The Blade <blade@darkside.com> (12/31/89)
Caller*ID in NJ Bell is being challanged by various public action groups. The main reason is that when a customer is paying for their number to unpublished, CID is taking that away, in turn making it a worthless service. I heard in PA. that they are having trouble passing it through the courts, which is my case is good. CID would mean almost an end to phreaking, and hacking for that matter. It would save millions in lost revenue for the long distance companies, and almost wipe out illegally using these codes from one's residence. Granted, you could go to a payphone and not worry about it, but the hassle would tempt one to stay inside and pay for the call. Does anyone know if there is such a thing as a 800 reverse directory, or an on-line national reverse directory? Blade [Moderator's Note: If it is *good* in your opinion that long distance companies lose millions in revenue to phreaks who work from the comfort and privacy of their home to steal phone service and burglarize computer systems (usually both at the same time) with ease, then I would say that's all the more reason to implement CID -- ASAP! It goes without saying that phreaks (or do you say freaks? :} ) have been among those voicing the loudest objections to CID. The lack of anomynity is going to hurt, isn't it guy? I do not know of any 800 reverse directory, but Haines Criss-Cross might publish one since they publish x-refs for most major cities. PT]
tad@ssc.UUCP (Tad Cook) (12/31/89)
Someone asked about a device that could route calls to fone/fax/modem based upon distinctive ringiing. There is a box that does this, called Autoline. I think it is made by ITS in New York. I have the info at work. If anyone needs their phone number, call me at the office before 7pm EST (4pm PST) at 206/881-7000, ask for Paul Cook.
Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com> (12/31/89)
blade@darkside.com (The Blade) writes: }I heard in PA. that they are having trouble passing it through the }courts, which is my case is good. CID would mean almost an end to }phreaking, and hacking for that matter. It would save millions in }lost revenue for the long distance companies, and almost wipe out }illegally using these codes from one's residence. ... }[Moderator's Note: If it is *good* in your opinion that long distance }companies lose millions in revenue to phreaks who work from the }comfort and privacy of their home to steal phone service and }burglarize computer systems (usually both at the same time) with ease, }then I would say that's all the more reason to implement CID -- ASAP! Nonsense. And again, the CID wanters seem to think of themselves as vigilantes and so argue that giving THEM the number is the way to bring the forces of justice to bear. Further, in the case of phreaking, they generally call someone who WANTs to talk to them, no? So why does it matter if the person you call can figure out your number... they either already know it or you'd probably just tell them. The problem with phreaking is figuring out that it is happening, NOT figuring out where the call is coming from. I still think we would be MUCH better off with a bunch of very strict "privacy of information" laws making it _very_ hard [e.g., requiring a court order] to allow ANYONE to 'peek' into the phone company's electronic dossier; treat that information like your medical records. Everything _legitimate_ that you can do with CID you can do just as well by having the phone company manage information [and still keep it as protected as possible]. /Bernie\