Jump to content

Talk:Caller ID

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NoBiggie (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 12 July 2007 (→‎Too much material in the introduction: Cleaned up top-heavyness and neutrality.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Section cut from main article

--Misleading/Incorrect Information-- This article suggests that caller name (or cnam) and telephone number id are the same service. They are not. Telephone number ID is a standard SS7 service that displays the ANI or calling number. CNAM requires an SS7 query to a database of names associated with those numbers. This is why it's common in many areas to view the number of a caller, but not the name, or possibly receive city/state or "anonymous" as a name. The two are related by SS7, but they are not the same service.

Spoofing and falsification

In August 2004, a company called Star38 announced that it would offer a service in the U.S., which would allow subscribers to falsify the name and/or number they are calling from. The idea came from hackers, who have been using VoIP to spoof numbers as pranks. The vulnerability comes from the trust-based design of caller ID, whereby the telephone exchange receiving the call trusts the sending exchange to provide the correct number, and the sender trusts the receiver to keep the number private, if it is indicated as a blocked or anonymous number.

The exploit uses digital telephone lines of private branch exchanges, which have been able to alter their outgoing CID information for years because they are a "trusted" part of the CID system. Likewise, they can also ignore the "private number" flag for incoming calls. Star38 will allow subscribers to have this information passed along to their own phones, and will be controlled via the web. Star38 says it will limit the service to private investigators, collection agencies and the like, and will charge 20$ per month and 7~10¢ per minute.

There is some useful information here, but if it is in the US, why not put it in the automatic number identification article. 'Announced' is really enough to warrant a mention, and no one needs the advert. -- Solipsist 19:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I actually came here today to see how updated Wikipedia was on this. Apparently the guy between Star38 has decided to sell his business after 3 days online. He claims that he received death threats from hackers opposing commercialization of this technology / vulnerability. I think that the section should be structured the other way around. It should first discuss the spoofing technique was discovered and when it was first publicly demonstrated (I know that it was demonstrated at the H.O.P.E. conference in New York in June/July). Then, it should move on to talk about Star38's commercial implementation of the technique. — David Remahl 23:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. The trouble is that this information is a little tangential to explaining what callerID is. However, it sounds like there is enough here for an article on 'caller ID spoofing' itself and link from this page - it sounds like it is a continuation of the history of phone phreaking. -- Solipsist 22:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


*67

Why am I redirected to this page when I type in *67? The page makes absolutely no mention of it. —preceding unsigned comment by 69.117.180.164 (talk • contribs)

Good question. Looking at the history of the redirect page, it was originally redirected to Last Call Return then switched to point here. At a guess this is a code some telcos use to return the CallerID of the last call received (in the UK the code is usually 1471). I'm not sure it is a particularly good redirect to have it would probably be better to have these codes in a table on one page with links to pages describing the appropriate services and some explanation of the telco's / territories where they are used.

See Also

There seems to be a lot of text in the "See-Also" section. Wouldn't it be better to put most of this into appropriate sections? Perhaps I will when I get time. The Slimey 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Too much material in the introduction

There's way too much material in the introduction, i.e., before the first section break, appearing before the table of contents. It seems to launch directly into a technical history of the implementation of this feature. Instead, the introduction should be a short definition of the term, plus maybe a short summary of the most important information imparted in the article. --Teemu Leisti 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noted that, and split it up into more managable chunks, but the article is still way too heavy on the technical jargon. Aaack. I would rewrite the entire article, but as I don't know much about Caller ID, I'll leave that task to the technical expert. Hbdragon88 06:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. --Teemu Leisti 15:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still too top-heavy to me. Telemarketing-specific information seems to deserve its own subheading, and move it out of intro. Also several issues related to CID and telemarketing could be added, such as legal requirements (in the US) that CID can not be blocked, and use of CID-base advertising. I also agree with the sense that there is too much technical info intertwined in the general information. I would propose a separate heading of "Technical Information" and move history and tech info under that. I volunteer to clean it up next month unless I see some objections. --NoBiggie 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no objections, I have cleaned up things, and moved the overly-technical information out of the intro (added by Ss7guru). I also deleted the paragraph 10 also added by Ss7guru which lacked neutrality and was really an unsupported plug for the telemarketing industry to be allowed to spoof. I added a "Legal" section with citations. Rather than one giant edit, I'll come back later and do more cleanup.

Why *67 *82

Of all the numbers availabee, why were *67 and *82 chosen for blocking and unblocking caller id. 82 represents letters UB which could be short for Un Block, but not sure what 67 would be No Send? Anyone know how these got chosen?

Definition of "hacking"

"Using services like Vonage or Skype, calling from a payphone, or using a calling card are easy means to fool caller ID." How on earth does this constitute hacking the caller id system? At most it is circumventing. Shouldn't the header be changed? Nichlas 10:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caller_ID&oldid=144193654"