.edu> optilink!cramer@uunet.uu.net (Clayton Cramer) writes: >>In article <12711@accuvax.nwu.edu>, djcl@contact.uucp (woody) writes: >>> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute >>> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance The article Ramparts printed was a rather poor circuit for a traditional 'black box'. The 'black box' (as opposed to the 'blue' or 'red' boxes - each color cheating in some different way) was a VERY simple sort of thing. Rampart's circuit was a really stupid one that would give very low voice volume. The better circuits used a resistor (or better an inductor), a cap, a switch, and a battery, while their circuit simply used a resistor and a switch. People with subscriptions got their copies. Is that issue a collector's item worth much of anything?
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/06/90)
While I think someone mentioned that a black box is ineffective for
ESS and digital offices because an audio path is not created until the
called line supervises, no one has mentioned AT&T's defense against
muting boxes. An unsupervised AT&T call has audio in only one
direction (to the caller). This is one reason for the sudden
appearance of automated referral machines. A conversation with an
intercept operator is impossible unless the far end supervises.
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
[Moderator's Note: Have you noticed how, on the rare occassions when
one gets a live intercept operator somewhere that callers via most
OCC's can't speak with the operaor to answer the question 'what number
did you dial?'. The operator will then invariably play a recorded
message to you which says "under some circumstances, customers of
other long distance companies may not be able to speak with the local
telephone company operator. Please dial your long distance operator
for assistance." PAT]