Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: mis@seiden.com (Mark Seiden)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: PT's Moment of Fame
Message-ID: <9987@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 90 05:37:01 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 67
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 503, Message 8 of 8


Patrick:

I've just received the governments's response to the motions of
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the defendant Neidorf to dismiss
the indictment.

You may not be aware that an article by you in Phrack 21, entitled
"Non-Published Numbers" is mentioned in a recitation of the icky and
allegedly felonious stuff Neidorf has been indicted for distributing.
I quote:

"On November 4, 1988, "Phrack 21" was published containing a tutorial
on how to obtain non-published numbers from Illinois Bell, and an
article by Neidorf outlining the critical role played by the telephone
company's Network Management Center in telecommunications and "the
protection of essential services such as 911, during abnormal network
situations."... etc.

The government lies. I just read the article.  What it says is that if
there's an emergency (or some other nontrivial reason) there is a
*procedure* by which an authorized intermediary will get in touch with
a nonpublished number and ask them if they want to talk to you, either
by calling you back or by releasing their number for you to call them.
I see no mechanism shown by which a nonpublished number can be
obtained without the consent of the subscriber.

I'm surprised you haven't been indicted over this one.


Mark Seiden, mis@seiden.com, 203 329 2722


[Moderator's Note: There is nothing indictable about it. As you point
out, that very old article by me (I stress this, since the procedures
have changed somewhat in recent years), was a discussion of the
procedure to follow in making emergency contact with a subscriber with
a non-pub number, and the efforts taken by telcos (or at least IBT) to
protect the privacy of their customers. Several years ago, much of the
same information was distributed as a form letter response to people
who called or wrote to complain, "why can't I get the number of
so-and-so because my call is very important, etc".  

Interestingly enough, no, I did not know that it was picked up by
Phrack and used in an issue of that publication. Since I was never a
reader of Phrack, I really would not know what all of mine they
published in the past. Truth be told, I can't remember now *who* I
wrote that article for; I can't find it in the old issues of the
Digest, however the Telecom Archives prior to October, 1988 is missing
many old issues. I think I originally wrote it in 1982/83 for the BBS
I sysopped briefly for the Chicago Public Library. I don't even have a
copy of it in my old files, or I would re-run it here.   

The essence of it was that the Non-Pub Number Bureau was the keeper of
subscriber phone numbers of that type. The Non-Pub Number Bureau
itself had a non-pub number, available to a few employees at IBT with
a 'need to know'. If such a number was needed in a dire emergency;
i.e. a death in the family, a fire, something of catastrophic
proportions, then the person needing to make contact could plead his
case to a Directory Assistance supervisor. The supervisor would take
the matter to the Chief Operator. Their stock answer was "don't call
us, we'll call you back later", and after someone conferred with the
non-pub subscriber, giving them *your name* and *your number*, then
you would be called back and advised (a) of the phone number you were
seeking, or (b) that the non-pub party had been alerted to your
request and elected to call you instead, or (c) chose to ignore your
request.  PT]