From: Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:32:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for "Criminals"
In-Reply-To: <66iaur$foc$1@chronicle.austx.tandem.com>
Message-ID: <19971222152008.10111.qmail@nym.alias.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote:

> It's not clout, it's a capability. You can ask that many different types of
> numbers be blocked. You can ask that incomming and or outgoing be blocked
> _FROM_ _YOUR_ _HOME_ _PHONE_.

If your local telephone company will provide you with that service, that's 
great.  I suspect that it's not universally available, especially in Australia 
where the person I was replying to lives.  But, as you pointed out, you can 
always ASK.  The worst they can say is no -- or maybe "Chuck U. Farley", if 
you catch the customer "service" person in a bad mood. <g>

> :Second, as you can probably tell from his return address, Politas is located
> :in Australia, where different rules apply.
> :  
> Indeed, that's true.  Chances are however, that his phone company will catch
> up with the U.S. sooner or later. :)

Could be.  I was only trying to deal with the options available to him here and
now, just as I was dealing with the remailer network at it exists here and now.
The big difference between the two is that he PAYS to be connected to the
phone company's network, so that gives him a little bargaining power in
asking for certain features.

The remailers, in contrast, don't charge you for receiving mail and your two
existing options are to use the net as it currently exists or disconnect
yourself from it with a blocking request.

It's sort of like public television.  You've got a user community and a
much smaller support community.  Comments from users get considered, of
course, but I'm sure that suggestions from actual supporters carry a bit
more weight.

> :Just don't sign up for pager service with a company that blocks calls from
> :pay phones, then.
>  
> The latest scoop is those that don't block will find another way to pass the
> costs on to all subscribers.  Those that _DO_ block will allow the unblocking
> based on request from a user and that user's willingness to +pay+.

Of course.  One does have to make a decision whether its worthwhile to pay
the extra fee for the convenience of someone being able to page him toll-free 
from a pay phone.  Those who don't allow SELECTIVE blocking and who pass the
costs on to all subscribers will eventually lose most of their customers who 
don't want to subsidize a service they don't want or use.  Their prices will
become non-competitive.

> :I figure if an extra 18.5 cents is going to make that much of a difference to
> :me, I probably didn't want to talk to that person that badly, anyway.  So I'd
> :either opt to not pay extra for 800 access, and let people page me at their
> :own expense, or else be more selective who I gave my toll-free access 
> :number to. 
>           
> That would make _WAY_ too much sense now wouldn't it?

Just like the internet, there are a lot of newbies to pagers, cell phones, PCS,
etc. who don't know all their available options.  That will change with time.
But if you get your "expert advice" from the sales droid of the week at your 
local Radio Shack...

> :I have a friend who has basic pager service with a local, non-toll-free
> :access number.  He also has separate 800 service that rings through to his
> :pager number.  The more expensive 800 number is given out more selectively
> :than the local number.
>  
> Precicely.  However, the original discussion was not what pager companies
> would or wouldn't want to do with the ability to block payphones, the issue is
> whether it's not only possible (it is) but is it available to anyone. THe
> answer to the second one is becomming yes in more areas as tine goes by.  You
> can even block anyone who doesn't display their caller id number.  Of course,
> then if you blocked your own number from displaying to protect yourself, your
> friends who block unannounced numbers to protect themselves wouldn't get to
> talk to you. 
>  
>    
> Oh, one other thing.  It's NOT difficult to trace a phone number anymore. Even
> though pressing *69 won't always give you the number that called you, the 
> phone company +can+ still track the number to it's source.

Technology is currently progressing faster than our human protocols can keep
up with.  But I'm confident that the lag time will be relatively short.  For 
example, people have now adapted their own sense of manners and propriety to 
deal with such things as unsolicited calls from telemarketers.  When someone
calls you, it's usually impolite to hang up on them.  Many now make an
exception for junk calls from telemarketers.  Some phone company even offer
a service where you can press a *xx code, hang up, and the telemarketer will
be told that you don't accept such calls and be requested to add your number to
his do not call list.

There was an ongoing debate a few years ago when caller ID was first introduced
involving the usage of caller ID, caller ID blocking, and even "blocker
blocking".  Ultimately when it's all sorted out we'll wind up with more choices
than we had to start with.  The phone number that you're calling from is now
an item of data which can be OPTIONALLY transmitted along with the phone call.
And the omission of that data, by way of caller ID blocking, is itself a
data item.  The technology exists to take certain actions based on that data
interchange.  The hardest part is DECIDING how one wishes to use that data.
Will I accept calls with caller ID blocked?  Will I block caller ID on my
outgoing calls by default?  Will I create an access list of calls of numbers
allowed to ring my phone?  Will I block the blocked calls altogether or merely
divert them to my answering machine for screening?

Perhaps this serves as a useful model in analyzing anonymous communications in
general, particularly e-mail.  Are people who e-mail anonymously or who call
from pay phones to be considered "criminals" or otherwise viewed with
suspicion?  Should we require some form of positive identification, such as
a government issued and escrowed crypto key, to authenticate all forms of
communications, even calls from pay phones?

As you've probably guessed, I'm against limiting those options.  People who
wish to communicate anonymously (truly anonymously, not the model suggested
where you reveal your identity to someone and have to trust him to keep it
confidential) should be allowed to do so.  And people who don't wish to 
receive such communications should have the option of not receiving them.

The unblockable call tracing technologies you've mentioned will make the use
of pay phones more popular with people who value their privacy.  Like
unlisted numbers, the security of the data gathered by such systems is no
greater than the willingness of a telco employee to refuse a bribe.  Watch for
even more proposals to make the use of pay phones less convenient or less
private.  It's already happening.  Some large cities, for example, have
strongarmed the phone companies to replace the normal push button pay phones
with the old rotary dial style just to prevent people from using them to page
drug dealers!  Of course, you can't use them to page anyone else, either, or
to access your own voice mail, or avail yourself of any service that utilizes
data entry via DTMF tones.  All in the name of "keeping us safe".

- ---
Finger <comsec@nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBNJ56kgbp0h8ZvosNAQFTWwf9Hhhwl1Q6SB42fWZzC1BdDOlmtR6W1+AU
GxDOCU/2CEEnUVrF/9tsYk1eAPkPCgFmnevydb/7a+DOo1XpvX3itMwW4FOqSyPn
rLzG6MbddEORGNRVcMQAD+aF+Uvqnh8cU5GrvEe0jp66p/wz6YvpeXwHcIzbmN20
A+pXz7KNrlB9RzVr/46QubjO/VrQe0JW60SMUbHpBXpV/rHv2MzN0Fla2qYqw5Ki
kOnhI2+lCzLpKPvCvM4uHJ3fBLg79+m/LTRdL10uFvngB5wlEXaWffYZOfFk+SaX
v0IxfpOZouLJ36iBfH960o6dcDtR/G69+LkgyJpsWCEB69jP9xON1g==
=Ih9r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----