Off TOPIC: REverse Phone Number Search ??
Jennifer
Could any one please give me the URL of a good Australian reverse
phone number search page? I haven't had much luck finding ine in
Google from the States.
Thanks in advance!
Jen
North Shore Internet
"Jennifer" <jenn...@google.com> wrote in message
news:uk2v0kd...@news.supernews.com...
Rod Speed
> <this has been crossposted to three hopefully helpful Aus newsgroups>
You got the country right, but the amateur radio group isnt likely to be much use.
> Could any one please give me the URL of a good
> Australian reverse phone number search page?
There isnt one good or bad that I am aware of.
You're welcome to email me the number and I can
look it up using one of the phone directorys on cdrom.
Uncle Bully
Apparently it's illegal due to privacy laws. I asked Telstra about getting
access to the database from the whitepages CD in order to do reverse checks
but they don't allow it for that reason.
I'm sure someone somewhere has probably hacked it by now though. It'll be a
matter of asking the right people.
Rod Speed
Uncle Bully <wakeu...@optushome.com.au.remove> wrote in
message news:3d421bdc$0$11264$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Jennifer <jenn...@google.com> wrote
>> Could any one please give me the URL of a good
>> Australian reverse phone number search page?
> Apparently it's illegal due to privacy laws.
Bullshit it is.
> I asked Telstra about getting access to the database
> from the whitepages CD in order to do reverse
> checks but they don't allow it for that reason.
They have always had a bee in their bonnet about it. Its not illegal tho.
They've always been completely stupid about treating
the phone numbers of payphones as state secrets too.
Telstra is just plain stupid on that crap.
> I'm sure someone somewhere has probably hacked it by now though.
Many of the non Telstra phone directorys on CD can do it.
Eddie
mail order.
"Jennifer" <jenn...@google.com> wrote in message
news:uk2v0kd...@news.supernews.com...
graham lea
news:aht7cl$vr3pa$2...@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de...
Paul Blair
A Melbourne company DtMS sells a reverse-search directory on CD. I
think its close to $90 a copy.
Their website is www.dtms.com.au
Paul Blair
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 05:36:15 GMT, "graham lea" <gl...@lea.com.au>
wrote:
-------------------------------
Paul Blair
pbl...@pcug.org.au
Steve
copyright infringement. They claim the time & money involved in accumualting
numbers & addresses entitles them to ownership of them.
Steve
"Ikari S" <ika...@mailme.org> wrote in message
news:5Kx09.6639$Cq.2...@ozemail.com.au...> news:aht7cl$vr3pa$2...@ID-69072.news.dfncis.de:
> >> Jennifer <jenn...@google.com> wrote
> >> Apparently it's illegal due to privacy laws.
> > Bullshit it is.
>
> "I can't be arsed putting in the effort" or "I might get
> my arse busted if I tell you that" for gummint employees
> these days.
>
> It's all about arse, one way or another...
>
>
> Welcome back Rod, we missed ya! (seriously!)
>
> Ikari
Lord Ponsenby
> I see on the news last month that Telstra is sueing the CD
> company for copyright infringement. They claim the time & money
> involved in accumualting numbers & addresses entitles them to
> ownership of them. Steve
>
Errr, whose money?
--
Toby
matt weber
wrote:
>I see on the news last month that Telstra is sueing the CD company for
>copyright infringement. They claim the time & money involved in accumualting
>numbers & addresses entitles them to ownership of them.
Except that Telstra is directly compensated by the users of the data
anyway as a regulated monopoly. If they want to charge for it they
can,but any revenue derived from the data would become part of the
rate of return on the rate base, so whatever they charged, they would
have to refund somewhere else. It is indeed a zero sum game.
Be interesting to see the outcome. That was at issue 10+years ago in
the USA, Phone company lost. The courts took the position that as a
regulated monopoly, the collection and publication of the data did not
represent intellectual property unless there was value added to the
data by the phone company. I.E. if they added SIC codes etc, it might
have been copyrightable, but as the raw data that was effectively a
matter of public record, it wasn't intellectual property.
Richard Cavell
news:3d421bdc$0
> Apparently it's illegal due to privacy laws.
There's nothing illegal about a reverse phone directory. If you agree for
your phone number to be published in millions of books that are to be
delivered to every home in your STD code, and published on the Internet,
and so on, then you hardly can claim your number as secret.
> access to the database from the whitepages CD in order to do reverse
checks
> but they don't allow it for that reason.
They don't allow it for other reasons - probably commercial reasons.
> I'm sure someone somewhere has probably hacked it by now though. It'll be
a
> matter of asking the right people.
The database is available on CD-ROM. There's also a third party company
that manually typed in the entire phone book and sold a searchable
database, used by telemarketers and the like. Telstra tried to sue them; I
don't know if their product is still available.
Martin Taylor
> I asked Telstra about getting access to the database
> from the whitepages CD in order to do reverse
> checks but they don't allow it for that reason.
RS> They have always had a bee in their bonnet about it. Its not illegal
RS> tho.
RS> They've always been completely stupid about treating
RS> the phone numbers of payphones as state secrets too.
Yeah, and the bit about how caller ID works. In the US they display the
caller's name and location as well as the number. Makes more sense,
after all, if you know the number you know the person. It's the unknown
numbers that are displayed that you want the info on.
RS> Many of the non Telstra phone directorys on CD can do it.
Yep. Greenpages and DTMS Phonedisc do.
------------------------------------------------------------
Remove a "t" for an email response.
Rod Speed
matt weber <matth...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:se87kuor9jj4gp3n2...@4ax.com...
> Steve <id...@iinet.net.au> wrote
>> I see on the news last month that Telstra is sueing the CD company
>> for copyright infringement. They claim the time & money involved in
>> accumualting numbers & addresses entitles them to ownership of them.
They actually claim that they have copyright over that material.
> Except that Telstra is directly compensated by the users of the data
> anyway as a regulated monopoly. If they want to charge for it they
> can,but any revenue derived from the data would become part of the
> rate of return on the rate base, so whatever they charged, they would
> have to refund somewhere else. It is indeed a zero sum game.
> Be interesting to see the outcome.
DTMS has lost a number of times. In other words
the court has found that it is a breach of copyright.
> That was at issue 10+years ago in the USA, Phone company lost.
In our case Telstra has won every time.
> The courts took the position that as a regulated monopoly, the
> collection and publication of the data did not represent intellectual
> property unless there was value added to the data by the phone
> company. I.E. if they added SIC codes etc, it might have been
> copyrightable, but as the raw data that was effectively a
> matter of public record, it wasn't intellectual property.
ahennell
> Doesn't stop the fuckers from following you home and raping your
> cat mind.
You mean there is a use for cats?
Cackling Pipes
>
> Partial privacy I'd say. Reverse lookups on phone numbers aren't
> available for the same reason that reverse lookups on car rego
> numbers aren't. It keeps all but the most psychologically unstable
> (salespeople, marketeers, stalkers and spur-of-the-moment road
> ragers) at bay.
I have the Australian phonebook on CD and it does reverse lookup
budgie
>"Richard Cavell" <richar...@mail.com> wrote in
>news:ai0rs5$10j5$1...@otis.netspace.net.au:
>> If you agree for your phone number to be published in millions of
>> books that are to be delivered to every home in your STD code, and
>> published on the Internet, and so on, then you hardly can claim
>> your number as secret.
>
> It doesn't quite work that way. As a 'customer' (I prefer to think
>'captive victim'!) who requires that my number be unpublished, Pacific
>Access (the Telstra subsidiary that does directories) regards me as
>a difficult customer, recalcitrant even. They charge me a monthly fee
>for 'chosing' not to have my number listed. There's been rumours from
>time to time that the 'price' of 'choosing' will rise significantly
>sometime RSN, and that since they got into the business of publishing
>directories electronically, targeted directories, etc, etc, they
>believe they really have to work on people like me and the Malaysian
>Prime Minister to make sure that their directory products are
>'complete' - to hell with customer privacy.
>
>
>> They don't allow it for other reasons - probably commercial reasons.
>
> Partial privacy I'd say. Reverse lookups on phone numbers aren't
>available for the same reason that reverse lookups on car rego
>numbers aren't. It keeps all but the most psychologically unstable
>(salespeople, marketeers, stalkers and spur-of-the-moment road
>ragers) at bay.
>
> 'Course, car rego info isn't particularly private info either.
>If some nutter is sufficiently motivated, he'll find the information,
>but it is difficult enough that the motivation will dissapear in
>most cases before the answer is found and the Bad Thing(tm)
>committed.
>
> Doesn't stop the fuckers from following you home and raping your
>cat mind.
>
>
> It is easier to do an unauthorised reverse lookup on a phone
>number than on a car rego number, and so a lesser degree of
>'safety' is afforded. It's still sufficiently difficult though.
The difference between the two examples you compare (phone numbers and
car regos) is that a published list of the former is not only freely
available, it is actually delivered into the hands of millions of
captive victims. No such publicly available database of regos that I
am aware of.
From that point, all DTMS and others have done is rearrange the
published data into a searchable form. They haven't exactly lifted
the lid on secret info.
Now where do I get the searchable rego database, or even a printed
directory?
matt weber
<mta...@austarnett.com.au> wrote:
>Rod Speed said..
>
> > I asked Telstra about getting access to the database
> > from the whitepages CD in order to do reverse
> > checks but they don't allow it for that reason.
>
> RS> They have always had a bee in their bonnet about it. Its not illegal
> RS> tho.
> RS> They've always been completely stupid about treating
> RS> the phone numbers of payphones as state secrets too.
>
>Yeah, and the bit about how caller ID works. In the US they display the
>caller's name and location as well as the number. Makes more sense,
>after all, if you know the number you know the person. It's the unknown
>numbers that are displayed that you want the info on.
Actually in the USA it is tariffed both ways, with,and without caller
names. Caller name didn't become available until about 1994. The
reason both end up tariffed is most of the Caller ID equipment in
service prior to that time simply gave an error indication if it
recieved both the number AND the name, so they had to provide an
option of number only. However many Alternative Operator Phone
companies in the USA, and most PBX's don't transmit the data anyway.
I'd guess a valid caller id/name only appears on about 35% of calls.
Rod Speed
> Richard Cavell <richar...@mail.com> wrote
>> If you agree for your phone number to be published in
>> millions of books that are to be delivered to every home
>> in your STD code, and published on the Internet, and so
>> on, then you hardly can claim your number as secret.
> It doesn't quite work that way.
Corse it does.
> As a 'customer' (I prefer to think 'captive victim'!)
> who requires that my number be unpublished,
You're always welcome to pay for an unlisted number.
> Pacific Access (the Telstra subsidiary that does directories)
> regards me as a difficult customer, recalcitrant even.
They just charge you a fee to cover the cost of ensuring that the
number doesnt get into the phone book and the time wasted when
someone trys to get your number from directory enquirys etc.
> They charge me a monthly fee for 'chosing' not to have my number listed.
And so they should when that requires more effort than the default.
> There's been rumours from time to time that the 'price'
> of 'choosing' will rise significantly sometime RSN,
Just the usual mindless stuff.
> and that since they got into the business of publishing
> directories electronically, targeted directories, etc, etc, they
> believe they really have to work on people like me and the
> Malaysian Prime Minister to make sure that their directory
> products are 'complete' - to hell with customer privacy.
Just another pathetic little conspiracy theory.
>> They don't allow it for other reasons - probably commercial reasons.
> Partial privacy I'd say. Reverse lookups on phone
> numbers aren't available for the same reason that
> reverse lookups on car rego numbers aren't.
Wrong again.
> It keeps all but the most psychologically unstable (salespeople,
> marketeers, stalkers and spur-of-the-moment road ragers) at bay.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
You're always welcome to pay for an
unlisted number if you're that neurotic.
> 'Course, car rego info isn't particularly private info either.
> If some nutter is sufficiently motivated, he'll find the information,
> but it is difficult enough that the motivation will dissapear in most
> cases before the answer is found and the Bad Thing(tm) committed.
> Doesn't stop the fuckers from following
> you home and raping your cat mind.
Just another pathetic neurotic.
You're always welcome to pay for an
unlisted number if you're that neurotic.
> It is easier to do an unauthorised reverse lookup on a phone
> number than on a car rego number, and so a lesser degree
> of 'safety' is afforded. It's still sufficiently difficult though.
You're always welcome to pay for an
unlisted number if you're that neurotic.
Paul Repacholi
> I see on the news last month that Telstra is sueing the CD company
> for copyright infringement. They claim the time & money involved in
> accumualting numbers & addresses entitles them to ownership of them.
The Copyright Act says otherwise. It specifically hold the format
as copyrightable, but not the data.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.