From: Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:14:51 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Privacy Issue (ANI in SF Bay Area)
In-Reply-To: <199701161947.LAA26644@notesgw2.sybase.com>
Message-ID: <32DEA7D9.510@disposable.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Can I (or you) send this to comp.decom.telecom and comp.risks?
If true, this merits wider distribution, but I don't want to cause
you any trouble. Then again, I don't see your email address...

-rich

Ryan, Russell/SYBASE wrote:
> 
> Here's something cute:
> 
> Yesterday PacBell turned on ANI on our trunk groups, for
> local area calls.  On their own, mind you, without request
> from us.  If you call anyone here with a display phone,
> it displays your number, even if you have caller-id
> blocking on or you do a *70 (for those who don't know,
> ANI is not caller-id, you can't block your number
> from being displayed with ANI.)
> 
> It also grabs your phone number if you leave a voice mail,
> so even folks without display phones can benefit.
> 
> I post this thinking it may be of interest.  I actually
> disagree that people ought to be able to block
> their number.  My feeling is that if someone is calling
> me, they have no right be anonymous.  Of course, I
> realize that this is easy to defeat with call forwarding and such..
> In fact, if I call you from my work phone..you won't see
> my direct dial number...you'll see a number for PacBell's
> trunk group.
> 
> Now...I just have to figure out how PacBell is charging us..
> if it's .01$ per call like regular ANI...at 100,000 calls per day..
> Hmm...first fix is free?  A new PacBell marketing program?
> Our CIO loves the new "feature."
> 
>     Ryan