🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.193407.158@ondec.lonestar.org>, d_north@ondec.lonestar.org (David G. North, CCP) writes:
> 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!*).

	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...

	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
that I would have liked to block.  Honestly, will this actually improve
the quality of your life, or is it some new gadget to play with?  Running
to listen to the answering machine doesn't sound much like a conveniece.
I'd rather just pick up the phone in the room I'm in...

	Besides, my Rolodex is a little too big to really want to plug into
a box...

>> 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.

	True...  But do you never want to pick up long-distance calls?

>> 	I keep hearing everyone say that "It will prevent prank
>> calls!".  I don't think so.
> 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.

	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
lengths to hide my number.  I get maybe one telemarketer every two-three
weeks.  Since those are the calls I really want to discourage, try to make
them unprofitable:

	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... :-)

	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...

>> 	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),

	Yes, but since I didn't have permission from you...

> 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.

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

	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.

	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...

>> 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.

	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
not add significantly to that.  From time of day, you can request (with
proper authority, police maybe?) those records.  The ability to have the
police request these records is enough for me, provides the same level
of law enforcement for these type of calls, and does not give up any level
of privacy that I am legally entitled to.

>                                    It'd provide some _really_ nice dial-up
> security as well!

	Maybe...  But remember, a "true" phone phreak isn't going to get caught
by CLID, since he has probably already spoofed his originating telset! ;-)

> 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