Slashdot Mirror
TrapCall Service To Bypass Caller ID Blocking
cemaco writes in with news that TelTech, developers of the infamous SpoofCard service, have come out with something even more controversial: a set of services for revealing blocked caller ID numbers. The services take advantage of a loophole in the way caller ID blocking works — it has never been effective when calling an 800 number, because the recipient is paying for the call. So TelTech instructs you how to forward blocked calls (transparently) to their 800 number; the call comes back to your phone in seconds with the formerly hidden caller ID revealed. Advocacy groups for victims of domestic violence are concerned. Victims of annoying calls hiding behind caller ID blocking are rejoicing.
Advocacy groups for victims of domestic violence are concerned
What about ?
If you are calling me then I have a right to know who you are AFAIC.
Advocacy groups for victims of domestic violence are concerned.
Why? Because this doesn't allow victims to harass their abusive partners anonymously? I fail to see what legitimate use caller ID blocking has in a domestic dispute. If anything, this should be a benefit since it destroys the anonymity of a harassing caller.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
The State of Michigan and I believe 6 other states passed laws written by the RIAA to make it a felony to mask your IP address. The laws were written so broadly though, that masking the information about any electronic identity would constitute a crime including caller ID.
Many states modified this before passage, but Michigan and several other states just passed the RIAA bill as submitted.
It is a class 3 felony to block caller ID in Michigan.
Thanks RIAA
* Carthago Delenda Est *
... I always felt that blocked calls were the equivalent of someone showing up at your front door with a paper bag (with eye-holes) over their head...
Sounds like my past couple of dates.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it
...and I shouldn't have to receive/answer anonymous calls just because the calling party wants it that way. As it is I let 'blocked', 'private', or 'unknown' calls bounce to voicemail. If its important enough they can leave a message, and I'll know who is call before I choose to talk to them.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
The most sensible thing to do is to get no-caller-ID-blocking. That way, people who block caller ID get a message that they have to enable it to call you. I think people who block caller ID are cocks, and moreover they're stupid cocks because loopholes like this ALWAYS existed.
As others have said, if you want to communicate anonymously, there are means for you to do that. The telephone system was built with public dollars and there is little benefit to even permitting anonymous calls, especially since they are not really and never have really been anonymous. Before caller ID even existed, they were logging all your calls for billing purposes. That information has always been available to "the powers that be". The only thing you get out of an anonymous phone call is being anonymous to technical incompetents, which you can achieve by using a payphone or a prepay cellular phone when you're not talking about people who can subpoena (or just examine) your telephone records.
I do not have non-caller-ID-calls blocked... yet. But I certainly don't ever answer a call on my cellphone that comes in as "Private". That means I never answer my mom's phone calls, an acceptable loss. :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hmmm... it suddenly occurs to me that blocking caller id is a lot like the 'Anonymous Coward' option at Slashdot.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I can't believe the ignorance of the referenced article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_identification for an intelligent explanation of what's happening. The important part is...
>>>
Because ANI is unrelated to caller ID, the caller's telephone number and line type
are captured by ANI equipment even if caller ID blocking is activated. The destination
telephone company switching office can relay the originating telephone number to ANI
delivery services subscribers. Toll-free Inward WATS number subscribers and large
companies normally have access to ANI information, either instantly via installed
equipment, or from a monthly billing statement. Residential subscribers can obtain
access to ANI information through third party companies that charge for the service.
>>>
To summarize...
* There are 2 *TOTALLY UNRELATED* means of getting *THE NUMBER THAT IS CALLING YOU*
* Caller ID (technically CNID) sends the callers number during the ringing signal.
Any outfit with their own PBX can send out whatever crap they want as CNID.
That's how spoofing services work, and how telemarketers can fake CNID
* ANI (Automatic Number Identification) is billing information data. Spoofing that
effectively constitutes fraud. And you can be certain that phone companies will
do whatever is necessary to make sure their billing systems work . ANI is very
difficult to spoof.
Having said that, TrapCall can be beaten. Not spoofed, but beaten. ANI passes the number making the call. If you call via Skype, your call is forwarded to Skype, who then forwards the call to the destination. The destination gets Skype's billing data. This is technically correct, but useless for identifying the originator. Oh yeah, Skype pays connection charges at the receiving end, so don't expect them to freely work for 1-900 numbers. This is roughly equivalant to calling from New York to Los Angeles to ask your brother to pass on a message to someone in Atlanta. The person in Atlanta knows they got called by somebody from Los Angeles. This is technically correct, but doesn't let them know that the message originated from New York.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Because that's over kill. There is no justification for requiring that the number be shown. The fact of the matter is that the number can be spoofed and some of us don't want our number to show up for one reason or another.
I shouldn't have to reveal my number just because the other party wants it, if they really want it they should have to ask. That way I get a say in whether or not my number ends up on a list.
Sort of like how you have to pay a fee to get out of the telephone book, why it is that the phone companies can put it in without permission is beyond me.
If you are going to call my house, you are making something happen inside my home, probably without my permission. If you are going to do that, I have a RIGHT to know who you are and where you are calling from.
Don't want me to know who you are? Fine, don't call me.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
The service doesn't reveal your number if they're calling YOU, only if you're calling THEM. According to the article, the reason that domestic abuse people are concerned is because there are situations where an abused spouse might need to call her abuser (such as calls about their kids) but doesn't want to abuser knowing the number where they're calling from.
Personally, I think this is a pretty flimsy excuse. Abuse victims shouldn't be in contact with their abusers, period. If they need to deal with custody issues, they should be doing it through a third party or from a disposable cell phone or pay phone. And if an abuse victim is stupid enough to be contacting their abuser using their new home phone, then there is nothing you can do to protect them anyway (you can't stop someone from being a dumbass).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Try this on. My wife's a veterinarian. She will often make follow-up calls on emergencies and critical care patients from home. She tells clients she will do this and that the callerid will be blocked.
In that case, you SHOULD answer. She's under no obligation to give her her home number. If she did, sooner or later, she'd be getting calls at 3am from people who should have gone to the emergency clinic.
She's calling on her own time to follow up on your pet. The face that she cares enough to do that (rather than wait until the next day) doesn't mean she should give up more of her privacy.
And you do know that, at least for landlines, if I google your non-private number, I'll not only get your address, but a map and satellite image of your house. So there's no such thing as "you should give up your number, but not your address". They are easily linked.
Caller ID is not and never has been a reliable way of determining the origin of a call (either the number, the person, or even the location).
Caller ID 'blocking' is not and never has been a reliable way of hiding the origin of a phone call (either the number, the person, or the location).
Knowing a phone number at which you can reach a particular person or organization (or from which they placed a call to you), does not necessarily tell you anything about their location.
Prior to cell phones and the Internet, a number could certainly give you a general idea as to the state/city/county/etc where a given line was located. If it was the public number of a business or organization, you could often find that information.
Enter cellphones - all you could tell was the general location of the address of the person that opened the cell account. Given the mobile nature of a cell, only the cell company would be able to have any idea as to the actual location of the person/phone, and only when it was turned on.
Enter the Internet - previously, if you knew a name, and that person has a listed number, you could find it. Once that database became available electronically, it was a simple matter to sort (or search) by the number, making the reverse true. You might get just a name, you might get an address. Again, only if its 'listed'. Now there are companies that (for a fee) claim to be able to do lookups for unlisted numbers as well.
Enter VoIP - all bets are off. You can be in NY and get a CA number. You can sign up in TX, have the service there, and you can take your ATA on a roadtrip to FL, plug it into your cousin's Internet, and when you call it will still show your TX phone number as the origin of the call (either directly or via this 800-forwarding silliness) There are even cheap services that let you make outbound calls to the PSTN, without even having an actual line or number - they either send no caller ID, or a number from one of their pools, which could be anywhere, even dozens of states away.
Solution for 'women's shelters': The residents chip in together and get a basic prepaid cellphone. This could be done with coordination of the staff, or without. No name or address ever gets associated with the number. The residents share it to make calls to anyone to whom they do not want to reveal their location. They let the cell's callerID show up, but they turn off the ringer, or block all inbound calls so they go to voicemail. Instruct their 'abusive' husbands that they are sharing a phone and that they must leave a voicemail to reach them, which must state who they are and who they are calling. This also leaves the 'abusive' husband a means to reach his ex, but without knowing where she is.
Solutions for 'people who want to know is calling' - lowtech: screen with an answering machine - hightech - answer if you recognize caller ID, i there is none or you don't recognize it,let it go to voicemail (It is possible for someone you want to talk to to call from a number you don't recognize, or from somewhere that provides no caller id - maybe your bank's antifraud dept is calling you to verify a transaction)
Notwithstanding the right of an adult (including a battered spouse) to withhold their location from another adult (such as the spouse doing the battering,) both parents of a child have the right to know where the *child* is living, until and unless a court says otherwise.