🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.111713.16965@montagar.com>,
  davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
> anonymous calls probably wont stop that.  So I don't
I disagree... I set my new CLID-compliant phone to only accept &
ring for calls _I_ pre-program (exceptions later).  All others
go automatically to my answering machine (unless they're specifically
blocked - to which, they receive a brief recorded sound of grotesque
flatulance, then *click!*).

> CLID doesn't work outside of the area, so would be useless
Yet!  I think CLID is only the precursor of many things that might
be possible after the network-wide advent of SS7.

> 	I keep hearing everyone say that "It will prevent prank
> calls!".  I don't think so.  It will prevent them from making crank
> calls from home, but there are too many pay phones and other publicly
> accessible phones to make that a big deal. CLID only identifies the
> phone, not the person on the handset, and there are thousands of
> handsets out there.  CLID is just too easy to beat to be effective
> against prank calls.  I think that business is trying to get the focus
Perhaps... but if your phone only accepts 'known' callers, then these
Bozos always get the answering machine - which we'll assume has recorded the
associated CLID... for repeating trouble from the same ANI - turn tape over
to cops, or simply totally block that inbound ANI.  Some of this will take
a while until the CLID is network-wide...  Also - don't tell me that the CLID
couldn't *easily* be expanded to tell you that the call originated from a
a coin phonetype.

> 	Is there *anyone* out there that has had to deal with some
> unknown guy prank/obscene/harrassing calls, went to the police, and
> they found the guy at home making the calls?  One friend of mine
> recently mailed me about this, and said they never caught the
> guy.
I don't know if you were referring to my mail or not, but (to the newsgroup),
I had a friend of mine have to MOVE in Provo Utah, because of some pervert
harassing his wife! - They never caught the jerk, but with CLID in place,
they might have!  I don't know what all was tried, but telephone traces, along
with a lot of switching equipment are an antiquated way of handling these
kinds of problems.  Note that one argument against using the pervert-scenario
to support CLID is that one could supposedly provide a much more restrictive
service to the end-user that would log all ANI information at the CO for all
calls to that TNI.  Such logs could then be acquired as legal needs arose.
The side-effect is that it eliminates the ability of the end user to use the
CLID to screen who they want to talk to without going the conventional
answering machine route.

> It does allow my name, address, and phone number to be put
> onto more specific mailing/phone lists to be provided to
> other marketing agencies.  Great, I could concieveably get MORE
I still think that setting things up so you can block sending that, while
mandatorily sending a scrambled ID number is the way to deal with that.
Mapping the scrambled ID back to the ANI can only be done by the carrier, 
and then only when legal action is required - yes - maybe everyone would
scramble, but at least I get the same ID from *you* every time you call, and
therefore, I let *you* through.  It'd provide some _really_ nice dial-up
security as well!
-- 
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!"