smb@research.att.com (03/10/89)
N.J. Bell is now offering calling party ID. How complete is the CCIS network needed to support this? What are the odds on getting the number on an inter-LATA call? An intra-LATA call but from a different switch? Also, how is the number communicated? Does the ring signal carry some sort of extra modulation?
prindle@NADC.ARPA (Frank Prindle) (03/12/89)
A strange twist of (legal) fate has caused Bell of PA to temporarily suspend offering Calling Party ID service here in the Philadelphia area. It seems that there are two reasons: 1. There is apparently a state law on the books which makes tracing a phone call illegal unless ordered by a law enforcement agency. Thus, Calling Party ID is being considered as a violation of state law! 2. Consumer advocate groups are protesting introduction of this service based on "invasion of privacy" to the caller. Curiously, Bell is pushing the service as one which protects the privacy of the callee. At issue here are situations where, for example, a battered wife tries to contact her children from a shelter, but for obvious reasons doesn't want the shelter's phone number (and thus her whereabouts) flashed up on the phone when it rings. It has been suggested that Bell provide a means for the caller to withold identification by dialing a special code, but Bell contends that this would render the service useless, since any bothersome caller could do the same thing to "protect" his (dubious) privacy. So Bell of PA has postponed introduction of this service for several weeks while the legal eagles come up with a solution. I don't suspect much will come of it - even "Baby Bells" still have plenty of corporate clout. Also, the service has been in operation in NJ for 6 months or more and there have been no major problems. Sincerely, Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC.arpa
bobf@uunet.uu.net (Bob Frankston) (03/13/89)
I'm shocked to see the overreaction to a very reasonable concern about privacy issues associated with the calling party ID feature. In fact, it IS a serious invasion of privacy. The same thinking would ban unlisted numbers since why would anyone but a criminal want an unlisted number? In any case, it would be fairly simple to allow the caller to suppress this feature automatically or selectively. The telco would still have the information in case the call must be traced under appropriate (a loosely defined word) authority. In school back in the 50's (remember them?) we had to write letters to various embassies to get information. We were warned that if we wrote to a socialist embassy the post office would record our names and addresses. Good thing they were inefficient. Somewhere, in some basement is my name and address. Full name: Bob Frankston
dgc@math.ucla.edu (03/14/89)
There are valid reasons why an individual might wish to place a
telephone call without revealing the telephone number he or she is
using. Similarly there are valid reasons why a person might not wish
to receive a telephone call without knowing the telephone number of the
caller.
There is, of course, a reasonable solution to the problem. When a
person calls a telephone which is using the calling id system, he should
be (at his option, of course) advised (perhaps, by a special tone)
that the called phone is using this system and be given an option to
terminate the telephone call BEFORE the called party telephone rings and
BEFORE the calling number is presented to the called party.
I, for example, if (when?) given the option, will take the "calling
party ID" service. If someone wants to call me anonymously, they won't
be able to. I'm quite willing to risk the loss of not receiving such
calls. HOWEVER, I very much doubt that agencies like the FBI wnat to
take such a risk! It is my understading that anonymous "tips" play a
major role in their investigations. If this suggestion were adopted,
then they will continue to (or at least, in my opinion, should) have
numbers without the "calling party ID" service.
I do not expect a solution of this nature, which protects both parties,
to be acceptable to the telcos.
Is it possible to fool the service by using call-forwarding? Or more
precisely. Suppose I set telephone line A to forward calls to line B
which has this service. Then I dial A from C. Does B receive the
number of A or of C?
Finally, on a closely related matter. A note to the moderator: It IS
POSSIBLE to discuss matters of this nature without ad hominum arguments,
such as your statements "A group calling itself the American 'Civil
Liberties' Union has also . . . " and "Next thing you know, the ACLU
and others will want to outlaw peepholes . . . ", etc. Your arguments,
asking about the rights of people who get "anonymous, harassing phone
calls in the middle of the night" are quite valid (though the proposal
above would answer them) and you weaken your case by your unnecesary and
uncalled-for comments.
dgc
David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu
UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgcbnelson@ccb.bbn.com (Barry C. Nelson) (03/14/89)
Some people worry that their private number will be displayed at the called end and others worry that they won't always know who is calling (as today). I note that there have been machines on the (USA) market for years which prevent unwanted calls from "ringing through" without the caller knowing an access code. One approach for dealing with a masked incoming number is to provide the called party with the option of immediately calling the *telco* and logging the number of caller. The called party has *no* indication of the caller's number, but of course the telco has it stored, pending some action. Similarly, the called party who receives a call with a masked number could be given the ability to call *BACK* the previous caller without knowing what the number actually is. B.Nelson
dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) (03/15/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0085m01@vector.UUCP>, ulysses!smb@research.att.com writes: > N.J. Bell is now offering calling party ID. How complete is the CCIS network > needed to support this? What are the odds on getting the number on an > inter-LATA call? An intra-LATA call but from a different switch? Also, > how is the number communicated? Does the ring signal carry some sort of > extra modulation? We just got CLASS(sm) Caller*Id Service from NJ Bell. The calling number is currently delivered only on intra-lata calls, and not from all central offices in our lata. The calling number is communicated in a burst of FSK-encoded data, sent simplex (i.e. no ACK expected) at 1200 bps between the first and second rings. The data burst includes the date and time, the calling number, or an indication that the calling number is not available. If you answer during the first ring, no data are received. Now, can someone (perhaps at NJ Bell) tell me what *62 is supposed to do? It results in a confirmation tone, but I can't seem to discover what it's confirming! -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (03/15/89)
The solution to the Calling Party ID privacy problem would seem to be to let subscribers who already have unlisted/unpublished numbers be hidden behind a "fake" telephone number. If the Caller ID person dialed the "fake" number a "this is not a valid number, contact the business office" intercept. If it was an annoying caller situation then the business office could use the "fake" number and find out who the real number that it associates with is assigned to. This way those of us with unpublished numbers would have our privacy rights protected and there would still be a way to address problems with abusive calling of one kind or another. If CENTEL tries to do what NJ Bell has done, I'll probably disconnect my phone altogether. rja@edison.CHO.GE.COM
Makey@LOGICON.ARPA (Jeff Makey) (03/16/89)
In TELECOM Digest Vol. 9 No. 86, Patrick Townson writes: >Where people get the idea >they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. Since the invention of the telephone more than 100 years ago, callers have always been anonymous unless they choose to identify themselves. This is quite a precedent to be overcome. As others have already pointed out here in the TELECOM Digest, there are legitimate reasons for a caller to be anonymous. It amazes me that calling party ID technology has been developed without two complementary options: (1) the option for the caller to make anonymous calls; and (2) the option to have an individual telephone line automatically refuse (without even ringing) incoming anonymous calls. These two options (which one should be able to toggle on a per-call basis) give the best of both worlds, allowing both the caller and callee to protect their privacy as they see fit. :: Jeff Makey Makey@LOGICON.ARPA
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) (03/17/89)
<David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu> writes> DG> In reality, it is not likely to help that much. The solicitors could DG> block their identification. With the proper equipment, I will route all calls with blocked ID to an answering machine. DG> The solicitors could get phones under innocuous sounding names--Bill DG> Jones, for example. Since only a few numbers would be recognizably bad, DG> the solicitors will just switch phone numbers. Again, assumeing proper equipment, I don't care what phone number they are calling from. All calls that are not from a list of known numbers in my database will be routed to an answering machine at certain times of the day. DG> Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base DG> of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls. I will be blocking my ID whenever a call to a business is made. Without the blocking feature, I am against the whole concept. Ken Levitt -- Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu
jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) (03/18/89)
Questions:
1. What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension? Is
the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk? Even
assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers
outward, is there a defined interface for this? What happens when the
outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which
is not that unusual?
2. What about inter-LATA calls? Which vendors pass the caller ID through,
or plan to? Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across
long distance carriers?
3. What about international calls?
4. Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID
not known"?
5. Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals?
John Naglesmb@research.att.com (03/18/89)
I'll throw a few more packets into the fray, some of them maybe even saying something (a) new, and (b) factual... First, when telephone solicitors call, you will not gain any meaningful ability to call them back. Outbound-only lines like that, in a modern exchange, do not even have a real phone number, just an internal line id. (The same is true, incidentally, of many hunt groups -- there's only a single number for the whole thing. I personally hate that, since it keeps me from dialing past a dead modem.) Even without that, it'll be a while before you get the number on calls not handled by your switch, as best I can tell (and from the few answers I've seen to my query); SS #7 just isn't widely-enough deployed, it seems. Second, most of the claimed benefits of calling party ID can be obtained without giving away numbers. There's already a ``trace'' function as part of the package -- if you get a harassing call, you dial a special code and the phone company records the number, to be revealed only via proper investigative procedures. The same sort of thing could be done for call-blocking (I don't want to hear from this number), or via a user-specified list -- you supply the switch with a list of numbers and a category code, and it tells you what category a call is in. It's not hard to see how to feed that back to the switch after a call -- tell it how to sort the last call you got. Yes, those variants mean you give the telco your list of numbers, but (a few abuses notwithstanding) the phone company has a pretty good record of keeping such material confidential. And of course, things can be implemented so that these records aren't available to the maintenance craft people, but only to those with special authorization. Some saner laws making your calling records your property, and not the phone company's, would make subpeonas for that type of information a bit more rational; you'd have to be served with the papers (and hence have the opportunity to contest it), rather than the phone company. Third, several parties to this discussing have said they wouldn't mind the feature if there were a way to disable it. There isn't necessarily such an option; in particular, NJ Bell has not enabled that code. (If you think about it, of course, the phone company has very little interest in unlisted numbers or anything else that hinders folks' ability to call you; they make their money on calls.) Finally, the whole topic can be discussed in much calmer language; I was quite appalled by the tone of the Moderator's original posting (and for that matter some of the quoted columns and editorials). It's possible to discuss the question without namecalling: I'll promise not to call folks fascist pigs if they'll stop calling me a pinko liberal commie.... --Steve Bellovin
dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) (03/20/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0095m05@vector.UUCP>, jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) writes: > Questions: > 1. What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension? Is > the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk? Even > assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers > outward, is there a defined interface for this? What happens when the > outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which > is not that unusual? Yes, such an interface is defined. State-of-the-art PBX equipment compatible with CCIS is capable of sending and receiving caller-id information. These PBX's typically display caller-id information on their special display-equipped telephone sets, and transmit the calling station number on outgoing calls. > 2. What about inter-LATA calls? Which vendors pass the caller ID through, > or plan to? Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across > long distance carriers? In NJ, only intra-lata calls report caller id, as of today. On many calls from out-of-state, we get a caller-id display showing some number with a Newark exchange prefix. It turns out that this is the number of the local outgoing trunk used by the inter-lata carrier who handled the call! Not helpful, but understandable. When CCIS connectivity exists between the inter-lata carriers and the local exchange carriers, perhaps we'll see universal caller-id, but I think it may be a few years before that happens. > 3. What about international calls? see my thoughts on 2 > 4. Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID > not known"? The information sent to the called subscriber by the CO does distinguish between "caller ID suppressed" and "not known". Whether this difference is displayed depends upon which brand of caller-id display is used. Some do, and some always display ??? when no number is received, and ignore the reason code. > 5. Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals? Colonial Data Technologies, of New Milford, CT, (800) 622 5543, currently markets a caller-id display for residential use. They tell me that they are developing a PC expansion card that receives the caller-id info and makes if available to the PC software. I have no information on the projected availability of this product, or the capabilities of the software with which it will probably be bundled. I expect that there will be a database of sorts where the user can enter the information he wants displayed on his PC screen for each calling number listed. It is probably not practical to store the entire North Jersey white pages in a PC-XT! -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) (03/20/89)
With regard to the capabilities of ISDN-provided CLID, here are what I think are answers to John Nagle's questions. >1. What happens when a call is originated from a PBX extension? Is > the number displayed just the identity of the outgoing PBX trunk? In many cases, PBX trunks today all give ANI for the listen DN of the PBX, not themselves. >Even assuming a PBX wants to cooperate and pass internal extension numbers > outward, is there a defined interface for this? Yes. There is provision for caller-provided ID, so that the PBX feeds the extension number into the public network. The public network may or may not screen this to see that it's a number belonging to that PBX. I think unscreened numbers are duly noted as such, though. (I don't recall.) >What happens when the > outgoing trunk has is outgoing only and has no telephone number, which > is not that unusual? No matter; some number is ANI'd. Typically the LDN but sometimes a different number. >2. What about inter-LATA calls? Which vendors pass the caller ID through, > or plan to? Will the FCC mandate that caller ID be passed across > long distance carriers? I doubt the FCC will mandate anything, but since AT&T already provides ANI and the others will have the capability, I'd expect it to be common among the facility-based carriers. >3. What about international calls? Eventually. Maybe, depending on country. No inherent reason why it's not possible, but regulatory concerns may exist. >4. Can the receiver distinguish "caller ID suppressed" from "caller ID > not known"? I _think_ that's possible, but I'm not sure. For example, if it is suppressed, there might be a notice in place of the number. >5. Is someone working on a modem that understands caller ID signals? I don't know about the current analog form, but in the ISDN world, it'll be the norm, since it's just another information element in the protocol (DSS1). fred [disclaimer: I speak for me. Sharing requires doctor's note.]
rec@elf115 (03/21/89)
The pro's and con's on this issue are both arguing for privacy, one for the privacy of the callee, and one for the privacy of the caller. Telephone subscribers should be able to identify their callers before answering or even permitting a ring, and telephone subscribers should be able to identify themselves to the people they call if the callees require identification, but no one should be forced to identify his/herself against her/his will. The proposed CPID service does not identify the caller, it only provides the telephone number that originates the call. Telephone numbers are not secure identifications - they can be shared, stolen, borrowed, or wrong numbers altogether. The CPID service proposes to sell what little information the phone company already has as if it answered the need for validating identities over the phone. The very name "calling party identification" is fraudulent: as any student of detective movies knows, once you trace the call you have to send some cops down there to try to catch the caller. The phone number by itself cannot identify anyone. -- Roger E. Critchlow, Jr. -- nyit!elf115!rec@philabs.philips.com --
Erik@cup.portal.com (03/21/89)
To those with non-published numbers who are complaining that they will lose their anonymity when CPID is instituted I'd like to say so what! If you call me and your number is not displayed I won't be answering the phone. What is the reason for having a non-published number? Is it to make harrassment calls? Is it so that you can make calls at your convenience but I can't call you at mine? I was always under the impression that unlisted numbers were to prevent harrassment from people who pulled your name from a phone book. If you call me I'd assume I'd already have your number to return the call. So why won't you display it when you call me? Who will you call that you don't want to call you back? As has been discussed previously in this news group, if someone wants your number there are other places then the phone book to get it. Public records in the DMV are the common source I've seen mentioned. Erik Dufek <erik@cup.portal.com>
gdelong@cvbnet.uucp (Gary Delong) (03/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0089m04@vector.UUCP>, dgc@math.ucla.edu writes: > > Finally, on a closely related matter. A note to the moderator: It IS > POSSIBLE to discuss matters of this nature without ad hominum arguments, > such as your statements "A group calling itself the American 'Civil > Liberties' Union has also . . . " and "Next thing you know, the ACLU > and others will want to outlaw peepholes . . . ", etc. Your arguments, > asking about the rights of people who get "anonymous, harassing phone > calls in the middle of the night" are quite valid (though the proposal > above would answer them) and you weaken your case by your unnecesary and > uncalled-for comments. > I think I can see the moderator's point. It is interesting to note that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of the criminals than those of the victims. I too have often thought that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions. Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become the accused. I also find it interesting that the terms "ad hominum", "racist", "sexist", and "discrimination" seem most often used today by those who offer no arguments capable of standing on their own merits. PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU? --- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 [Moderator's Note: I love it! But in fairness to the list, and the folks who read comp.dcom.telecom for telephone talk, followups to Mr. Delong's message should go direct to Mr. Delong or perhaps talk.politics.misc. *Not here*. The print media I've seen to date (Royko, Sun-Times, others) have taken the ACLU to task for its position on Caller ID. Lest Delong go completely unchallenged in his heresy however, in the next digest, number 104, a scathing attack on your moderator for his original posting. PT]