Slashback: Stupidity, Telebastardy, Fast Search

Slashback tonight with updates and corrections on Overture's Fast Search acquisition (overstated in a previous story), sex.com's sordid adventures in California, the ongoing struggle involving telemarketers vs. your privacy, and more -- read on for the details.

Just the parts that matter. Peter Gorman of FastSearch writes:

"I read your Overture/FAST story on Slashdot and wanted to make a clarification.

Your headline implies that Overture is completely acquiring FAST. This is completely incorrect. Overture has only acquired FAST's Internet business unit assets, which includes FAST WebSearch, FAST PartnerSite and FAST's popular search site, AlltheWeb.com."

Thanks for the correction, Peter.

Isn't that the stuff that sells? icantblvitsnotbutter writes "In what looks like a scoop, The Register has an article covering the latest in the ongoing battle between Gary Kremen and VeriSign. The High Court of California has rejected a request to consider the legal issue of whether a domain can legally be deemed as property. This is a huge help for (relatively) money-strapped Kremen, whose opponent VeriSign was evidently using the request as a delaying tactic. VeriSign previously had breathlessly warned that a wrong decision would 'cripple the Internet'."

And they made such a pleasant version of Debian, too ... robmered writes "Three years after receiving US$135M in cash from Microsoft, and one and a half years after Xandros bought Corel's Linux assets, The Age is reporting that Corel has finally removed all Linux software from its website. The end of an era, or a margin note in history? The Age thinks the former, but the strength of Open Office, Gimp and numerous desktop environment efforts seem to indicate that the Linux bandwagon will roll on regardless."

Certainly, I would like to talk at length about your business proposal. Would you like to know my fees in advance? KC7GR writes "There's an article running at DMNews about a company called Castel, Inc. that has, supposedly, developed software that can be used by automated dialing equipment to bypass a TeleZapper, or similar SIT generators, and get through to your phone no matter what.

It is also claimed that the software can deliver any type of text or phone number to a recipient's caller ID box, no matter if it's true or false, and that it can also bypass the anti-telemarketer blocks made available by some telephone companies, such as SBC and Qwest.

Granted, this software is not cheap (about $2,700.00 per calling position, apparently), and Castel is quick to claim that they created this stuff primarily for collection agencies to help them get through to deadbeats who use TeleZappers. Does anyone here really think that'll stop telemarketers from using the same crap, just because they can?"

Brevity is one antidote to stupidity. Yoda2 writes "Here is Part II of the Salon story on the Loebner Prize that Slashdot covered yesterday."

TeleZapper article, now with less /. effect

[Tofino]

A possibly less slashdotted version of the TeleZapper article can be found at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20030225/1553220. shtml [techdirt.com].

Other ways to fight TeleSpam...

[Dave21212]

(As I mentioned [slashdot.org] early Thursday...)

There are still ways to fight [bidstrup.com] the estimated 19 million calls per day (6.8 billion/year), but passing the out of service tones might not be one of them any longer.

"Rain [slashdot.org]" posted [slashdot.org] these tones in a prior discussion [slashdot.org].

Re:This call is from POTUS.

[planet x pat]

Actually that would be illegal. If they do give you information, it must be the correct info. Check this out ...
http://www.junkbusters.com/fcc.html

BTW, I write software for ACDs not PDs; but I do know a little about the business.

Yeah, right

[taustin]

It is also claimed that the software can deliver any type of text or phone number to a recipient's caller ID box, no matter if it's true or false, and that it can also bypass the anti-telemarketer blocks made available by some telephone companies, such as SBC and Qwest.

Anybody with an IDSL or PBX phone system can put in anything they want on Caller ID. And recognizing SIT tones is a feature on better telemarketing rigs, and generally one that can be turned off. They don't "bypass" the telezapper, they simply ignore it. Duh.

On the other hand, any telemarketer that pays $2700 for something so obivously a ripoff will get no sympathy from me.

Telezapper and other cheese

[rot26]

All the telezapper does it emit the first of the three tones in a standard SIT signal... you know, the little "doo dee dweep the number you have dialed is no longer in service" thing you get from time to time. This tone is handled in the automated dialing software the same way that any other tones (1,2,3,#,etc) are... i.e. however the programmer wants to handle it, depending on the application. There's no magic involved in "getting around" a telezapper, it would involve one line of programming code to simply ignore it.

by the way, you don't NEED a telezapper... if you use an answering machine, just record the SIT tone (or even the first 1/3rd of it) at the beginning of your outgoing message. Human callers expect weird noises from answering machines, they just ignore it. But automated dialers which are programmed to look for it assume the number is disconnected.

To get the SIT tones, just google up sit.wav, you can find it all over the place.

Re:What about 911?

[rot26]

But what about 911? They use something other than Caller ID, don't they? Something that can't be spoofed by the end user? If they don't, or it can in fact be spoofed as well, I can see quite a bit of abuse once this practice becomes mainstream. What is their "special" Caller ID called? How is it transmitted to them? Can regular people receive it?

What you're talking about is ANI, which IIRC is "automated number information". It's out-of-band information (unlike caller ID) which is primarily used for billing purposes by whatever carriers lie between the caller and callee. It cannot be blocked (unless you're one of the rated carriers in the middle, then you're regulated out the ass anyway.)

I used to write automated call software (incoming and outgoing) and I worked with this all the time. It used to REALLY piss off people who have their caller ID blocked (or have used *67) yet have their number recognized anyway. Hehehe.

Re:I always knew the day would come...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Correct. NY and CT no longer outlaw detectors. Though I thought I had heard otherwise, DC also appears to continue to outlaw them along with VA. They certainly don't put up signs like VA does.

http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/radar4.htm l

Overcoming Telezapper Type Blocks

[jmcharry]

Since these devices answer, then play the SIT tones, a fair number of predictive dialers are immune to them anyway. The reason is that they detect answer supervision and move their tone detectors to another call. Real SITs are sent without answer supervision, and moving the detectors to the next call saves resources.

As to sending false CLID, a PRI trunk can be made to do it, if the carrier doesn't enforce checking. For that much outbound calling, probably a lot of carriers would be more than happy, if they bother doing that in any case.

I don't know, or perhaps don't recall, where the name lookup is done. If it is from the A end, it would be equally easy to fake. If it is done at the receiving telco, they would have to give the real number of the institution being faked.

There is a plethora of discussion on Telezappers in comp.dcom.telecom. Check the Google archive.

Re:Anonymous surfing using this technology?

[awx]

141 just sends on an out-of-bound bit as part of the call setup info - it goes right to the terminating exchange. However if the terminating exchange chooses not to honour the request for privacy, your number comes up. It's still passed along with the rest of the call data, it's just whether the system choses to obey it.

Try it on a mate on a regonal private phone network - I seem to remember calling BT->Mercury your number would still come up.

141 as a prefix won't hide your number. 999 services don't honour it and I can't see why by special arrangement that the terminating equipment at your ISP would honour it as well, especially with new data rentention laws being bandied around.

Re:What about 911?

[Phexro]

Don't know about 911, but corporate customers can get ANI (Automatic Number Identification) on their lines. Some prefixes have ANI built-in, like 888. ANI has been around for a long time, long before CID. I'm sure that googling will turn up tons and tons of information on ANI for you, if you're more interested.

CID has always been a consumer-level service, and this just shows that a little better.

Re:I always knew the day would come...

[number11]

Q: How do you detect a radar detector?

1. AFAIK they are superhet receivers like most other receivers. They have a local oscillator, which usually has some leakage. Detect that and you've detected the detector. Just as the UK used to enforce their radio/TV tax with detector vans. Or as the recent slashdot story about interactive billboards that tailor their pitch to what radio station you're listening to.

2. Stand up on the overpass watching traffic go by. Aim your radar gun at the vehicles moving away from you and press the trigger. Note which cars' brake lights suddenly come on. Radio the cop who's waiting up around the next curve.

Re:Can we use ANI instead of CID?

[Dahan]

You can get the ANI if you have a toll-free number... I guess the idea is that you're paying for the call, so you have the right to know who's calling or something. A couple years ago, you could call 1-800-MY-ANI-IS and get the number of the phone you were calling from read back to you. Apparently it got abused too much and they (MCI, I think) discontinued it or something.

Re:Can we use ANI instead of CID?

[rot26]

Are there devices that can get the ANI data, outside of being a 911 operator? Or does the phone company only allow certain circuits access to ANI?

It's been five years since I was in the telecom industry, so things have probably changed. But at the time, the only way to get ANI was to have a leased line directly into the switch of a carrier who was willing to provide it. (Not all were... some would only provide it to other tarriffed carriers. I don't know if this was a legal thing or just their way of not having to deal with riff-raff like me.) However, in any given area (basically all over the US) I never had any problem finding a provider, although since it involved a leased line (be it POTS, ISDN, whatever) it was very expensive, and as someone else mentioned, it's only available with a toll-free number, so in addition to leased-line costs you get to pay for all the phone calls too.