Spoofing Call Display?

Good point! Perhaps directory information should be lawfully protected from sale as well?
30 plus years in telecom says the phone companies are liable for abuse of information they use or allow to be used in efforts to harm the consumer!
Class action suits should be the order of the day!
In this case I know exactly what the polster did!
They submitted the number of the target as the DNIC on the order forms. Possibly with collaboration of Bell personnel. In any case it is the Carrier's responsibility to ensure the accuracy of orders processed and in this case the victim should have full legal recourse!

Sue their asses OFF Kramp!

Sorry that's ANI not DNIC and there's also a function on PBX's or VoIP switches that allows a phony ID to be sent to the network!
In which case it would be the call centre that did it!

Same solution for Kramp though SUE Their ASSES off!

OT but poll at Telus: http://www.mytelus.com/new_homepage/

Would you support a ban on handguns in Canada?

67% yes

33% no

The simpler and more-likely explanation is that the calls were coming from his office. As described, Protus's "clerical error" could be as aptly applied to a scenario wherein a constituency office had several phone lines, and numbers, and some friend called in to do the polling maybe plugged into the wrong jack.

"There was an error made when the phone calls were made..."

It sure seems like it would have to be an enormous coincidence for a company, recently hired by a separate entity, to find its outgoing calls being displayed on recipients' caller ID as being that of the person who recently hired them. Maybe that can happen, but I'm just not sure how that works.

The more likely scenario is that an MP, without access to Earnscliffe, simply wished to poll his own constituents, and that those brought on to do so simply got caught in phone-jack-mixup hell in a multiple-line office. Maybe one of the lines was in the name of a polling company?

This, of course, would be an absolute outrage; everybody knows that the only Canadian way to do polling is to have the taxpayers pay for it and then run the results over to Keith Boag. We can't have this direct talk with constituents going on. It would be unprofessional, and it messes with the narrative.

Thanks for posting the results of this highly selective poll, Glenn. Interestingly when I tried to vote in the poll it seems to have vanished and I tried accessing the telus.com page in both Mozilla and IE. In the interests if making this even more OT, I note that moonbats from Ontario have been active.

It seems that the Ontario government is calling for a ban on pistols when we have no idea of what type of firearm was used to shoot yet another black in Ontario. Given the immense death toll caused by automobiles, I would counter that all personal ownership of automobiles should be outlawed in cities with populations > 100,000. I lived in Vancouver for years without an automobile and I can't see why anyone would need an automobile in a large city. The automobile lobby, which is entirely based in Ontario, is fighting to prevent reasonable restrictions on automobiles which we all know have only one purpose and that is to kill pedestrians and cyclists. Everyone needs to have a gun for self-defence, but in a large city there is no need to own an automobile. If automobiles were banned in cities then cycling and walking would be safe. Right now, the only conditions under which I would cycle in Vancouver would be if I could carry my M1 for protection from Vancouver drivers. (I'd be willing to compromise and limit myself to an SKS if necessary). Now that I've moved out of Vancouver I'm contemplating buying a vehicle, but I'll make damn sure it hasn't been built in Ontario.

Thanks for posting the results of this highly selective poll, Glenn. Interestingly when I tried to vote in the poll it seems to have vanished and I tried accessing the telus.com page in both Mozilla and IE. In the interests if making this even more OT, I note that moonbats from Ontario have been active.

It seems that the Ontario government is calling for a ban on pistols when we have no idea of what type of firearm was used to shoot yet another black in Ontario. Given the immense death toll caused by automobiles, I would counter that all personal ownership of automobiles should be outlawed in cities with populations > 100,000. I lived in Vancouver for years without an automobile and I can't see why anyone would need an automobile in a large city. The automobile lobby, which is entirely based in Ontario, is fighting to prevent reasonable restrictions on automobiles which we all know have only one purpose and that is to kill pedestrians and cyclists. Everyone needs to have a gun for self-defence, but in a large city there is no need to own an automobile. If automobiles were banned in cities then cycling and walking would be safe. Right now, the only conditions under which I would cycle in Vancouver would be if I could carry my M1 for protection from Vancouver drivers. (I'd be willing to compromise and limit myself to an SKS if necessary). Now that I've moved out of Vancouver I'm contemplating buying a vehicle, but I'll make damn sure it hasn't been built in Ontario.

I have a business acquaintance who once worked as an IT manager at a large credit recovery company who didi collections for the government. He said that they had software what allowed collection agents to show whatever Name and number they wanted on the call display of the person they were phoning.

According to him they routinely masquarade as phoney window or siding solicitors, banks, cable companies or other businesses that the call recipient may do buiness with...all this to fool the recipient into taking their call.

I don't know if this is "identity theft" per se but it is certainly criminal misrepresentaion. I understand it happens routinely and with full knowledge of regulatory bureaucracies and government departments.

Let's face it.... the only reason the Feds are interested in "identity theft" is to sell us all into some expensive and Orwellian biometric ID and tracking system which will allow little bureaucratic termites to micro manage our affairs for us..track our movements, purchases, banking transactions etc....I really don't think the government gives a damn about Citizen privacy or idivilual dignity for that matter otherwise we would have a strong federal privacy portfolio attached to cabinet in this age of exponetial snooping made possible by e-commerce and other technologoes which evaporate our anonymity.

Your electronic communications are routinely monitored by all number of private and government interests ...one of the biggest "spies" is the government and they routinely "sell" personal info given them by citizens to private interests.

So the crocadile tears you see from the feds agonizing over your "identity" and privacy is merely a concern for gathering more personal info on federal surveillence ID systems.

Frankly, judging by the uncivil behaviour of governments and its corporate friends towards the individual, it may be a blessing in the future to have NO ID whatsoever.

Some (all?) voice over IP services currently show up as

000-123-4567 when they dial into the "real" phone lines.

Skype-Out for one.

It's funny how much it freaks people out to get dialed by an obviously bogus number if they they have caller ID.

That being said, I don't hink it actually provides much more security to the dialer from government spies, but it does prevent people from know ing your number when you call them.

The threat of theft is not exaggerated; it is real and growing rapidly and is reaching epidemic proportions all over the world.

A person can buy temporary time on a number and put whatever information they want to appear on the caller ID then use it for Vishing.

Much like phishing with email where you are duped into providing account information, they call you with an automated voice system and the Caller ID will appear from a regional bank. The automated voice will tell you there is a problem with your account and instruct you to call another number at the banks security dept. and provide the necessary information to secure your account.

You call that new number and an automated system walks you through a tidy process that prompts you to enter all of your personal account information, DOB, passwords etc.

By the time you walk away from the phone your account is being accessed.

The threat of theft is not exaggerated; it is real and growing rapidly and is reaching epidemic proportions all over the world.

A person can buy temporary time on a number and put whatever information they want to appear on the caller ID then use it for Vishing.

Much like phishing with email where you are duped into providing account information, they call you with an automated voice system and the Caller ID will appear from a regional bank. The automated voice will tell you there is a problem with your account and instruct you to call another number at the banks security dept. and provide the necessary information to secure your account.

You call that new number and an automated system walks you through a tidy process that prompts you to enter all of your personal account information, DOB, passwords etc.

By the time you walk away from the phone your account is being accessed.

The threat of theft is not exaggerated; it is real and growing rapidly and is reaching epidemic proportions all over the world.

A person can buy temporary time on a number and put whatever information they want to appear on the caller ID then use it for Vishing.

Much like phishing with email where you are duped into providing account information, they call you with an automated voice system and the Caller ID will appear from a regional bank. The automated voice will tell you there is a problem with your account and instruct you to call another number at the banks security dept. and provide the necessary information to secure your account.

You call that new number and an automated system walks you through a tidy process that prompts you to enter all of your personal account information, DOB, passwords etc.

By the time you walk away from the phone your account is being accessed.

For caller ID, normally your telephone provider supplies the ID information. For companies with a PBX and multiple lines, that information is supplied by the PBX, and can be anything you put into it.

Caller ID is NOT a secure system. It's much like email, where you can put anything at all in the sender name & sender email address fields, and send an email impersonating someone else.

To clarify, this isn't a problem with the phone companies. It's simply bad planning in the design of Caller ID, particularly with VOIP providers. For normal home phone users, they cannot spoof caller ID information because it's sent by the phone company. Even if you configured a PBX to send caller ID information, the phone company would be sending it for you. You need a lax provider, and many VOIP providers are just that.

On normal telco lines the CO switch provides the number by default. You can block your number on a per call basis but not alter it.

Call centres use trunks or Centrex.

Centrex emulates PBX function and allows call by
call blocking of the outgoing CLID.

When Telco trunks to PBX or VoiP switches are programed there is an option on the trunk settings to allow the customer switch to provide the displayed number for outgoing connections.
The other option is for the Telco to provide the number from their CO switch.

The law in Canada provides that only Medical facilities and Shelters can have the ID block fixed or altered to hide the originator.

If the Telco (Bell) allowed this they have broken the law! If the call centre is doing this they are breaking the law.

It is possible to do this with either VoiP or other trunking arrangements.
It is true that many Consumer Voip Providers are possibly lax in enforcing policies and in some cases do not even know how to set to the options.

It is also true that Telco staff have been known to deliberately violate policies to appease customers who may threaten to take away their business.
It is still illegal!

30 years telecom experience says so!

*
"OMMAG said... If the Telco (Bell) allowed this they have broken the law!

If the call centre is doing this they are breaking the law."

-- Post updated -- Protus replies...

"In response to your query, like all service providers, Protus makes calls
on behalf of our clients.

To help the call recipients identify and reach the originator of the message
(our client), valid caller-id information needs to be provided by each of
our clients."

It may be illegal... but it sounds like it's also standard operating procedure.

*