Caveat Emptor?

Yesterday I wrote about the surreptitious collecting of phone records by the NSA. Today I wish to tell you about something that happened decades ago. Not a great conspiracy on the part of government but about privacy and telecommunications.

As it happened, I was running an electronic bulletin board, or BBS as it was called. Those of you old enough to remember them probably enjoyed interacting with them and their users. One of the duties of a System Operator (or, "sysop" as we were called) was to verify the users who applied for access. Some sysops ran an "open" board and did no verification at all, some were very diligent in doing it, most made some effort. Some used a call back system at first, as I did. It worked this way, the new user would call in, enter his data (name and number he was calling from at least), then hang up. The BBS would call the number back, the user would let his modem answer and the session would continue then or the user could accept the call then hang up and call the board back at some other time. I used this method until the magic of Caller ID (AKA "CID") became common.

With Caller ID, the process became simple. At first, I had my board call back the CID provided number. Later, I simply matched the number provided by the user to the one provided by CID. It simplified things but it wasn't foolproof. Annoying little pests found ways to get around the system. Eventually, though, I would identify the pests and block their access.

I would also call around to BBSes all over the country. I had several favorites which provided files I would download to post on my own board. I never required uploads as some boards did.  There was a BBS in California that I called on a fairly regular basis. It was a good board with a healthy forum area. Forums were, then, places one could exchange knowledge, find answers to problems (both technical and non-technical), and/or just "shoot the breeze" with others. BBSes would often have "sysop only" forums; a place where sysops could help each other with various problems.

The subject of CID came up on open forum on that favored California BBS and I found some resistance to it. One person did not like CID, thought it was an "invasion of privacy" and always blocked his CID. I attempted to rebut his position. I tried to explain it this way:

What about my privacy? A person calls my house and refuses to identify himself. I have the right to refuse to answer his call, do I not? Before CID, I had to answer each call or not answer any calls. I equated it to someone knocking on your door. You glance out the window (or look through the "peephole" in the door) and see that his face is masked, do you let him in or refuse to answer the door?

We provide data about ourselves everyday. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.

In one of the articles about the NSA's data gathering, a quote from Justice Sotomayor was presented:

People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. [United States v. Jones - 2011]

It was a preface to suggesting that new privacy safeguards were needed in a "digital age." As I read that part, I thought to myself... "they provide this because they must if the action is to be successful and with a reasonable expectation of privacy." However, as we know, that expectation is not shared by many entities (such as Google) and we authorize this "invasion" when we accept the "terms and conditions".  Because we do not read the terms and conditions, we are often shocked to find we have no privacy rights at all, that we have waived them. And, if we do not waive them, we are blocked from access.

If I might paraphrase the title (poorly, I suspect)... "caveat omnes."
And now I learn of this:
NSA
And this:
Anonymous