owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) (03/25/91)
The issue with Calling Line ID (CLID) is balancing the privacy rights
of one group (callers who don't want to give out their number) against
the privacy rights of another (callees who don't want to get anonymous
calls). What's getting lost in all the heat and smoke of this debate
is that there is a potential technological solution that appears to
balance these interests:
* Each telphone line would have an outgoing call default of either "ID
released" or "ID blocked", with a per-call override.
* Each incoming call would be identified either
1) with the calling line ID
2) with "CLID blocked" if the caller is withholding the
identification.
3) with "CLID not available" if the identifying information is
unavailable for technological reasons.
* Each incoming line could be programmed to accept or reject calls in
Category 2.
Many private individuals, whose interest in peace and privacy
outweighs their interest in maximum accessibility, would chose to
block these calls. Many businesses, who are interested in receiving
as many potential customer calls as possible, might choose to allow
them through. Pizza places having a problem with pranksters probably
wouldn't. John (Higdon, who's getting harrassed on his voice-mail
system) would probably want his voice-mail system to capture CLID, and
reject calls that originate with ID blocked.
This is not Buck Rogers stuff --- it's within the technological
capability of any system that can provides CLID. It empowers the
individual to make his or her own decision about the privacy issues
surrounding CLID, and to pay the consequences of that decision
(missing calls vs. getting harrassing calls; giving out one's number
vs. not having one's call go through). John can stop the turkey from
harrassing him, but his solution doesn't affect me: I won't be forced
to pay the price of getting on the auto-dial telemarketing hit-list of
any company I call for price/product information.
I've been trying to push this line of reasoning for a while; I'd like
to encourage people to refine it and correct its problems. I suspect
the only folks who won't like it are the telephone companies, who are
opposed to any form of CLID blocking because it reduces the value of
CLID services they sell to businesses that use the lists of numbers to
build marketing databases. Also, some special treatment of E911 and
related cases needs to be worked out.
Christopher Owens owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
Department of Computer Science 1100 East 58th Street
The University of Chicago Chicago, IL 60637
[Moderator's Note: I don't know of any cases where telcos will offer
blocking by default, but a few, including our own Centel here in
Chicago are talking about a blocking overide feature on a per call
basis. In the ruling expected this summer from the Illinois Commerce
Commission, I suspect the rule will be to allow (per call) blocking for
everyone, and default blocking only to selected organizations upon
request. It is still uncertain here how it will be configured. PAT]Barton.Bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/27/91)
In article <telecom11.240.6@eecs.nwu.edu>, owens@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Christopher Owens) writes: > I've been trying to push this line of reasoning for a while; I'd like > to encourage people to refine it and correct its problems. I suspect Ideally, one should be able to set the mode and latch it whenever you choose. There would be a default for newly installed lines, and you could the flip/flop it as needed. There would be a simpler per call method of giving id or blocking id regardless of the current default. Ideally there would be a test code that would prattle back ALL current settings in case one forgets or needs to verify them. There should be NO additional charge for mode flipping or status inquirys. The ONLY paying folk should be those that RECEIVE the caller ID. If the telcos think they are going to rip folks off $5 here and $5 there for each feature, they will get what they deserve as the alternate dialtone providers arrive. Teleport has 2 #5ess machines in NYC, and should have one here in Boston by the end of the year. It may be a DMS100, but I think they will pick the 5ess. Just think! A phone company that will give you answer supervision! For businesses, there would need to be an optional blocking of the permanent mode flipping, and the business would then have to select the default mode. Per call selection would still work.