segal%cell.mot.COM@uunet.uu.net (Gary Segal) (10/28/89)
Two comments: First; Using caller ID to automaticlly key pagers sounds like a good idea, however I see one problem with it. Sometimes you want to leave a number other than the number that you are calling from, perhapes even some pre-aranged code. (One of my co-workers likes to "spell" his name in numbers - remember spelling "Shell Oil" - 710.77345 on your first calcualtor?) If we're going to have caller ID key into a pager system, the system should have an option to enter a different number. Of course, all of this is moot with voice pagers. Second; >[Moderator's Note: Yes, I think there are modem/Caller-ID devices in >one neat little box. A hackerphreak here in Chicago (six blocks down >the street from me, on Artesian Avenue to be exact!) was caught >burglarizing a computer at Bell Labs/Naperville about a year ago >because his phone number was captured by the equipment out there. It would be interesting to know what happened in this case. Did the caller-ID constitute an illegal wire-tap here in Illinios? If the phreak had a good laywer, that could have been part of his defense. As far as I know, IBT doesn't give residential subscribers the option of disabling caller-id; at least I've never been given the option nor have I seen any mention of it in my bill. Gary Segal @ Motorla C.I.D. 1501 W. Shure Drive ...!uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Disclaimer: The above is all my fault. +708 632-2354 [Moderator's Note: 'What happened in that case', as reported here in the Digest at the time was the phreak was indicted by a federal grand jury; was found guilty; was placed in the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for a period of one year which was served concurrently with three years federal probation. No, there was no 'illegal wire-tap'. That is a crock, and the judge over east who thought it up will be overruled on appeal. When you observe some person intruding onto your property, burglarizing your property or stealing from you and you report what you have witnessed, you are not 'guilty' of spying on the burglar or invading his privacy. PT]