1997-12-21 - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”?

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0ec0dc5fda696ce52f50e6124513b567b61a5eef620011461c88711e7c0e68a8
Message ID: <cTP2He29w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <QzbXND2HpQOEiGmmHc51yQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-21 05:26:59 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:26:59 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:26:59 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"?
In-Reply-To: <QzbXND2HpQOEiGmmHc51yQ==@bureau42.ml.org>
Message-ID: <cTP2He29w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <nobody@bureau42.ml.org> writes:

> >(Even the _ability_ to block a pay phone, qua pay phone, must imply that
> >pay phones send out some kind of signal announcing themselves as pay
> >phones, which I had not heard of before. I assumed a pay phone was Just
> >Another Phone Number.)
>
> Caller ID identifies most pay phones as "PAY PHONE".

Many years ago the phone company tried to assign pay phones phone numbers
of the form xxx-9xxx. They no lobger do in area codes/exchanged where the
numbers are very scarce.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps






Thread