From: davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey)
Newsgroups: tx.general,austin.general
Subject: Re: Caller-ID discussion
Date: 2 Jan 93 12:41:45 CDT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Montagar Software Concepts, Plano TX

In article <1993Jan1.132646.159@ondec.lonestar.org>, d_north@ondec.lonestar.org (David G. North, CCP) writes:
> In article <1993Jan1.115513.16966@montagar.com>,
>  davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>> 	How many times do you get a call from someone that doesn't
>> come from a "pre-programmed" number?  For me, quite a bit.  If I'm here,
>> I really don't mind answering the phone, rarely is it someone/something
> I do.  Usually it's some butthead selling something... total waste of time.

	Strange.  We live rather close, I'm home more, yet you seem to get
more telemarketers than I do...  Maybe you should try variations of the
below methods?  Maybe they not only are trading the phone lists of potential
clients, but those that really piss them off!

>> 	2) If switching equipment is more modern, then the tracing is rather
>> 		fast, since they query the connections (much faster than
>> 		looking as the t-bars...).  It's digital, right???
> Did you read about Cliff Stoll trying to trace back the dial-in connections?
> You are right that at a particular switch, tracing is fast, but when you move
> upstream to the next switch, you've almost gotta re-do _all_ the legal BS
> and start over again.  The main point is that the trace method itself is
> antiquated in that it is a manual procedure & takes *TIME*.  Once SS7 is in
> across the network, that situation will most probably improve dramatically.

	Then why would CLID be needed?  If crank callers can be traced quickly,
isn't that enough?

>> 	3) With most modern switching equipment (you use to work as a telecom
>> 		co), they can already dig back into logs to see what phone
>> 		calls have been made from/to places.
> I may be mistaken, but I don't think complete information is kept except
> what is sufficient for billing unless there's a specific legal request for it.
> [At least in many cases].

	In the case of a crank or harrassing callers, well, there you go!

>> 	They had to move?  This does not just sound like typical crank calls,
>> but stalking.  Sounds like there is more to this than just phone calls...
> Yes.  That made it even more frustating to them that they couldn't ever catch
> the jerk.  If CLID (or probably even just SS7) had been in place, at least they
> would've had the phone location identified.  May or may not have been useful.

	So you're saying CLID is really needed, when the case you cite you
admit that CLID may not have proven effective?  Doesn't make for a strong
argument.

>> 	Again, if you're going to scramble all the time, then why not just
>> request the TelCo's records anyway (since you can now, as well).  CLID does
> What I was aiming for was the ability to provide some method of immediate
> identification of the ANI *regardless* of privacy issues.  That way I can
> have the ability to automatically call-screen, and you don't have to cough
> out your real name, number, or address or whatever.  Seems like the best of
> both worlds since it would address all of the CLID issues I've been hearing
> people yell about... 

	Okay, that I could go for a little better, but would you need CLID
for it?  If the TelCo can already "trace" it, and you have to go to them
anyway, why do you need CLID?

>                         it fixes the pervert-scenario, 

	Again, not really.  There are just too many easy access phones around
to really make a significant difference.  Even with the full assistance of
the police and TelCo, they didn't catch your friends problem.

>                                                          it doesn't give away
> useful information to telemarketers, 

	Does it?  If the "blocked" code is constant, once they have it, they
got you.  That code/phone-number translation can make it around quickly.
The code would have to change frequently in order to be useful to keep
the telemarketers at bay.

>and it provides inbound call screening and/or dial-up security.

	Nope, since the codes would have to change to prevent the telemarketers
from using it!  Dial-up security could be done by requiring you to unblock
to validate the number and not have to dial-back.  I am not against this
use, since they already have your number to dial-back to anyway, and typically
is for employee/business purposes.

>> 	Maybe...  But remember, a "true" phone phreak isn't going to get caught
>> by CLID, since he has probably already spoofed his originating telset! ;-)
> Gee... I wonder... where *DOES* he get all those wunnderful toys?
> I -gotta- get someone to teach me that trick someday.

	You mean you don't have your Capt. Crunch decoder ring with whistle?

> David G. North, CCP
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
David L. Cathey		                |INET: davidc@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts              |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260772, Plano TX  75026-0772  |Fone: (214)-618-2117
Newsgroups: tx.general,austin.general