The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998 / hackers_encyclopedia.iso / zines / n_z / pirate2.007 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 47.6 KB | 947 lines

******************************************************* * PHILE 7: Teleconnect Wants Your Rights * ******************************************************* The Lifeblood of the BBS world is the telephone line. If teleco czars begin abusing their public trust by deciding who we can or cannot call, it endangers not only the BSS world, but fundamental freedoms of expression and assembly. Sometimes individual bureaucrats screw up. They make bad decisions, break agreements, or simply are incompetent. No big deal. The danger comes when, by policy, a national utility attempts to curtail or freedoms. TELECONNECT, a long distance carrier out of Iowa, has done this. The three contributions below illustrate how TELECONNECT has attempted to bully some of its users. In the first, TC attempted to block numbers to a bulletin board. In the second, it monitored one its users and decided who that user could and could not call. The third illustrates Teleconnects arrogance. BBS users tend to be a bit fragmented, and when we have a problem, we deal with it individually. We should start banding together. If you are having, or have had, a problem with your teleco crowd, let us know. We will not print real names without permission. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS by Jim Schmickley Hawkeye PC, Cedar Rapids, Iowa SUMMARY. This article describes the "blocking" by one long-distance telephone company of access through their system to certain telephone numbers, particularly BBS numbers. The blocking is applied in a very arbitrary manner, and the company arrogantly asserts that BBS SYSOPS and anyone who uses a computer modem are "hackers." The company doesn't really want to discuss the situation, but it appears the following scenario occurred. The proverbial "person or persons unknown" identified one or more "valid" long-distance account numbers, and subsequently used those numbers on one or more occasions to fraudulently call a legitimate computer bulletin board system (BBS). When the long-distance company discovered the fraudulent charges, they "blocked" the line without bothering to investigate or contacting the BBS System Operator to obtain his assistance. In fact, the company did not even determine the SYSOP's name. The long-distance carrier would like to pretend that the incident which triggered the actions described in this article was an isolated situation, not related to anything else in the world. However, there are major principles of free, uninhibited communications and individual rights deeply interwoven into the issue. And, there is still the lingering question, "If one long-distance company is interfering with their customers' communications on little more than a whim, are other long-distant companies also interfering with the American public's right of free 'electronic speech'?" CALL TO ACTION. Your inputs and protests are needed now to counter the long-distance company's claims that "no one was hurt by their blocking actions because nobody complained." Obviously nobody complained for a long time because the line blocking was carried out in such a manner that no one realized, until April 1988, what was being done. Please read through the rest of this article (yes, it's long, but you should find it very interesting) and judge for yourself. Then, please write to the organizations listed at the end of the article; insist that your right to telephone whatever number you choose should not be impaired by the arbitrary decision of some telephone company bureaucrat who really doesn't care about the rights of his customers. Protest in the strongest terms. And, remember: the rights you save WILL BE YOUR OWN! SETTING THE SCENE. Teleconnect is a long-distance carrier and telephone direct marketing company headquartered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The company is about eight years old, and has a long-distance business base of approximately 200,000 customers. Teleconnect has just completed its first public stock offering, and is presently (August 1988) involved in a merger which will make it the nation's fourth-largest long-distance carrier. It is a very rapidly-growing company, having achieved its spectacular growth by offering long-distance service at rates advertised as being 15% to 30% below AT&T's rates. When Teleconnect started out in the telephone interconnection business, few, if any, exchanges were set up for "equal access", so the company set up a network of local access numbers (essentially just unlisted local PABXs - private automatic branch exchanges) and assigned a six-digit account number to each customer. Later, a seventh "security" digit was added to all account numbers. (I know what you're thinking - what could be easier for a war-games dialer than to seek out "valid" seven-digit numbers?) Teleconnect now offers direct "equal access" dialing on most exchanges. But, the older access number/account code system is still in place for those exchanges which do not offer "equal access." And, that system is still very useful for customers who place calls from their offices or other locations away from home. "BLOCKING" DISCOVERED. In early April 1988, a friend mentioned that Teleconnect was "blocking" certain telephone lines where they detected computer tone. In particular, he had been unable to call Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange BBS in Waterloo, Iowa. This sounded like something I should certainly look into, so I tried to call Curt's BBS. CONTACT WITH TELECONNECT. Teleconnect would not allow my call to go through. Instead, I got a recorded voice message stating that the call was a local call from my location. A second attempt got the same recorded message. At least, they were consistent. I called my Teleconnect service representative and asked just what the problem was. After I explained what happened, she suggested that it must be a local call. I explained that I really didn't think a 70 mile call from Cedar Rapids to Waterloo was a local call. She checked on the situation and informed me that the line was being "blocked." I asked why, and she "supposed it was at the customer's request." After being advised that statement made no sense, she admitted she really didn't know why. So, on to her supervisor. The first level supervisor verified the line was being "blocked by Teleconnect security", but she couldn't or wouldn't say why. Then, she challenged, "Why do you want to call that number?" That was the wrong question to ask this unhappy customer, and the lady quickly discovered that bit of information was none of her business, And, on to her supervisor. The second level supervisor refused to reveal any information of value to a mere customer, but she did suggest that any line Teleconnect was blocking could still be reached through AT&T or Northwestern Bell by dialing 10288-1. When questioned why Teleconnect, which for years had sold its long-distance service on the basis of a cost-saving over AT&T rates, was now suggesting that customers use AT&T, the lady had no answer. I was then informed that, if I needed more information, I should contact Dan Rogers, Teleconnect's Vice President for Customer Service. That sounded good; "Please connect me." Then, "I'm sorry, but Mr. Rogers is out of town, and won't be back until next week." "Next week?" "But he does call in regularly. Maybe he could call you back before that." Mr. Rogers did call me back, later that day, from Washington, D.C. where he and some Teleconnect "security people" were attending a conference on telephone security. TELECONNECT RESPONDS, A LITTLE. Dan Rogers prefaced his conversation with, "I'm just the mouthpiece; I don't understand all the technical details. But, our security people are blocking that number because we've had some problems with it in the past." I protested that the allegation of "problems" didn't make sense because the number was for a computer bulletin board system operated by a reputable businessman, Curt Kyhl. Mr. Rogers said that I had just given Teleconnect new information; they had not been able to determine whose number they were blocking. "Our people are good, but they're not that good. Northwestern Bell won't release subscriber information to us." And, when he got back to his office the following Monday, he would have the security people check to see if the block could be removed. The following Monday, another woman from Teleconnect called to inform me that they had checked the line, and they were removing the block from it. She added the comment that this was the first time in four years that anyone had requested that a line be unblocked. I suggested that it probably wouldn't be the last time. In a later telephone conversation, Dan Rogers verified that the block had been removed from Curt Kyhl's line, but warned that the line would be blocked again "if there were any more problems with it." A brief, non-conclusive discussion of Teleconnect's right to take such action then ensued. I added that the fact that Teleconnect "security" had been unable to determine the identity of the SYSOP of the blocked board just didn't make sense; that it didn't sound as if the "security people" were very competent. Mr. Rogers then admitted that every time the security people tried to call the number, they got a busy signal (and, although Mr. Rogers didn't admit it, they just "gave up", and arbitrarily blocked the line.) Oh, yes, the lying voice message, "This is a local call...", was not intended to deceive anyone according to Dan Rogers. It was just that Teleconnect could only put so many messages on their equipment, and that was the one they selected for blocked lines. BEGINNING THE PAPER TRAIL. Obviously, Teleconnect was not going to pay much attention to telephone calls from mere customers. On April 22, Ben Blackstock, practicing attorney and veteran SYSOP, wrote to Mr. Rogers urging that Teleconnect permit their customers to call whatever numbers they desired. Ben questioned Teleconnect's authority to block calls, and suggested that such action had serious overlays of "big brother." He also noted that "you cannot punish the innocent to get at someone who is apparently causing Teleconnect difficulty." Casey D. Mahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Teleconnect, replied to Ben Blackstock's letter on April 28th. This response was the start of Teleconnect's seemingly endless stream of vague, general allegations regarding "hackers" and "computer billboards." Teleconnect insisted they did have authority to block access to telephone lines, and cited 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(i) as an example of the authority. The Teleconnect position was summed up in the letter: "Finally, please be advised the company is willing to 'unblock' the line in order to ascertain whether or not illegal hacking has ceased. In the event, however, that theft of Teleconnect long distance services through use of the bulletin board resumes, we will certainly block access through the Teleconnect network again and use our authority under federal law to ascertain the identity of the hacker or hackers." THE GAUNTLET IS PICKED UP. Mr. Blackstock checked the cited section of the U.S. Code, and discovered that it related only to "interception" of communications, but had nothing to do with "blocking". He advised me of his opinion and also wrote back to Casey Mahon challenging her interpretation of that section of federal law. In his letter, Ben noted that, "Either Teleconnect is providing a communication service that is not discriminatory, or it is not." He added that he would "become upset, to say the least" if he discovered that Teleconnect was blocking access to his BBS. Mr. Blackstock concluded by offering to cooperate with Teleconnect in seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their "right" to block a telephone number based upon the actions of some third party. To date, Teleconnect has not responded to that offer. On May 13th, I sent my own reply to Casey Mahon, and answered the issues of her letter point by point. I noted that even I, not an attorney, knew the difference between "interception" and "blocking", and if Teleconnect didn't, they could check with any football fan. My letter concluded: "Since Teleconnect's 'blocking' policies are ill-conceived, thoughtlessly arbitrary, anti-consumer, and of questionable legality, they need to be corrected immediately. Please advise me how Teleconnect is revising these policies to ensure that I and all other legitimate subscribers will have uninhibited access to any and all long-distance numbers we choose to call." Casey Mahon replied on June 3rd. Not unexpectedly, she brushed aside all my arguments. She also presented the first of the sweeping generalizations, with total avoidance of specifics, which we have since come to recognize as a Teleconnect trademark. One paragraph neatly sums Casey Mahon's letter: "While I appreciate the time and thought that obviously went into your letter, I do not agree with your conclusion that Teleconnect's efforts to prevent theft of its services are in any way inappropriate. The inter-exchange industry has been plagued, throughout its history, by individuals who devote substantial ingenuity to the theft of long distance services. It is not unheard of for an interexchange company to lose as much as $500,000 a month to theft. As you can imagine, such losses, over a period of time, could drive a company out of business." ESCALATION. By this time it was very obvious that Teleconnect was going to remain recalcitrant until some third party, preferably a regulatory agency, convinced them of the error of their ways. Accordingly, I assembled the file and added a letter of complaint addressed to the Iowa Utilities Board. The complaint simply asked that Teleconnect be directed to institute appropriate safeguards to ensure that "innocent third parties" would no longer be adversely affected by Teleconnect's arbitrary "blocking" policies. My letter of complaint was dated July 7th, and the Iowa Utilities Board replied on July 13th. The reply stated that Teleconnect was required to respond to my complaint by August 2nd, and the Board would then propose a resolution. If the proposed resolution was not satisfactory, I could request that the file be reopened and the complaint be reconsidered. If the results of that action were not satisfactory, a formal hearing could be requested. After filing the complaint, I also sent a copy of the file to Congressman Tom Tauke. Mr. Tauke represents the Second Congressional District of Iowa, which includes Cedar Rapids, and is also a member of the House Telecommunica-tions Subcommittee. I have subsequently had a personal conversation with Mr. Tauke as well as additional correspondence on the subject. He seems to have a deep and genuine interest in the issue, but at my request, is simply an interested observer at this time. It is our hope that the Iowa Utilities Board will propose an acceptable resolution without additional help. AN UNRESPONSIVE RESPONSE. Teleconnect's "response" to the Iowa Utilities Board was filed July 29th. As anticipated, it was a mass of vague generalities and unsubstantiated allegations. However, it offered one item of new, and shocking, information; Curt Kyhl's BBS had been blocked for ten months, from June 6, 1987 to mid-April 1988. (At this point it should be noted that Teleconnect's customers had no idea that the company was blocking some of our calls. We just assumed that calls weren't going through because of Teleconnect's technical problems.) Teleconnect avoided putting any specific, or even relevant, information in their letter. However, they did offer to whisper in the staff's ear; "Teleconnect would be willing to share detailed information regarding this specific case, and hacking in general, with the Board's staff, as it has in the past with various federal and local law enforcement agencies, including the United States Secret Service. Teleconnect respectfully requests, however, that the board agree to keep such information confidential, as to do otherwise would involve public disclosure of ongoing investigations of criminal conduct and the methods by which interexchange carriers, including Teleconnect, detect such theft." There is no indication of whether anyone felt that such a "confidential" meeting would violate Iowa's Open Meetings Law. And, nobody apparently questioned why, during a ten-months long "ongoing investigation", Teleconnect seemed unable to determine the name of the individual whose line they were blocking. Of course, whatever they did was justified because (in their own words), "Teleconnect had suffered substantial dollar losses as a result of the theft of long distance services by means of computer 'hacking' utilizing the computer billboard which is available at that number." Teleconnect's most vile allegation was, "Many times, the hacker will enter the stolen authorization code on computer billboards, allowing others to steal long distance services by utilizing the code." But no harm was done by the blocking of the BBS number because, "During the ten month period the number was blocked, Teleconnect received no complaints from anyone claiming to be the party to whom the number was assigned." The fact that Curt Kyhl had no way of knowing his line was being blocked might have had something to do with the fact that he didn't complain. It was also pointed out that I really had no right to complain since, "First, and foremost, Mr. Schmickley is not the subscriber to the number." That's true; I'm just a long-time Teleconnect customer who was refused service because of an alleged act performed by an unknown third party. Then Teleconnect dumped on the Utilities Board staff a copy of a seven page article from Business Week Magazine, entitled "Is Your Computer Secure?" This article was totally unrelated to the theft of long-distance service, except for an excerpt from a sidebar story about a West German hackers' club. The story reported that, "In 1984, Chaos uncovered a security hole in the videotex system that the German telephone authority, the Deutsche Bundespost, was building. When the agency ignored club warnings that messages in a customer's private electronic mailbox weren't secure, Chaos members set out to prove the point. They logged on to computers at Hamburger Sparkasse, a savings bank, and programmed them to make thousands of videotex calls to Chaos headquarters on one weekend. After only two days of this, the bank owed the Bundespost $75,000 in telephone charges." RESOLUTION WITH A RUBBER STAMP. The staff of the Iowa Utilities Board replied to my complaint by letter on August 19th. They apparently accepted the vague innuendo submitted by Teleconnect without any verification; "Considering the illegal actions reportedly to be taking place on number (319) 236-0834, it appears the blocking was reasonable. However, we believe the Board should be notified shortly after the blocking and permission should be obtained to continue the blocking for any period of time." However, it was also noted that, "Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987) states, 'A utility shall not, except in cases of emergency, discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community or a part of a community, except for nonpayment of account or violation of rules and regulations, unless and until permission to do so is obtained from the Board." The letter further clarified, "Although the Iowa Code is subject to interpretation, it appears to staff that 'emergency' refers to a relatively short time..." CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. Since it appeared obvious that the Utilities Board staff had not questioned or investigated a single one of Teleconnect's allegations, the staff's response was absolutely astounding. Accordingly, I filed a request for reconsideration on August 22nd. Three points were raised in the request for reconsideration: (1) The staff's evaluation should have been focused on the denial of service to me and countless others of Teleconnect's 200,000 customers, and not just on the blocking of incoming calls to one BBS. (2) The staff accepted all of Teleconnect's allegations as fact, although not one bit of hard evidence was presented in support of those allegations. (3) In the words of the staff's own citation, it appeared that Teleconnect had violated Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987) continuously over a ten months' period, perhaps as long as four years. Since Teleconnect had dumped a seven page irrelevant magazine article on the staff, it seemed only fair to now offer a two page completely relevant story to them. This was "On Your Computer - Bulletin Boards", from the June 1988 issue of "Changing Times". This excellent article cited nine BBSs as "good places to get started". Among the nine listed BBSs was Curt Kyhl's "Stock Exchange, Waterloo, Iowa (319-236-0834)." Even the geniuses at Teleconnect ought to be able to recognize that this BBS, recommended by a national magazine, is the very same one they blocked for ten months. MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH. You are now up-to-date on the entire story. Now, we are in the process of spreading the word so that all interested people can contact the Iowa authorities so they will get the message that this case is much bigger than the blocking of one BBS. YOU can help in two ways: First, upload this file to bulletin boards you call. Let's get this message distributed to BBS and modem users across the nation, because the threat is truly to communications across the nation. Second, read the notice appended to this article, and ACT. The notice was distributed at the last meeting of Hawkeye PC Users' Group. If you are a Teleconnect customer, it is very important that you write the agencies listed on the notice. If you are not a Teleconnect customer, but are interested in preserving your rights to uninhibited communications, you can help the cause by writing to those agencies, also. Please, people, write now! Before it is too late! T E L E C O N N E C T C U S T O M E R S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = If you are user of Teleconnect's long distance telephone service, you need to be aware of their "blocking" policy: Teleconnect has been "lashing out" against the callers of bulletin boards and other "computer numbers" by blocking access of legitimate subscribers to certain phone numbers to which calls have been made with fraudulent Teleconnect charge numbers. Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange Bulletin Board in Waterloo has been "blocked" in such a manner. Teleconnect representatives have indicated that other "computer numbers" have been the objects of similar action in the past, and that they (Teleconnect) have a "right" to continue such action in the future. Aside from the trampling of individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, this arbitrary action serves only to "punish the innocent" Teleconnect customers and bulletin board operators, while doing absolutely nothing to identify, punish, or obtain payment from the guilty. The capping irony is that Teleconnect, which advertises as offering significant savings over AT&T long-distance rates, now suggests to complaining customers that the blocked number can still be dialed through AT&T. Please write to Teleconnect. Explain how long you have been a customer, that your modem generates a significant amount of the revenue they collect from you, and that you strongly object to their abritrarily deciding what numbers you may or may not call. Challenge their "right" to institute a "blocking" policy and insist that the policy be changed. Send your protests to: Teleconnect Company Mr. Dan Rogers, Vice President for Customer Service 500 Second Avenue, S.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401 A complaint filed with the Iowa Utilities Board has been initially resolved in favor of Teleconnect. A request for reconsideration has been filed, and the time is NOW for YOU to write letters to the State of Iowa. Please write NOW to: Mr. Gerald W. Winter, Supervisor, Consumer Services Iowa State Utilities Board Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 And to: Mr. James Maret Office of the Consumer Advocate Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319 Write now. The rights you save WILL be your own. August 28,1988 After filing a request for reconsideration of my complaint, I received a reply from the Iowa State Utilities Board which said, in part: "Thank you for your letter dated August 22, 1988, with additional comments concerning your complaint on the blocking of access to certain telephone numbers by Teleconnect. "To ensure that the issues are properly investigated, we are forwarding your comments to the company and requesting a response by September 15, 1988." Again, this is a very large issue. Simply stated, it is: Does ANY telephone company have the right to "block" (or refuse to place) calls to ANY number on the basis of unsubstantiated, uninvestigated charges of "telephone fraud", especially when the alleged fraud was committed by a third party without the knowledge of the called party? In the specific case, the question becomes; Can a long distance carrier refuse to handle calls to a BBS solely because some unknown crook has placed fraudulently-charged calls to that BBS? Read BLOCKERS.ARC, and then make YOUR voice be heard by lodging protests with the agencies listed in that file. Incidentally, when you write, please cite file number C-88-161. If you have any additional information which might be helpful in this battle, please let me know. I check the following BBSs very regularly: Hawkeye RBBS, Ben Blackstock, SYSOP 319-363-3314 ($15/year) The Forum, John Oren, SYSOP 319-365-3163 (Register Free) You can also send info to me via U.S. Mail to: 7441 Commune Court, N.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402 I hope that, by this time, you realize how significant this battle is for all of us. If we lose, it opens the door for telephone companies to dictate to us just who we can (or cannot) call, especially with modems. We CAN'T let that happen! And, thanks for your support. Jim Schmickley Hawkeye PC Users' Group Cedar Rapids, Iowa ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (Reprinted with permisson from author) 17 November, 1988 Customer Service Teleconnect P.O. Box 3013 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-9101 Dear Persons: I am writing in response to my October Teleconnect bill, due 13 November, for $120.76. As you can see, it has not yet been paid, and I would hope to delay payment until we can come to some equi- table resolution of what appears to be a dispute. The records should show that I have paid previous bills responsibly. Hence, this is neither an attempt to delay nor avoid payment. My account number is: 01-xxxx-xxxxxx. My user phone is: 815-xxx- xxxx. The phone of record (under which the account is regis- tered) is: 815-xxx-xxxx. If possible, you might "flag" my bill so I will not begin receiv- ing dunning notices until we resolve the problem. I have several complaints. One is the bill itself, the other is the service. I feel my bill has been inflated because of the poor quality of the service you provide to certain areas of the coun- try. These lines are computer lines, and those over which the dispute occurs are 2400 baud lines. Dropping down to 1200 baud does not help much. As you can see from my bill, there are numer- ous repeat calls made to the same location within a short period of time. The primary problems occured to the following loca- tions: 1. Highland, CA 714-864-4592 2. Montgomery, AL 205-279-6549 3. Fairbanks, AK 907-479-7215 4. Lubbock, TX 806-794-4362 5. Perrine, FL 305-235-1645 6. Jacksonville, FL 904-721-1166 7. San Marcos, TX 512-754-8182 8. Birmingham, AL 205-979-8409 9. N. Phoenix, AZ 602-789-9269 The problem is simply that, to these destinations, Teleconnect can simply not hold a line. AT&T can. Although some of these des- tinations were held for a few minutes, generally, I cannot depend on TC service, and have more recently begun using AT&T instead. Even though it may appear from the records that I maintained some contact for several minutes, this time was useless, because I cold not complete my business, and the time was wasted. An equi- table resolution would be to strike these charges from my bill. I would also hope that the calls I place through AT&T to these destinations will be discounted, rather than pay the full cost. I have enclosed my latest AT&T bill, which includes calls that I made through them because of either blocking or lack of quality service. If I read it correctly, no discount was taken off. Is this correct? As you can see from the above list of numbers, there is a pattern in the poor quality service: The problem seems to lie in Western states and in the deep south. I have no problem with the midwest or with numbers in the east. I have been told that I should call a service representative when I have problems. This, however, is not an answer for several rea- sons. First, I have no time to continue to call for service in the middle of a project. The calls tend to be late at night, and time is precious. Second, on those times I have called, I either could not get through, or was put on hold for an indeterminable time. Fourth, judging from comments I have received in several calls to Teleconnect's service representatives, these seem to be problems for which there is no immediate solution, thus making repeated calls simply a waste of time. Finally, the number of calls on which I would be required to seek assistance would be excessive. The inability to hold a line does not seem to be an occasional anomaly, but a systematic pattern that suggests that the service to these areas is, indeed, inadequate. A second problem concerns the Teleconnect policy of blocking cer- tain numbers. Blocking is unacceptable. When calling a blocked number, all one receives is a recorded message that "this is a local call." Although I have complained about this once I learned of the intentional blocking, the message remained the same. I was told that one number (301-843-5052) would be unblocked, and for several hours it was. Then the blocking resumed. A public utility simply does not have the right to determine who its customers may or may not call. This constitutes a form of censorship. You should candidly tell your customers that you must approve of their calls or you will not place them. You also have the obligation to provide your customers with a list of those numbers you will not service so that they will not waste their time attempting to call. You might also change the message that indicates a blocked call by saying something "we don't approve of who you're calling, and won't let you call." I appreciate the need to protect your customers. However, block- ing numbers is not appropriate. It is not clear how blocking aids your investigation, or how blocking will eliminate whatever prob- lems impelled the action. I request the following: 1. Unblock the numbers currently blocked. 2. Provide me with a complete list of the numbers you are blocking 3. End the policy of blocking. I feel Teleconnect has been less than honest with its customers, and is a bit precipitous in trampling on rights, even in a worthy attempt to protect them from abuses of telephone cheats. How- ever, the poor quality of line service, combined with the appar- ent violation of Constitutional rights, cannot be tolerated. Those with whom I have spoken about this matter are polite, but the bottom line is that they do not respond to the problem. I would prefer to pay my bill only after we resolve this. Cheerfully, (Name removed by request) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ /*/ ST*ZMAG SPECIAL REPORT - by Jerry Cross /*/ (reprinted from Vol. #28, 7 July, 1989) =============================================== TELECONNECT CALL BLOCKING UPDATE Ctsy (Genesee Atari Group) Background ========== At the beginning of last year one of my bbs users uploaded a file he found on another bbs that he thought I would be interested in. It detailed the story of an Iowa bbs operator who discovered that Teleconnect, a long distance carrier, was blocking incoming calls to his bbs without his or the callers knowledge. As an employee of Michigan Bell I was very interested. I could not understand how a company could interfere with the transmissions of telephone calls, something that was completely unheard of with either AT&T or Michigan Bell in the past. The calls were being blocked, according to Teleconnect public relations officials, because large amounts of fraudulent calls were being placed through their system. Rather than attempting to discover who was placing these calls, Teleconnect decided to take the easy (and cheap) way out by simply block access to the number they were calling. But the main point was that a long distance company was intercepting phone calls. I was very concerned. I did some investigating around the Michigan area to see what the long distance carriers were doing, and if they, too, were intercepting or blocking phone calls. I also discovered that Teleconnect was just in the process of setting up shop to serve Michigan. Remember, too, that many of the former AT&T customers who did not specify which long distance carrier they wanted at the time of the AT&T breakup were placed into a pool, and divided up by the competing long distance companies. There are a number of Michigan users who are using certain long distance carriers not of their choice. My investigation discovered that Michigan Bell and AT&T have a solid, computer backed security system that makes it unnecessary for them to block calls. MCI, Sprint, and a few other companies would not comment or kept passing me around to other departments, or refused to comment about security measures. I also discussed this with Michigan Bell Security and was informed that any long distance company that needed help investigating call fraud would not only receive help, but MBT would actually prepare the case and appear in court for prosecution! My calls to Teleconnect were simply ignored. Letters to the public service commission, FCC, and other government departments were also ignored. I did, however, get some cooperation from our U.S. Representative Dale Kildee, who filed a complaint in my name to the FCC and the Interstate Commerce Commission. What follows is their summary of an FCC investigation to Mr. Kildee's office. ---- Dear Congressman Kildee: This is in further response to your October 18, 1988 memorandum enclosing correspondence from Mr. Gerald R. Cross, President of the Genesee Atari Group in Flint, Michigan concerning a reported incidence of blocking calls from access to Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange Bulletin Board System in Waterloo, Iowa by Teleconnect, a long distance carrier. Mr. Cross, who also operates a bulletin board system (bbs), attaches information indicating that Teleconnect blocked callers from access via its network to Mr. Kyhl's BBS number in an effort to prevent unauthorized use of its customers' long distance calling authorization codes by computer "hackers". Mr. Cross is concerned that this type of blocking may be occurring in Michigan and that such practice could easily spread nationwide, thereby preventing access to BBSs by legitimate computer users. On November 7, 1988, the Informal Complaints Branch of the Common Carrier Bureau directed Teleconnect to investigate Mr. Cross' concerns and report the results of its investigation to this Commission. Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of Teleconnect's December 7, 1988 report and its response to a similar complaint filed with this Commission by Mr. James Schmickley. In accordance with the commission's rules, the carrier should have forwarded a copy of its December 7, 1988 report to Mr. Cross at the same time this report was filed with the Commission. I apologize for the delay in reporting the results of our investigation to your office. Teleconnect's report states that it is subject to fraudulent use of its network by individuals who use BBSs in order to unlawfully obtain personal authorization codes of consumers. Teleconnect also states that computer "hackers" employ a series of calling patterns to access a carrier's network in order to steal long distance services. The report further states that Teleconnect monitors calling patterns on a 24 hour basis in an effort to control, and eliminate when possible, code abuse. As a result of this monitoring, Teleconnect advises that its internal security staff detected repeated attempts to access the BBS numbers in question using multiple seven-digit access codes of legitimate Teleconnect customers. These calling patterns, according to Teleconnect, clearly indicated that theft of telecommunications services was occurring. The report states that Teleconnect makes a decision to block calls when the estimated loss of revenue reaches at least $500. Teleconnect notes that blocking is only initiated when signs of "hacking" and other unauthorized usage are present, when local calls are attempted over its long distance network or when a customer or other carrier has requested blocking of a certain number. Teleconnect maintains that blocking is in compliance with the provisions of Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff F.C.C. No. #3 which provides that service may be refused or disconnected without prior notice by Teleconnect for fraudulent unauthorized use. The report also states that Teleconnect customers whose authorizations codes have been fraudulently used are immediately notified of such unauthorized use and are issued new access codes. Teleconnect further states that while an investigation is pending, customers are given instructions on how to utilize an alternative carrier's network by using "10XXX" carrier codes to access interstate or intrastate communications until blocking can be safely lifted. Teleconnect maintains that although its tariff does not require prior notice to the number targeted to be blocked, it does, in the case of a BBS, attempt to identify and contact the Systems Operator (SysOp), since the SysOp will often be able to assist in the apprehension of an unauthorized user. The report states that with regard to Mr. Kyle's Iowa BBS, Teleconnect was unable to identify Mr. Kyle as the owner of the targeted number because the number was unlisted and Mr. Kyhl's local carrier was not authorized to and did not release any information to Teleconnect by which identification could be made. The report also states that Teleconnect attempted to directly access the BBS to determine the identity of the owner but was unable to do so because its software was incompatible with the BBS. Teleconnect states that its actions are not discriminatory to BBSs and states that it currently provides access to literally hundreds of BBSs around the country. The report also states that Teleconnect's policy to block when unauthorized use is detected is employed whether or not such use involves a BBS. Teleconnect advises that when an investigation is concluded or when a complaint is received concerning the blocking, the blocking will be lifted, as in the case of the Iowa BBS. However, Teleconnect notes that blocking will be reinstated if illegal "hacking" recurs. Teleconnect advises that it currently has no ongoing investigations within the State of Michigan and therefore, is not presently blocking any BBSs in Michigan. However, Teleconnect states that it is honoring the request of other carriers and customers to block access to certain numbers. The Branch has reviewed the file on this case. In accordance with the Commission's rules for informal complaints it appears that the carrier's report is responsive to our Notice. Therefore, the Branch, on its own motion, is not prepared to recommend that the Commission take further action regarding this matter. -------- This letter leaves me with a ton of questions. First, lets be fair to Teleconnect. Long distance carriers are being robbed of hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by "hackers" and must do something to prevent it. However, call blocking is NOT going to stop it. The "hacker" still has access to the carrier network and will simply start calling other numbers until that number, too, is blocked, then go on to the next. The answer is to identify the "hacker" and put him out of business. Teleconnect is taking a cheap, quick fix approach that does nothing to solve the problem, and hurts the phone users as a whole. They claim that their customers are able to use other networks to complete their calls if the number is being blocked. What if other networks decide to use Teleconnect's approach? You would be forced to not only keep an index of those numbers you call, but also the long distance carrier that will let you call it! Maybe everyone will block that number, then what will you do? What if AT&T decided to block calls? Do they have this right too? And how do you find out if the number is being blocked? In the case of Mr. Kyhl's BBS, callers were given a recording that stated the number was not in service. It made NO mention that the call was blocked, and the caller would assume the service was disconnect. While trying to investigate why his calls were not going through, Mr. James Schmickley placed several calls to Teleconnect before they finally admitted the calls were being blocked! Only after repeated calls to Teleconnect was the blocking lifted. It should also be noted that Mr. Kyhl's bbs is not a pirate bbs, and has been listed in a major computer magazine as one of the best bbs's in the country. As mentioned before, MBT will work with the long distance carriers to find these "hackers". I assume that the other local carriers would do the same. I do not understand why Teleconnect could not get help in obtaining Mr. Kyhl's address. It is true the phone company will not give out this information, but WILL contact the customer to inform him that someone needs to contact him about possible fraud involving his phone line. If this policy is not being used, maybe the FCC should look into it. Call blocking is not restricted to BBSs, according to Teleconnect. They will block any number that reaches a $500 fraud loss. Lets say you ran a computer mail order business and didn't want to invest in a WATTS line. Why should an honest businessman be penalized because someone else is breaking the law? It could cost him far more the $500 from loss of sales because of Teleconnect's blocking policy. Teleconnect also claims that "they are honoring the request of other carriers and customers to block access to certain numbers". Again, MBT also has these rules. But they pertain to blocking numbers to "certain numbers" such as dial-a-porn services, and many 900- numbers. What customer would ever request that Teleconnect block incoming calls to his phone? And it is an insult to my intelligence for Teleconnect to claim they could not log on to Mr. Kyhl's BBS. Do they mean to say that with hundreds of thousands of dollars in computer equipment, well trained technicians, and easy access to phone lines, that they can't log on to a simple IBM bbs? Meanwhile, here I sit with a $50 Atari 800xl and $30 Atari modem and I have no problem at all accessing Mr. Kyhl's bbs! What's worse, the FCC (the agency in charge of regulating data transmission equipment), bought this line too! Incredible!!! And finally, I must admit I don't have the faintest idea what Section A.20.a.04 of Teleconnect's Tariff F.C.C. No. 3 states, Walk into your local library and ask for this information and you get a blank look from the librarian. I know, I tried! However, MBT also has similar rules in their tariffs. Teleconnect claims that the F.C.C. tariff claims that "service may be refused or disconnected without prior notice by Teleconnect for fraudulent, unauthorized use". This rule, as applied to MBT, pertains ONLY to the subscriber. If an MBT customer were caught illegally using their phone system then MBT has the right to disconnect their service. If a Teleconnect user wishes to call a blocked number, and does so legally, how can Teleconnect refuse use to give them service? This appears to violate the very same tarriff they claim gives them the right to block calls! I have a few simple answers to these questions. I plan, once again, to send out letters to the appropriate agencies and government representatives, but I doubt they will go anywhere without a mass letter writing campaign from all of you. First, order that long distance companies may not block calls without the consent of the customer being blocked. Every chance should be given to him to assist in identifying the "hacker", and he should not be penalized for other people's crimes. There should also be an agency designated to handle appeals if call blocking is set up on their line. Currently, there is no agency, public service commission, or government office (except the FCC) that you can complain to, and from my experience trying to get information on call blocking I seriously doubt that they will assist the customer. Next, order the local phone carriers to fully assist and give information to the long distance companies that will help identify illegal users of their systems. Finally, order the Secret Service to investigate illegal use of long distance access codes in the same manner that they investigate credit card theft. These two crimes go hand in hand. Stiff fines and penalties should be made mandatory for those caught stealing long distance services. If you would like further information, or just want to discuss this, I am available on Genie (G.Cross) and CompuServe (75046,267). Also, you can reach me on my bbs (FACTS, 313-736-4544). Only with your help can we put a stop to call blocking before it gets too far out of hand. >--------=====END=====--------<