[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.

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 

I always stick with the generic announcement; that way, they don't hear my 
actual voice[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