34 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981
Copyright © 2016 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.

The Telecom Digest for Mon, 13 Jun 2016
Volume 35 : Issue 88 : "text" format

Table of contents
Federal Court allows Police Warrantless Access to Cell Phone Location DataBill Horne
History -- long distances rates 1927HAncock4
Appeals Court Overturns Privacy Win in Phone-Tracking Case [teleccom]Bill Horne
Re: Today's telephone operator workforce? Gordon Burditt
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <20160612213002.GA16651@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:30:02 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Federal Court allows Police Warrantless Access to Cell Phone Location Data by Nicholas Lavino (CN) - Police do not need a warrant to acquire cellphone-location data from wireless companies, the en banc Fourth Circuit ruled Monday, dealing a blow to privacy rights. The full court heard the case after its three-judge panel split the other way on the issue last year in United States v. Graham. In that 2015 majority opinion, the panel said consumers have a reasonable expectation of the privacy of their cellphone location data, especially for data covering a long period of time. Tuesday's 12-3 ruling now says retrieving cellphone location data does not violate the right to privacy. Police used 221 days of geographic data to secure convictions against Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan, who were put on trial in 2011 for a string of armed robberies committed in Baltimore and Baltimore County. http://www.allgov.com --- Bill Horne ***** Moderator's Note ***** I think it's time for a constitutional convention. Bill Horne Moderator ------------------------------ Message-ID: <78f6b3c7-0f01-433f-a879-f82057e3d2e2@googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT) From: HAncock4 <withheld@invalid.telecom-digest.org> Subject: History -- long distances rates 1927 I found some ads listing Bell System toll rates from New York City (Manhattan) to various points. By way of comparison, bare bones service from Verizon offers long distance anywhere in the U.S. for 12c per minute. By 1930, long distance was an established process, with specially designed switchboards, routings, and repeater placement. There were subsequent rate decreases. After WW II, dial direct, coaxial cable, and microwave all allowed greater economies of scale, allowing further rate decreases. Bell System Long Distance Rates effective Dec 1, 1927 station to station, first three minutes. From Manhattan, NYC. Evening rates cheaper.
Lawrenceville NJ0.45
Pottstown PA0.70
Washington DC1.20
St. Louis3.50
St. Paul4.00
New Orleans4.50
San Francisco9.00
Great Britain75.00
------------------------------ Message-ID: <20160612212519.GA16628@telecom.csail.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 17:25:19 -0400 From: Bill Horne <bill@horneQRM.net> Subject: Appeals Court Overturns Privacy Win in Phone-Tracking Case [teleccom] by Jacob Gershman Police don't need a warrant to track the cellphones of criminal suspects, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday, reversing an early decision in a closely watched privacy case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held that the government didn't violate the privacy rights of a man convicted of a 2010 armed robbery spree and sentenced to life in prison. The case is the latest digital-age test of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/05/appeals-court-overturns-privacy-win-in-phone-tracking-case/ -- Bill Horne (Remove QRM from my email address to write to me directly) ------------------------------ Message-ID: <ya2dnZU5Wo5D8MbKnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@posted.internetamerica> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:48:14 -0500 From: gordonb.u9j7v@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Today's telephone operator workforce? > One feature I think should still be provided--and without > an onerous charge--is emergency call interrupt. That is, However, this should require an onerous background check (e.g. the same kind police get) and an onerous security deposit (I'm thinking about the price of a new car or a small used house), which is paid to the callee if in the sole opinion of the callee the call wasn't an emergency, or if it was a wrong-number emergency call interrupt. Police officers should be able to bypass both requirements if they put their gun and badge on the line (and lose them permanently if they misuse emergency call interrupt *EVEN ONCE*. Police, be very sure the number you have is correct). > if someone has an emergency and needs to break into an > ongoing conservation, an operator could do so. Emergency: a situation in which property or human life is in jeopardy and the prompt summoning of aid is essential. Potential revenue is not property and aid does not include transmission of advertising. Advertisers always consider not being able to get in contact with a potential customer as an emergency, especially if the customer has their caller-ID blocked (something which is often ineffective anyway). I wonder how often it has happened (before widespread DSL and cable modems, in the era of dialup ISPs) that emergency call interrupt was used to break into a (residential) modem connection, the call dropped (NO CARRIER) and then the modem/computer redialled the call, and no human present had any idea that anyone was trying to reach them. I'm having a problem thinking of an emergency where calling 911 is not a more appropriate response to the situation, unless it's first responders making the call. e.g. "Shut off the gas and electric power in <area>, we've got live downed power wires and a major gas leak due to an 18-wheeler hitting a power pole and gas meter. Major risk of explosion". First responders should not have to interrupt a call for that: utility companies should have emergency lines, known to first responders, that don't get flooded by customers every severe thunderstorm that knocks down power lines. The same applies to contacts for chemical plants, oil refineries, or any other business where the workers may have to respond to a threat of fire. I'm sorry, these are not emergencies: "Joe needs to be bailed out of jail." (unless the jail is on fire). "Your ${relative} is dying in the hospital." (unless perhaps I'm a doctor and the only one around) "This is your neighbor calling: your house is on fire." (Call 911 first, not me! You expect ME to go buy a fire extinguisher and come home in half an hour? Sure, I'd like to know, but it's not an emergency, and the fire department is better than me at getting people out and putting out fires, and should get there sooner.) "World War III has started." What do you expect me to do about that? Obama has all sorts of emergency communications and procedures in case he has to respond to someone launching missiles in the middle of his campaign speech. I don't. > Most carriers have eliminated this service in recent years, > despite charging a high fee. ------------------------------ ********************************************* End of telecom Digest Mon, 13 Jun 2016

Telecom Digest Archives