telecom@ucbvax.ARPA (11/20/84)
From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>
TELECOM Digest Mon, 19 Nov 84 15:54:15 EST Volume 4 : Issue 124
Today's Topics:
cost of leased lines
privacy
BBS case
Emergancy Breakthroughs..
"Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
Re: privacy
move BBS discussion to another list?
Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
976 numbers and BBS
Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
950 access
14.4Kb modems
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1984 22:33:28 PST
Subject: cost of leased lines
From: Dave Dyer <DDYER@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
Can someone point me to an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for
leased lines? I'm looking for something with about the level
of detail and accuracy as:
( $N + $K per kilometer * $X per baud. ) per month
-------
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 22:37:40 PST
From: "Theodore N. Vail" <vail@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
To: telecom@bbncca.arpa
Subject: privacy
Lauren Weinstein asks:
Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information
should be OK to have on these systems? How about *your* credit
card numbers? Your medical history? The status of your bank
account? When you come and go from your house? Degrading or
obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from
people who dislike you? How about discussions of your sexual
preferences, problems, and kinks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicizing this information is legal, can be published by any news-
paper, and often is! Go down to your local magazine stand and read the
fan magazines about Hollywood Celebrities and other public figures.
Read the National Enquirer.
Privacy rights are limited, are not in the Bill of Rights, and take a
back seat to the First Amendment.
Note that it is almost impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel
or slander suit -- such a person must prove not only that the published
material was false and defamatory, but also that there was "malicious
intent".
By the way, well-known magazine columnists who keep their name in
the public eye by constantly publishing in usenet, etc., are almost
certainly "public figures" in the eye of the law.
ted
------------------------------
Date: 18 Nov 1984 23:09:23 PST
Subject: BBS case
From: Dave Dyer <DDYER@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
This whole discussin on BBS illustrates the inherent inanity
of trying to classify *ANY* communication as "legal"
or "illegal" based on its content. How is the poor
sysop supposed to know if a number posted on his board
is stolen? Or even if it's a phone number at all? Do
you suppose that theives will "observe regulations" by
clearly marking all proscribed communication;
**SYSOP; PLEASE DELETE TO SAVE YOUR ASS**
Trying to regulate the content of BBS will only put
the honest operators to a lot of trouble, or out of
business altogether, and make them subjct to arbitrary
harrasment by any DA with an axe to grind ("crusading DA
cracks down on dial-a-crime"). The operators whose
intent is criminal will have no trouble skirting the
regs.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 19 Nov 1984 00:25 PST (Mon)
From: Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb>
To: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Cc: Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs..
As I understand it, an Emergency Breakthrough is supposed to be used
only for *Emergencies*. The life or death type, I s'pose. The
operator cutting in on you is an invasion of privacy, and the 'rules'
say that they can only cut in with a valid emergency. The name and
phone number are so that they can track the call in case they get a
complaint.
Speaking of which, I remember once when I got an Emergency
Breakthrough whilst hacking... The operator got an earful of Vadic,
and once I figured out what was going on and killed the modem, she
told me that I had a problem on my line. Sigh.
Cheers,
Tony ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:26:53 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
To: TELECOM@MC
Line verification (or "interrupts") are normally only allowed when
a "good reason" is present. It's pretty clear why: you aren't
simply paying for a service (the call interrupt) but you're also
interrupting someone ELSE'S call, who presumably doesn't want his
or her call disturbed except for a good reason. Perhaps you know
that the person in question wouldn't mind being interrupted by you,
but telco has no way to know that.
The keeping of records regarding who places interrupt calls is to
help provide protection in cases of harrassment--you'd be surprised
how much this still happens, even with a charge for the procedure.
As a practical matter, I would expect most any operator who was
told that the reason for the call was "a personal emergency" would
place the call without further questions. If they won't, it's
"let me speak to your supervisor" time...
--Lauren--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:57:44 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: Re: privacy
To: randvax!vail@UCLA-LOCUS
Cc: TELECOM@MC
Theodore,
Your own message brings up the key issue! Yes, there are conflicts
between privacy rights and First Amendment rights. However, the
First Amendment rights do NOT override ALL privacy rights.
In particular, if a person feels slandered or damaged by an
article in The National Enquirer, they can sue the person who
wrote the article AND/OR the Enquirer itself. And in fact, suits
of this kind, even by "public figures," are becoming increasingly
successful as the courts begin giving more emphasis to privacy rights.
There have been cases won where there was no issue of "inaccuracy"
but simply of serious invasion of privacy.
But the important thing is that in such cases, people at LEAST
have the ability to sue the publication involved. It is extremely
doubtful that even The National Enquirer would publish "anonymous
rumors" that could conceivably result in a lawsuit, unless they
(at least in private) knew who the original authors were. Otherwise,
they'd end up taking the full brunt of any lawsuits. Responsible
publications (and even most irresponsible ones!) just don't
put before the public any and every unsubstantiated fact that
someone happens to anonymously phone in!
Two other points. It appears to be held from a legal standpoint
that "non-public" figures have substantially greater rights to
privacy than "public" figures. Publications normally are aware
of this distinction and usually careful about what they publish,
since they are aware of the potential problems. The BBB's we're
talking about, on the other hand, don't even offer that modicum
of "filtering" -- they "publish" anything about anyone
without regard to *any* privacy issues.
Oh, the second point. The definition of "public figure" has been
worked out pretty well in the courts. It apparently requires that
a person be "generally" known to "the public at large." This does
not include people who are only widely known within certain limited
technical communities, even if they publish in those communities.
If you took a general sampled poll of people scattered around the U.S.
and asked them who, say, Carol Burnett was, you'd get a high percentage
who could identify her. If you asked the same group who
Lauren Weinstein was, you'd probably get a 0% response from
the sampling group. She's a public figure. You and I are not.
Now, if we appeared on The Tonight Show it *might* make a difference,
but we haven't, and hopefully we won't.
--Lauren--
P.S. By the way, not even the National Enquirer would publish
lists of people's credit card numbers. Stories about houses
painted mysteriously at night by ghosts, but not credit
card numbers. General publication of credit card information
would be considered to be aiding and abetting in the commission
of crime by virtually any court. (Yes, stories about ghosts
painting houses--I saw the headline on my way out of the
supermarket...)
--LW--
------------------------------
From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 16:13:24 EST
From: Jon_Tara%Wayne-MTS%UMich-MTS.Mailnet@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
To: Telecom%BBNCCA@MIT-Multics.ARPA
re: 976 numbers and per-call charges
Several months ago Michigan Bell dropped weather service.
(They still provide time.) Several companies now provide weather
service using 976 numbers. The charge is .15/call.
Apparently, 976 is a special exchange, and the public is
supposed to "know" that if they call a 976 number they're going
to be charged for some service.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 01:40:35 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
Subject: move BBS discussion to another list?
To: TELECOM@MC
Given that this discussion is becoming increasingly involved with
issues of law, and decreasingly involves telecommunications
technology, perhaps we should move it over to INFO-LAW?
--Lauren--
[Hear Hear! I think TELECOM readers have read enough of the legal
implications of the BBS case. Note: If you have some legitimate
information to tell about the case, I encourage you to post it to
TELECOM, but the debate really belongs in INFO-LAW. --JSol]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 7:54:16 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <cmoore@Brl-Vld.ARPA>
To: Tim Gonsalves <Fat.Tag@su-sierra.arpa>
Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
I don't know what the numbers after the hyphen mean (have had that happen
on recordings I have gotten), but I did read in a newspaper article of
almost 20 years ago that overseas calls go thru New York (hence the 212).
------------------------------
Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 08:02:47-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <MYERSTON@SRI-KL.ARPA>
Subject: 976 numbers and BBS
To: telecom@BBNCCA.ARPA
976-XXXX numbers are nation-wide "local" numbers. If you dial them from
anywhere the network will take you to wherever the serive provider is
and charge you the toll charges in addition to charges by the provider.
Pretty dangerous if you have a system which restricts toll calls based
on 1+ or NPAs only.
A suggestion: How about a BBS split-off newsletter for those that enjoy
this type of useless academic polemic?.
-------
------------------------------
Date: 19 Nov 84 09:37:21 PST (Monday)
From: Thompson.PA@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA.ARPA
Re :Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
Tim-
I have always assumed that the first portion of the recording number was
the area code of the tape recorder that was talking to me. In this case
it would mean that your call got dumped in New York. Makes sense. When I
have run into those things the areqa code quoted was always equal to
source or destination.
Geoff <Thompson.PA@Xerox.ARPA>
------------------------------
To: telecom@bbncca.arpa
Subject: 950 access
Date: 19 Nov 84 14:53:25 EST (Mon)
From: Dave_Farber <farber@udel-ee>
I live right near a boarder to area 302 and much of 302 is a local
call for me. I subscribed to SBS and got a 950 number out of
a 302 access point. WHen I tried to dial it I got reorder. Seems
I have to either dial 1-302-950.... or 1950.... I assume that the
1950 takes me to Philadelphia about 50 miles away. Is there
ever a charge for a 950 number!!
Dave
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!amdcad!phil@bbncca
Date: Sun Nov 18 13:53:12 1984
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:36:46 pst
To: ihnp4!bbncca!telecom-request
Subject: 14.4Kb modems
Anyone have any experience or recommendations on the subject of
14.4Kb modems?
phil ngai
amd!phil@decwrl.ARPA or
ihnp4!amd!phil
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest
******************************