[Cryptography] Cryptography for consensual sex in California ?
Dave Horsfall
dave at horsfall.org
Thu Oct 2 15:20:38 EDT 2014
On Thu, 2 Oct 2014, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> Phone companies have done this (in a limited way) for years: If you are
> faced with a harassing phone call, you hang up and enter some key
> sequence. Information about the caller is saved at the phone company,
> which will make it available only to internal investigators or the
> police, and only at your request. In the past, they'd sometimes require
> you to sign an agreement to prosecute before they'd give you the
> information.
In Australia at least, you have to report it yourself (there is no magic
code) and you must agree to prosecute before they'll even investigate.
[...]
> Since CallerID has made the identification of the caller almost
> universally available, the old "privacy" arguments that drove the design
> are mainly irrelevant today. In fact, the whole mechanism is probably
> more or less obsolete. I'm not sure if it's even offered any more.
I have a firm policy of never answering calls if the number is blocked;
they get to talk to the machine instead.[0] This also means that I never
answer overseas calls, but then again I don't know anyone overseas; almost
all call centres are now located thus, however.
[0]
Which leads to an amusing exchange whenever a robo-caller gets me; they
talk right over the top of the announcement[1] making it utterly
illegible, and I usually wind up with "Press 1 to accept this call" on the
recording.
[1]
I always stick with the generic announcement; that way, they don't hear my
actual voice[2].
[2]
Yes, I've had people stalking me.
Jeeze, all they have to do is leave a sodding message, and I will call
them back on *my* sixpence. I guess that they don't want me to...
-- Dave
More information about the cryptography
mailing list