Newsgroups: tx.general,austin.general
Subject: Re: Caller-ID discussion
From: d_north@ondec.lonestar.org (David G. North, CCP)
Date: 1 Jan 93 13:26:46 CST
 <1992Dec31.193407.158@ondec.lonestar.org> <1993Jan1.115513.16966@montagar.com>
Distribution: tx
Organization: onDEC systems, Dallas, TX

In article <1993Jan1.115513.16966@montagar.com>,
 davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
[...]
> 	All this sounds so much like Glenn Cooley (from AT&T no less)
> that proclaimed that CLID was his God-given right (Suprise, since he
> works for a phone company).  You should have been reading alt.privacy
> a while back...
I'm almost tempted to try to get copies of the relevant stuff from somebody
who saved it.  Also seems I oughtta talk to my feed & see about getting
alt.* added... :):):):):) --NOT-- :{

> 	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.

> 	Again, the same tired argument of blocking all these annoying calls.
> Do you really get *THAT* many?  I don't, and I don't even got to extreme
I get calls from maybe 20 different places that I really want to talk to
right then - I'd far rather let _anything_ else hit the answering machine
first.  Now I let everything go thru the machine - really pisses off a couple
of people who regularly call me... therefore, they hang up & I miss the call.

> 	1) Waste as much time with them as I can, get to talk to sales reps,
> 		etc,  (occasional grunting while I'm watching TV helps), and
> 		when they really get to trying to close the sale, just say
> 		"I never do business with organizations using Telemarketing".
> 		They generally get very pissed off... :-)
Humorous, yes; but I don't have the time to screw around with 'em.

> 	2) If I'm busy, ask for the 800 number to call them back with.  Post
> 		to alt.sex and alt.personals as a free phone sex line (anon
> 		post, of course).  Ties it up for weeks. :-) :-) :-)
> 		Of course, I would *never* suggest for anyone to do this...
Right... and I'm the King of England too.  Darn funny idea!  After having
a couple of insane autodialers call me at 4:00 A.M., I'd return the favor
in a heartbeat!

> 	Yes, but since I didn't have permission from you...
In this case, it would have been ok, but I do sincerly appreciate the
consideration.

> 	1) If the switching equipment was "antiquated", then CLID is not an
> 		option.
Correct.

> 	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.

> 	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].

> 	Would they have caught him?  Maybe, but I don't think that CLID would
> have been the deciding factor, just availability of more advanced switching
> equipment.
Possibly, however, I again refer to the trace time issues.  CLID is immediate
(when it works).

> 	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.

> 	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... it fixes the pervert-scenario, it doesn't give away
useful information to telemarketers, and it provides inbound call screening
and/or dial-up security.

> 	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.
-- 
David G. North, CCP
d_north@ondec.lonestar.org {...!texsun!montagar!ondec!d_north}
onDEC systems                                 "Everyone's crazy but you & me...
P.O.Box 795848, Dallas TX  75379-5848          and come to think about it, I'm
(214)985-1316 ... (214)902-3957                not so sure about you either!"
Xref: sparky tx.general:879 austin.general:3799