OT - reverse telephone directory wanted

[Rod Speed]

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:0qf2b.60653$bo1.29883@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Rod Speed wrote
Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote

That doesn't surprise me too much and it is understandable since
Telstra, in their introduction of CLI (or CND), did not opt for
providing maximum privacy for existing customers. I always considered
that customers should have been given the option of "opting in" for
their number to be sent to the called party instead of the other way
round. As it is now most customers have failed to get Telstra to bar CLI
and every Tom, Dick & Harry with access to a reverse number look-up CD
can easily find out where they live.

While the Aust Direct Mktg Assn rules provide an avenue for persons
objecting to their details appearing on CD databases the person must
request deletion to each and every company which produces such a CD.
Even then I think they only "flag" the objectors name as not wishing to
be contacted by direct marketers but their details are still on the CD
for those with other than honourable intentions to use as they see fit.

The DtMS legal action is currently sitting at 2 wins to Telstra and none
to DtMS with DtMS seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the
ruling to disallow Telstra's copyright objection. I doubt that the SC
will overule the 2 previous decisions in favour of Telstra and if that
happens then no-one will be allowed to produce a phone number CD using
details scanned from WP.

Completely trivial to do it outside the country.

If the Supreme Court upholds Telstra's case for
copyright then this applies everywhere as I understand it.

Nope, some countrys aint even a signatory to any copyright convention.

The Supreme Court gets to like that or lump it.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction what
so ever over operations outside this country.

In my opinion that will be good news.

Mindlessly silly. Its handy to be able to check who called you.

That is certainly one argument in favour and I agree that it is useful.
However, when Telstra's exchanges started to become CLI capable
from around 1979 (with the introduction of ARE11) right up until the
early 90's, CLI was restricted to in-house use and emergency services.
Telstra in those days apparently considered that passing the calling
party's number to the called party was an invasion of their privacy
and the possibility it could be used for illegal purposes.

Nope, they just couldnt offer it widely.

Telstra was in fact keen on Caller ID once it was economically
feasible and was forced by the govt to engage in a very expensive
'education' campaign to inform people how they could suppress
their Caller ID either permanently or for just one call.

Optus chose not to bother to piss that money against the
wall on the 'education' campaign the govt mandated, and
thats why they have an opt in system, not the opt out system.

Even now it is illegal for an unauthorised Telstra employee
(or anyone else) to obtain address details for a customer by
providing Directory Assistance with their telephone number.

That aint illegal. And is stupid too.

There is little difference in using a reverse look-up CD to do
exactly the same by anyone having access to a computer.

You're always welcome to have an unlisted number.

If I can propose a hypothetical for your consideration....

No you cant, you're nowhere near as
good at camping around as Robertson.

Assuming that somebody was able to make up a reverse
look-up CD of vehicle registration numbers would you think
that it was appropriate for the CD to be sold to the public?

Entirely different situation because it isnt
possible to have a silent car rego plate.

And I think its completely silly to be hyperventilating
about the risk with that sort of database anyway as
it should be available to those who say have had an
accident with a vehicle and need the owner's details.

How do you think the police/legal fraternity
or government would view such a practice?

I know the stupid NSW govt doesnt even allow the cops
to provide those details even if you have been involved
in an accident with the vehicle you have the plate for.

Terminally stupid.

And finally, what would be the difference (in practical effect)
between using a reverse look-up telephone number CD and
the hypothetical vehicle registration number CD?

You're always welcome to have a silent number if you dont
like the possibility of someone looking you up on the CD.

 

[Alan]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bicitt$7gt2k$1@ID-69072.news.uni-berlin.de...

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:EHi2b.61361$bo1.60512@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Rod Speed wrote
Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote

That doesn't surprise me too much and it is understandable since
Telstra, in their introduction of CLI (or CND), did not opt for
providing maximum privacy for existing customers. I always
considered
that customers should have been given the option of "opting in"
for
their number to be sent to the called party instead of the other
way
round. As it is now most customers have failed to get Telstra to
bar CLI
and every Tom, Dick & Harry with access to a reverse number
look-up CD
can easily find out where they live.

While the Aust Direct Mktg Assn rules provide an avenue for
persons
objecting to their details appearing on CD databases the person
must
request deletion to each and every company which produces such a
CD.
Even then I think they only "flag" the objectors name as not
wishing to
be contacted by direct marketers but their details are still on
the CD
for those with other than honourable intentions to use as they see
fit.

The DtMS legal action is currently sitting at 2 wins to Telstra
and none
to DtMS with DtMS seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on
the
ruling to disallow Telstra's copyright objection. I doubt that the
SC
will overule the 2 previous decisions in favour of Telstra and if
that
happens then no-one will be allowed to produce a phone number CD
using
details scanned from WP.

Completely trivial to do it outside the country.

If the Supreme Court upholds Telstra's case for
copyright then this applies everywhere as I understand it.

Nope, some countrys aint even a signatory to any copyright convention.

The Supreme Court gets to like that or lump it.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction what
so ever over operations outside this country.

In my opinion that will be good news.

Mindlessly silly. Its handy to be able to check who called you.

That is certainly one argument in favour and I agree that it is
useful.
However, when Telstra's exchanges started to become CLI capable
from around 1979 (with the introduction of ARE11) right up until the
early 90's, CLI was restricted to in-house use and emergency
services.
Telstra in those days apparently considered that passing the calling
party's number to the called party was an invasion of their privacy
and the possibility it could be used for illegal purposes.

Nope, they just couldnt offer it widely.

True, until all main exchanges had the capability it would not have
been practical. I do know for a fact that it was Telstra policy that CLI
could not be passed on to other than emergency services because
when our group was designing the Switch Number Identifier in the late
80's
we had to go through the rigmarole of sorting out the privacy aspects.

Sure, but Telstra/Telecom/the PMG were always mindlessly
paranoid about the availability of public phone box numbers too.

For no good reason what so ever.
Phone box numbers where protected way back in the days before computers. It

was done to prevent people from making reverse charge calls to the phone box
number, having arranged for someone to be there to except the call.

Telstra was in fact keen on Caller ID once it was economically
feasible and was forced by the govt to engage in a very expensive
'education' campaign to inform people how they could suppress
their Caller ID either permanently or for just one call.

That is how it turned out in the long run. Personally,
I think they were persuaded by the commercial
lobbyists for the unfettered introduction of CLI

It wasnt unfettered, considerably fettered in fact.

whereas previously they wouldn't allow it.

Even Telstra does sometimes come to its sense on the basics.

If they had chosen the same path as Optus then they
wouldn't have had to piss any money against the wall either.

Yes, but they wouldnt have been able to flog too many Caller
ID services either, because fuck all would have chosen to opt in.

Optus could choose to go that route because they
only ever had a microscopic percentage of the market.

I wouldn't have had any concerns if the privacy legislation
had been in place prior to universal CLI and there had been
some restriction on the ready availability of CD databases.

Unlisted numbers have been available since
LONG before Caller ID was ever an issue.

Optus chose not to bother to piss that money against the
wall on the 'education' campaign the govt mandated, and
thats why they have an opt in system, not the opt out system.

Even now it is illegal for an unauthorised Telstra employee
(or anyone else) to obtain address details for a customer by
providing Directory Assistance with their telephone number.

That aint illegal. And is stupid too.

I know of a few employees who were hauled over the coals for doing it.

Sure, but that was true in spades of the numbers of public phone boxes
too.

Telstra obviously thought it wasn't ok to do it because of the potential
for civil action to be taken against them if some crime or invasion of
privacy eventuated as a result of divulging personal information.

Or they just got their knickers in a knot just like they did with
the phone numbers of public phone boxes where there aint any
possibility what so ever of any legal action on 'privacy' at all.

Legal opinion given to the offending employees was
that they were open to prosecution for illegally obtaining
confidential information outside of their normal work authority,

Mindlessly silly wank when that data was in the phone book.

so in that sense it was illegal.

Fraid not.

There is little difference in using a reverse look-up CD to do
exactly the same by anyone having access to a computer.

You're always welcome to have an unlisted number.

I know, but it costs more to do that.

Thats life. You're that paranoid, you get to
pay for the cost of satisfying your paranoia.

Prior to CLI I had privacy of my details

Nope, anyone could have used the phone
book or the CDs to run you to ground.

and I shouldn't have to pay more to preserve that right simply
because someone else wants to know who is calling them.

Fraid so. You're that paranoid, you get to pay for
the costs involved in pandering to your paranoia.

If I can propose a hypothetical for your consideration....

No you cant, you're nowhere near as
good at camping around as Robertson.

True, but he is an expert...

I recon he's a complete dud myself.

I always find myself reaching for the elephant gun.

Assuming that somebody was able to make up a reverse
look-up CD of vehicle registration numbers would you think
that it was appropriate for the CD to be sold to the public?

Entirely different situation because it isnt
possible to have a silent car rego plate.

Sure, and I recognise the fact that in order for a phone system to work
there has to be a readily accessible database of customers to call, so a
public listing has to be available. The case regarding vehicle rego's is
somewhat different but the principle is no different when it comes to
using any sort of database to find out where a person lives.

Fraid so, because there is no equivalent of an unlisted number.

I would venture to say that there would be a much greater
possibility for retribution against offending drivers if a rego
database were readily available.. "Mug driver, I'll get you....".

It happens with letters to the newspaper too.

Which is why they allow you to remain anonymous if you want
to. But not anonymous to them, only to readers of the paper.

Not quite the same potential risk with a phone number I suppose.

And what tiny risk there is is best handled with a rotty and a shotty.

And I think its completely silly to be hyperventilating
about the risk with that sort of database anyway as
it should be available to those who say have had an
accident with a vehicle and need the owner's details.

How do you think the police/legal fraternity
or government would view such a practice?

I know the stupid NSW govt doesnt even allow the cops
to provide those details even if you have been involved
in an accident with the vehicle you have the plate for.

Terminally stupid.

I think the same applies in all states in that regard.

Nope, its unique to NSW, or was anyway. That may
have changed with them all being Labor govts lately.

And finally, what would be the difference (in practical effect)
between using a reverse look-up telephone number CD and
the hypothetical vehicle registration number CD?

You're always welcome to have a silent number if you dont
like the possibility of someone looking you up on the CD.

Yes, I have recognised that option but
I don't think I should have pay for it.

Fraid so. If you're that paranoid about your 'privacy',
you get to pay what it costs to ensure your 'privacy'

However that is an issue to argue with Telstra, and
we both know where arguing that point will get me...
I will just have to grin and bear it I suppose..

Or grin and bare it with Telstra |-)

 

[Rod Speed]

Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:I9m2b.61791$bo1.11027@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Rod Speed wrote
Ross Herbert <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote

I do know for a fact that it was Telstra policy that CLI could not
be passed on to other than emergency services because when our
group was designing the Switch Number Identifier in the late 80's we
had to go through the rigmarole of sorting out the privacy aspects.

Sure, but Telstra/Telecom/the PMG were always mindlessly
paranoid about the availability of public phone box numbers too.

For no good reason what so ever.

When phones were few and far between they didn't want
everyone who couldn't or wouldn't pay to install their own
phone using the PT's to receive calls from those who could
afford to have one installed. Incoming calls to PT's were non
metering and in the days when techs could get the PT numbers
they were sometimes passed on to their girlfriends who could
ring them at an arranged time and talk for hours for nothing.

Doesnt explain why they are STILL mindlessly paranoid about
not making the phone numbers of public phones available.

The real reason for that sort of terminal stupidity doesnt have
a damned thing to do with any rational reason at all, its just
the usual thing you always see with massive bureaucracys,
they start using a particular approach for no good reason
and just mindlessly keep doing it forever.

Basically because massive bureaucracys 'work' like that.

Telstra was in fact keen on Caller ID once it was economically
feasible and was forced by the govt to engage in a very
expensive 'education' campaign to inform people how they could
suppress their Caller ID either permanently or for just one call.

That is how it turned out in the long run. Personally,
I think they were persuaded by the commercial
lobbyists for the unfettered introduction of CLI

It wasnt unfettered, considerably fettered in fact.

Ah yes, but only because the govt insisted on providing the 1831
option for those who did want to bar CLI on a call by call basis.
If they hadn't done that it would have been totally unfettered.

I dont believe that Telstra only allowed the suppression of
the Caller ID because it was forced to do that by the govt.

The govt only forced Telstra to piss an immense amount
of money against the wall on the 'education' campaign on
its availability and the availablity of a permanent block.

If they had chosen the same path as Optus then they
wouldn't have had to piss any money against the wall either.

Yes, but they wouldnt have been able to flog too many Caller
ID services either, because fuck all would have chosen to opt in.

I agree there was commercial gain in it for Telstra
to have as few restrictions as possible which would
maximise sales of CND add-ons and phones.

And thats why they chose to spend the money on that
'education' campaign and why Optus chose not to.

Optus could choose to go that route because they
only ever had a microscopic percentage of the market.

I wouldn't have had any concerns if the privacy legislation
had been in place prior to universal CLI and there had been
some restriction on the ready availability of CD databases.

Unlisted numbers have been available since
LONG before Caller ID was ever an issue.

Sure, but in those days there was no way anyone
could obtain a reverse listing of all phone numbers
so privacy from that angle was ensured.

Irrelevant to whether you're welcome to have an unlisted
number if you're paranoid about being findable in a CD database.

Not just with a reverse lookup either, a CD database makes
it very easy to find people with more unusual names.

The only thing that makes any sense is the
availability of unlisted numbers for the paranoid.

And that has been true since long before the
recent wanking about 'privacy' ever started.

I know of a few employees who were hauled over the coals for doing it.

Sure, but that was true in spades of the numbers of public phone boxes too.

Telstra obviously thought it wasn't ok to do it because of the potential
for civil action to be taken against them if some crime or invasion of
privacy eventuated as a result of divulging personal information.

Or they just got their knickers in a knot just like they did with
the phone numbers of public phone boxes where there aint any
possibility what so ever of any legal action on 'privacy' at all.

The issue concerning PT numbers had nothing to do
with the privacy angle. It was purely related to revenue.

Dont believe it.

And doesnt explain why they are STILL paranoid
about the availability of those numbers when there
is no revenue consideration.

Legal opinion given to the offending employees was
that they were open to prosecution for illegally obtaining
confidential information outside of their normal work authority,

Mindlessly silly wank when that data was in the phone book.

The data in the phone book doesn't allow you to track down a person's
address simply by knowing a phone number, not unless you want to go
blind searching for that specific number in the first place.

It clearly aint 'confidential information' when its in the phone book.

There is little difference in using a reverse look-up CD to do
exactly the same by anyone having access to a computer.

You're always welcome to have an unlisted number.

I know, but it costs more to do that.

Thats life. You're that paranoid, you get to
pay for the cost of pandering to your paranoia.

Prior to CLI I had privacy of my details

Nope, anyone could have used the phone
book or the CDs to run you to ground.

Of course, but only if they knew my name
and were prepared to do some sleuthing.

Doesnt have a damned thing to do with Caller ID.

That's why a name like Smith or Tan would make
it so much more difficult to do. If all they had was
a phone number and no name it is not at all easy.

Easy enough with a name and rough location.

Assume you had not chosen to pay for an unlisted number and
had made a phone call to some person and for some reason you
rubbed him up the wrong way and he wanted to get back at you.

Mindless neuroticism.

Thanks to CLI, he now has your number and with his little
CD he finds where you live and then arranges to have a
load of chicken manure dumped on your front lawn.

He can do that if you piss him off in person
and he works out where you 'live' too.

If he was careful nobody would know who ordered the chicken
manure and you would also be unable to do anything. I have
seen this happen in reality. Even worse things are possible...

Your neurotic fears are your problem.

He can always follow you round the streets in a car etc too.

and I shouldn't have to pay more to preserve that right simply
because someone else wants to know who is calling them.

Fraid so. You're that paranoid, you get to pay for
the costs involved in pandering to your paranoia.

I don't regard myself as being particularly paranoid

You clearly are with that chicken shit example. Neurotic fears, anyway.

but I do value my personal privacy.

Then you get to pay forthe costs involved
in pandering to your neurotic fears.

You'd better wear a rubber mask when buying stuff too in case
you piss off the sales monkey and they decide to follow you
home and arrange the delivery of a truckload of chookshit.

It happens with letters to the newspaper too.

Which is why they allow you to remain anonymous if you want
to. But not anonymous to them, only to readers of the paper.

Of course, but if anyone was going to mount a personal
attack on somebody by writing to the newspapers they
would be stupid to allow their name to be published.

Its never possible to predict who will get pissed off about
what is in a particular letter to the paper. Some complete
nutters can get pissed off about the most innocuous stuff.

One stupid fundy yank chucked a tantrum
about my use of the phrase 'a hell of a lot'

The rotty and the shotty will be quite adequate to
deal with him if he ever does show up in person.

The newspaper has to know details of the
writer in order to verify their identity if required.

And there is always some microscopic risk that an employee will
be the fruit loop who will arrange for the truckload of chookshit.

Life is never completely risk free. Even if you hide under your
bed and have the food passed in to you under there, there
will always be some risk of you carking it under there and
no one noticing untile the pile of food starts to build up etc.

However, they don't divulge that to anyone else

Thats just plain wrong too if the cops demand that.

and you don't have to pay to remain anonymous.

Their choice.

Not quite the same potential risk with a phone number I suppose.

And what tiny risk there is is best handled with a rotty and a shotty.

I'm not that paranoid...

OK, get big gates that stop the chookshit truck instead.
And a security system that tapes the truck showing up.

You'll have to pay for that too if you're that paranoid.

 

[stiff]

Sure, but Telstra/Telecom/the PMG were always mindlessly
paranoid about the availability of public phone box numbers too.

For no good reason what so ever.

Seeing this comment reminded me of an age old question. How can people find

out a public telephone number, when listed as (02)999999L9 for example? I
have wondered about this since I was a kid and have never found the answer.
Does anybody know? And is there any correlation between the letter, and the
number the letter replaces?

Thanks

 

[Rod Speed]

stiff <dieISAYspammersdieMOTHERFUCKERS@optusnet.com.au> wrote
in message news:3f4b9ba7$0$4186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Sure, but Telstra/Telecom/the PMG were always mindlessly
paranoid about the availability of public phone box numbers too.

For no good reason what so ever.

Seeing this comment reminded me of an age old
question. How can people find out a public telephone
number, when listed as (02)999999L9 for example?

Thats very uncommon. And you can work that out very
quickly by just trying all the possibilitys from a mobile phone.

With the public phones that do actually
have a ringer, anyway. Some dont.

I have wondered about this since I was a kid and have never
found the answer. Does anybody know? And is there any correlation
between the letter, and the number the letter replaces?

There is no nice tidy rule, because the word would soon get out.

Yes, they really are that paranoid.