Previous Issue (Only one)
Classified Ads
TD Extra News

Add this Digest to your personal   or  

 

Message Digest Volume 28 : Issue 37 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Arguing with Verizon over whether $0.002 = 0.002 cents Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters ====== 27 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ====== Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer, and other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:48:28 -0600 From: gordonb.3trc8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <zdadnR2DPogR_BfUnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> >First, I don't believe 911 (or inward 800) use 'caller id', but rather >a more secure ANI to get the calling number. How much of the ANI can be spoofed given that the line is connected to a large company PBX (say, that of a telemarketing company with no morals) that is somewhat trusted by the telco systems? >Second, if any VOIP system is unable to provide a proper ANI and meet >all other existing standards, it should be forbidden to connect to the >POTS network. How do you stop them? There are apparently some VOIP-gateways registered in E.164 for public use, and many of them don't seem to care much about the ANI information supplied (since they are routing to 800 numbers, billing isn't an issue) and run apparently by phone companies. Do those have to be secured or shut down? What I'm not sure about is whether these permit dialing "911", and if you do, where the call goes. 800 numbers, though, are apparently easy to route. If I were a prankster intent on doing something illegal, I would *NOT* count on the gateways not having any IP logs. VOIP seems to allow provider-free (by this I mean there is no VOIP provider like Vonage or Skype - somewhere there is an internet service provider) operation so some kid setting up Asterisk on his desktop, or just programming an unlocked $100 VOIP phone, and these people may not even *HAVE* proper ANI, and maybe can't even get it. It also seems to allow private phone operation that doesn't connect to POTS, which might be fine with the usual bad guys like terrorist groups, drug dealers, and some spread-out company with a lot of call volume that wants to avoid a lot of fees and taxes. >It's up to VOIP to modify itself to be compatible with >the existing network. It's utterly not fair to expect users of the >existing network to pay extra to modify it to accomodate newcomer >VOIP. >Third, I believe almost all 911 centers record all calls and have done >so for years. Thus, pranksters leave some identification behind. I wonder if any of them have done things like setting up a text-to-speech converter using only clips from presidential news conferences or campaigns so a voiceprint analysis would match Bush or Obama. Or your favorite TV newscaster. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 06:09:23 -0800 (PST) From: "harold@hallikainen.com" <harold@hallikainen.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <4e4d1902-5cf6-4107-9dea-0ec4479cf39f@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com> On Feb 4, 4:10 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Second, if any VOIP system is unable to provide a proper ANI and meet > all other existing standards, it should be forbidden to connect to the > POTS network.  It's up to VOIP to modify itself to be compatible with > the existing network.  It's utterly not fair to expect users of the > existing network to pay extra to modify it to accomodate newcomer > VOIP. The FCC established part 9 of its rules in 2005 mandating E911 capability for VoIP services that interconnect to POTS (see http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2009/9/). However, these rules are aimed at making sure 911 works when someone picks up a phone, not a computer. The rules define a VoIP service as (among other things) "(3) Requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); and (4) Permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched telephone network and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network." This appears to exempt services that do not provide a POTS number to receive calls and services that use a computer instead of VoIP adapter. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:32:13 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <a8f84fdd-d935-41b3-9a1a-1c763692025f@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com> On Feb 5, 11:24 am, "har...@hallikainen.com" <har...@hallikainen.com> wrote: > This appears to > exempt services that do not provide a POTS number to receive calls and > services that use a computer instead of VoIP adapter. The exemption should be withdrawn and the FCC regulations written in such a way to protect the POTS network, landline subscribers, and of course 911 service centers from intentional or accidental abuse and interference. These regulations should be strictly enforced. Perhaps the machines wehre VOIP interfaces with the POTS network could run random tests on VOIP lines to ensure validity (the costs of such tests would be paid by VOIP providers as a cost of access to the network). Gordon wrote: >It also seems to allow private phone operation that doesn't connect >to POTS, which might be fine with the usual bad guys like terrorist >groups, drug dealers, and some spread-out company with a lot of >call volume that wants to avoid a lot of fees and taxes. The rest of us pay those fees and taxes where the others get a free ride. That's not fair and bad public policy. This nonsense policy of "encouraging competition" or "new technology" is not in the public interest and is a convenient excuse by cream skimmers and cheap outfits to save money at the expense of the rest of us, and reduce the quality of our network service. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:02:29 +0000 (UTC) From: ranck@vt.edu To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <gmf2il$9a9$3@solaris.cc.vt.edu> hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > On Feb 4, 11:39??am, Monty Solomon <mo...@roscom.com> wrote: > > > > Prank callers are using VoIP and caller ID spoofing services to pull > First, I don't believe 911 (or inward 800) use 'caller id', but rather > a more secure ANI to get the calling number. I wondered the same thing. Of course, the 911 center probably gets the ANI of the land line that connects the VOIP call to the network. That is certainly legitimate, and it shouldn't take much to identify the VOIP interconnect numbers in a given 911 service area. > Third, I believe almost all 911 centers record all calls and have done > so for years. Thus, pranksters leave some identification behind. It should not be too hard to back track from the ANI of the interconnect with time and date info to the actual caller for prank calls. I'd be more concerned about *real* emergency calls, and getting real address information. If the ANI just identifies some interconnect facility in some switch room, that's not too useful. If the call center *also* gets 'caller id' info with the real caller's address then that's sort of OK, and I wonder if not being 'caller id' capable is the thing that makes some centers unready. A few well publicized presecutions of VOIP companies that fail to cooperate with 911 centers to identify pranksters should put a stop to most of it. It wouldn't take much programming effort to disallow ANI/caller id spoofing on any call to 911. Bill Ranck Blacksburg, Va. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 18:25:39 +0000 (UTC) From: danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <gmfav3$cd9$3@reader1.panix.com> In <gmf2il$9a9$3@solaris.cc.vt.edu> ranck@vt.edu writes: [ snip ] >A few well publicized presecutions of VOIP companies that fail >to cooperate with 911 centers to identify pranksters should put >a stop to most of it. It wouldn't take much programming effort >to disallow ANI/caller id spoofing on any call to 911. The PSAPS (Public Safety Answering Positions, AKA 911 centers) and their political overlords aren't entirely blameless here. It should be trivial, and should be mandatory... that any call coming into a PSAP from a "questionable", for want of a better term, source, get a Big Note on the screen saying something like "this caller is from a questionable source. Make sure you triple check any and all info". While that wouldn't eliminate all spoofs, it would dramatically reduce the concerns. Alas, 911 centers are woefully underfunded. In most localities there's a "911 surcharge" that's added to phone lines, supposedly to be dedicated to the PSAPs and their upkeep. (Let's leave aside the whole issue of whether there even should be such a special charge as opposed to funding from the regular tax revenue stream). In reality, in the vast majority of cases, that money simply goes into a general gov't fund and gets diverted as the winds blow that day. -- _____________________________________________________ Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key dannyb@panix.com [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:19:45 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <979e05cd-d51f-4cb6-8636-07dd5af62e8d@a12g2000pro.googlegroups.com> On Feb 5, 2:17 pm, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote: > It should be trivial, and should be mandatory... that any call > coming into a PSAP from a "questionable", for want of a better > term, source, get a Big Note on the screen saying something > like "this caller is from a questionable source. Make sure > you triple check any and all info". Good idea. > Alas, 911 centers are woefully underfunded. In most localities > there's a "911 surcharge" that's added to phone lines, supposedly > to be dedicated to the PSAPs and their upkeep. 911 centers are not new. Even before the telephone, public safety agencies had callboxes and dispatching centers, first using telegraph, then voice, to handle requests from the public to dispatch units. Who paid for the dispatchers before the use of "911"? Also, before 911 Bell System operators often acted as an intermediary in forwarding emergency requests. A person could dial zero, tell the operator "Help! My house is on fire at 1234 Main St!", hang up, and the operator would then call the fire department and pass along the information. The old Bell System was once proud of this service and honored operators who helped little kids and others in emergencies. Costs were paid by the telephone company. (Today baby Bells strongly discourage dialing zero in an emergency and other carriers probably don't even answer '0' calls). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:23:26 -0800 (PST) From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <08a5b650-68bc-49fb-badb-68367137c2ec@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com> On Feb 5, 11:28 am, ra...@vt.edu wrote: > A few well publicized presecutions of VOIP companies that fail > to cooperate with 911 centers to identify pranksters should put > a stop to most of it.  It wouldn't take much programming effort > to disallow ANI/caller id spoofing on any call to 911. Unfortunately, cheapo business people providing cut-rate services play the odds knowing the chance of getting in trouble are very low. That's why so many telemarketers blantantly violate the rules--they know it's very hard for a consumer to make a complaint that the authorities will pay attention to, and then, act on it. The only way to ensure strict compliance is to aggressively enforce the rules and 'pull the plug' of VOIP or any other providers who fail to comply. When their subscribers find the network is blocked to them they'll start screaming and the VOIP operator will either get it fixed or be out of business. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:25:32 -0600 From: Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Arguing with Verizon over whether $0.002 = 0.002 cents Message-ID: <NJOdnSpKI7BPGBfUnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@posted.visi> Youtube (audio) of a conversation, reportedly with Verizon customer service, over whether 35,896K of data at 0.002 cents/K should cost $71.79. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCJ3Oz5JVKs There's a transcript at http://consumerist.com/consumer/asinine/transcript-verizon-doesnt-know-how-to-count-220723.php, but Youtube has taken down their version of the recording. This may have been reported here before, though I can't find it via google groups. A web search does show that the recording has been around (and talked about) since at least 2005, so it's not terribly current. Dave ***** Moderator's Note ***** Having been an engineer at Verizon, I can sympathize with both the customer and the Service Representatives heard on this recording: the customer, who is astonished that anyone would mistake fractional milage for cents or cents for dollars, and the reps, who can't believe that their computer could possibly make a mistake. Truth be told, I was often astonished at how dumb my cow-orkers sometimes appeared - being young and callow, I didn't know how much the drudgery of day-to-day life in a bureaucracy can deaden the mind and calcify the conscience. Suffice to say that I'm more forgiving now. Bill Horne Temporary Moderator ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:35:15 +0000 (UTC) From: Koos van den Hout <koos+newsposting@kzdoos.xs4all.nl> To: redacted@invalid.telecom.csail.mit.edu Subject: Re: 911 service not prepared for new generation of pranksters Message-ID: <gmff1j$a02$8@kzdoos.xs4all.nl> Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com> wrote in <p06240812c5aed82f8042@[10.0.1.6]>: > Prank callers are using VoIP and caller ID spoofing services to pull > expensive wool over the eyes of 911 call centers. Solutions are > available to bring these centers into the 21st century, but even the > cheapest ones are priced outside the realm of the aging service. My take on what is happening: - Telco systems are used to having a high level of trust in the data presented via connections with other phone systems. Why? Billing is based on this data so any dispute about the data presented via the connection is a disagreement about money and fixing it was paramount. - The main protocol used by VOIP applications, SIP, is a protocol that can be used for connections to end terminals (phones) but also for connections between exchanges. Caller-ID is one of the things the caller can tell the other end, the other end has the option to ignore this information. - Some VOIP providers accept the transmitted caller-id information from their clients and forward the given caller-id to the (SS7?) networks of the telephone companies. As long as they get paid for the minutes, they don't care much. Koos van den Hout -- Koos van den Hout Homepage: http://idefix.net/~koos/ PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 Webprojects: Camp Wireless http://www.camp-wireless.org/ The Virtual Bookcase http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. The Telecom Digest is currently being moderated by Bill Horne while Pat Townson recovers from a stroke. Contact information: Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 781-784-7287 bill at horne dot net Subscribe: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom Unsubscribe: mailto:telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest Copyright (C) 2008 TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of The Telecom digest (9 messages) ******************************