Date: Fri, 13 May 94 10:19:17 EST Errors-To: Comp-privacy Error Handler From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator To: Comp-privacy@uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V4#065 Computer Privacy Digest Fri, 13 May 94 Volume 4 : Issue: 065 Today's Topics: Moderator: Leonard P. Levine FCC order on interstate Caller ID Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted Re: FCC Ruling on CNID: Not Good The Computer Privacy Digest is a forum for discussion on the effect of technology on privacy. The digest is moderated and gatewayed into the USENET newsgroup comp.society.privacy (Moderated). Submissions should be sent to comp-privacy@uwm.edu and administrative requests to comp-privacy-request@uwm.edu. Back issues are available via anonymous ftp on ftp.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.9.18]. Login as "ftp" with password "yourid@yoursite". The archives are in the directory "pub/comp-privacy". Archives are also held at ftp.pica.army.mil [129.139.160.133]. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Date: 9 May 94 12:39:45 EDT Subject: FCC order on interstate Caller ID I picked up a copy of the FCC's Caller ID order, which is available by FTP as /pub/Orders/Common_Carrier/orcc4001.txt or orcc4001.wp. (Kudos to the FCC for making this info available so easily and quickly, by the way.) Much of the order is straightforward and not contentious, e.g. delivering CNID between local and long distance carriers is so cheap to implement that neither may charge the other for the data. They also note that per-call blocking is a good idea, and that *67 should be the universal code to block CNID delivery. But the arguments they list against per-line CNID seem, to me, to be astonishingly specious. There are three blocking options 1) per call for anyone, 2) per line for anyone, and 3) per line for special groups. The FCC thinks, not unreasonably, that it's a mare's nest to ask the telco to implement 3, since they have to determine who's in the special groups and who isn't. Then they say: 43. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that per line blocking unduly burdens calling party number based services overall by failing to limit its applicability to those calls for which privacy is of concern to the caller. The Commission noted that even in the case of law enforcement personnel, there may be a need to maintain calling number privacy on some calls, but that the same number may be used to telephone other law enforcement personnel, victims of crimes, cooperative witnesses, and family or friends. The Commission asserted that in these types of calls, calling number privacy is not needed and calling number identification can actually be a valuable piece of information for both the caller and called parties. The record reflects the useful nature of CPN based services, and the comments of Rochester illustrate that callers are likely to be interested in blocking only a small percentage of their calls. The comments of USCG illustrate the usefulness of caller ID to emergency services. In contrast, Missouri Counsel's analogy to unlisted numbers is inapposite because caller ID only permits parties called by the calling party to capture the calling party number, and then only if the calling party has not activated a per call blocking mechanism. We find that the availability of per call unblocking does not cure the ill effects of per line blocking. Moreover, in an emergency, a caller is not likely to remember to dial or even to know to dial an unblocking code. For the foregoing reasons, we find that a federal per line blocking requirement for interstate CPN based services, including caller ID, is not the best policy choice of those available to recognize the privacy interests of callers. Thus, carriers may not offer per line blocking as a privacy protection mechanism on interstate calls. We agree that certain uses of captured calling numbers need to be controlled, and address that issue infra. In other words, per-line blocking is a bad idea because subscribers are too dumb to unblock calls when they want to unblock them, although they're not to dumb to block calls when they want to block them. In paragraph 47 they note that where per-line blocking is offered, telcos use *67 as a blocking toggle, so users can't really tell what *67 does, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that the problem is easily solved by requiring a different code for unblock than for block. In paragraph 48 they wave their hands and say that people who care about privacy can just buy a box for "as little as $40.00 per unit" that will stuff *67 in front of each call. Thanks, guys. The docket number is 91-281, with comments due by May 18th. Comments must reference the docket number. Send ten copies (yes, 10) to: Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission Washington DC 20554 Before you fire off a comment, please get a copy of the order, since there's a lot of material beyond what I've summarized. For people without FTP access, I've put them on my mail server. Send: send fcc-cnid.txt (for the text version) send fcc-cnid.wp.uu (for uuencoded compressed WP version) to compilers-server@iecc.com. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: poivre@netcom.com (Poivre) Date: 9 May 1994 17:58:37 GMT Subject: Re: Credit Check only with Permission Granted Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Poivre (poivre@netcom.com) wrote: Is it possible NOT to give them your license?? Also, if my license # is not my SSN, is it possible for them to still check my report?? If i were a rich kid and I could buy a car with cash without loans, leases, etc, would i be able to buy one without a credit check?? L. E. de Rivaud (rivaud@rain.org) wrote: You may not be allowed to test drive the car without showing a licence. TRW does cross reference driver's licence numbers and social security numbers. How did they get MY DL #? I live in CA and my DL # [...] ALSO: at the dealership they ran two different kinds of TRW's, "on screen" and "printed." An on screen was run if the sale associate wasn't sure you were going to buy a car. S/he just wants to see if you are worth spending time on. An on screen is just that: on screen, you So no matter how you intend to pay for the car, as long as youre going to test drive it, you will get checked right?? So people should avoid a test drive and just test drive their friend's cars or something. -- poivre@netcom.com : #include lychees@marble.bu.edu : Altruism Doesn't Pay!! ------------------------------ From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.orl.mmc.com (padgett peterson) Date: 9 May 1994 21:10:45 GMT Subject: Re: FCC Ruling on CNID: Not Good Organization: Martin-Marietta jjohnson@FirstPerson.COM (Jeff Johnson) said: In response to the variety of state-imposed requirements, telcos went to the FCC to try to get a ruling that would apply to the entire nation, and that would impose less onerous conditions than many state's conditions. For the time being, it appears that the telcos have got what they wanted. Not sure who you are talking about. I have a good friend with a closed head injury who has no trouble remembering star-six-seven. As for me, I think that CNID is a Good Thing for anyone who runs an automated service of any kind as a way to keep from tying up their service. If you don't have the number on file, many things can happen other than ignoring it - you can route to a human or a voice messaging system for instance. I think that CNID is the greatest thing since sliced bread for any kind of dial-up service. For one, custom menus can be presented for the calling number. An appropriate language can be automatically selected (I've gotten tired of always having to select English at the ATM) and we are just starting. There is no question in my mind that it is good. Further I am not giving up any information that the phone company, 800/900 subscribers, and anyone with a pen recorder did not already have access to. What transpired on a public commodity is now and always has been public - I cannot stop that - IMHO CNID (and I have had it here for well over a year now) just gives me the same information that others have had for much longer. Padgett include usual_disclaimers_h ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V4 #065 ****************************** .