baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) (01/30/91)
[] Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could be reported to the police, or whatever.... -- baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 {decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum
oberman@rogue.llnl.gov (01/30/91)
In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM>, baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) writes: > [] > > Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone > number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could > be reported to the police, or whatever.... It's already there. It's called Call*Trace or some such. If you have this feature (it's not free and not available everywhere) you enter a *nn code and the calling number is filed away where police and such can access it. The user has no access to the information. Pricing seems to be about $1.00 per use from what I've heard. I don't have it as my switch is a bit too old (like 20 years). R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (01/30/91)
In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM> baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum) writes: >Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone >number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could >be reported to the police, or whatever.... A nice thought, but remember how well cable TV scramblers worked... ever hear of "Pirate TV"? Anybody with enough money would be able to buy one, which is not likely to be popular with The Masses. What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking, and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking. The latter means that a given line will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first; that way you can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open. > baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ..!ucbvax!cory!fadden fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (01/30/91)
In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM> baum@apple.UUCP (Allen Baum) writes: >[] > >Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone >number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could >be reported to the police, or whatever.... > >-- > baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 >{decwrl,hplabs}!amdahl!apple!baum Given that the phone company already has this information and can surrender it to the police, either voluntarily or in response to a warrant, what purpose is served by conveying the caller's info to the called party, in encrypted or any other form? I have heard it seriously stated that one consequence of Caller ID could be more acts of vigilantism and "street justice" -- with innocent people being blown away. How would you like to accidentally call some estranged wife or husband and have the spouse, who happened to break in and check out the phone, come for you? Not a joke. Bob Jacobson
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (01/31/91)
<<< < I have heard it seriously stated that one < consequence of Caller ID could be more acts of vigilantism and "street < justice" -- with innocent people being blown away. How would you like to ---------- This could make wrong numbers very dangerous. Call a wrong number at midnite looking for JOE and they might decide to call you back at 5:30 am and tell you that he is still not there. I once shared a house with a jr high teacher who received a lot of prank calls so I initially thought CID would be great. Since then I have heard arguments from privacy groups pointing out how commercial interests could really use CID in ways that most of us would not want. I do not want to get on the mailing list for every company I ever call. John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/01/91)
In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM>, baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) writes: > Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone > number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could > be reported to the police, or whatever.... This has the same problem as call-trace, in that it means you can't deal with the problem except by pulling the police into it. Great, let's bring the cops into things, wasting taxpayer's money, and delaying their response to a real emergency when a simple call to a kid's parent at a later time would have solved the problem without fuss or bother. [ this is not appropriate to comp.org.eff.talk, I'm directing followups to alt.dcom.telecom. ] -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/01/91)
In article <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: > What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking, > and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking. That's the proposed standard in Europe. > The latter means that a given line > will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first; Well, not quite. That would block all long-distance calls. You need per-call blocking and block only calls that are identified as blocked. > that way you > can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services > which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open. So would businesses... they can't afford to lose a customer however prickly. [ Followups directed to alt.dcom.telecom... ] -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) (02/01/91)
In article <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking, >and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking. The latter means that a given line >will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first; that way you >can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services >which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open. > >> baum@apple.com (408)974-3385 > >-- >fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) >..!ucbvax!cory!fadden >fadden@hermes.berkeley.edu (when cory throws up) This is the best idea I've heard yet. In fact, I think the per-phone-blocked- call-blocking should be implemented immediately. This way, the typical home owner could force out all the unreported calls, but businesses could still receive orders. The only fault I could see is that the per-phone-blocked-call-blocking would be a bit expensive to implement, but then again, I don't set the prices and do the engineering for the Telco. Louis Giliberto louisg@vpnet.chi.il.us