luce@uunet.uu.net (J. Luce) (02/06/91)
Up to a year ago, I was an employee of BNR, Inc. (Bell Northern Research), the R&D arm of Northern Telecom, the perpetrator of this horrid thing called Caller ID. It should be noted that MANY MANY software designers who worked on this were against it's concept without the capability to block it by the CALLER. The software to do so is actually trivial but in the true sense of software companies we told our customers it was not. Anyway, we had great outpouring of disdain for this feature on the company mainframe 'Gossip' area. I give great attaboys to BNR that no action was taken via censorship or reprimands by the BNR management. In fact, several of these articles were forwarded to the PUC for insertion to the documents against No. Carolina allowing SoBell to sell Caller ID. I believe NC did not allow it at that time, but will allow SoBell to bring it up again. (BTW, I have nothing but respect for BNR, it is in general one of the best places to work, bar none). We already had a feature in place to allow crank caller numbers to be printed at the CO by pressing *XX (depends on BOC usage). Therefore, no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there. John Luce Alcatel Network Systems Raleigh, NC Standard Disclaimer Applies 919-850-6787 Mail? Here? Try aurs01!aurw46!luce@mcnc.org or ... !mcnc!aurgate!luce - or - John.Luce@f130.n151.z1.fidonet.org [Moderator's Note: A copy of Mr. Luce's article is being posted to the Telecom Privacy mailing list (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil) so that continued discussion may take place between interested parties in that forum. If you wish to subscribe: telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil. PAT]
folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) (02/07/91)
>no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for >the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID >should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there. In Maryland, you can now dial *67 before a call and the CID box shows "Private #" on the display. As a (free) counter-feature, I would like to be able to have the phone company block all *67'd and otherwise private # calls from ringing my phone. If you want to call me (enter my house as it were), I believe I have a right to know who you are before granting you entrance. On another note, I wonder if the *XX to report crank calls to the phone company is a true alternative to CID. CID allows me (in theory) to find out who is crank calling, and attempt to solve the problem without resorting to legal proceedings. In some cases, this is more appropriate. Wayne Folta (folta@cs.umd.edu 128.8.128.8) [Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 does not refuse to pass the caller's number to the CO ... but merely instructs the CO not to give it to you. So what you do is, you have to get called once by the blocked number. Answer it or not as you please. When that call is off the line, then do *60 #01# or whatever you do to 'add last caller whether or not you know the number' to your list of calls to be screened. Henceforth what they will get for their *67 + your number will be a recording saying "The customer you have called has activated call screening, meaning they are not accepting calls at this time." Even if they call back unblocked they won't get through. Anything that Caller*ID can grab can also be handled by its close cousin, Call Screening. Above code is from Bell of Illinois, your telco may have different codes / intercept messages. PAT]
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) (02/09/91)
In article <16723@accuvax.nwu.edu>, folta@tove.cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes: > In Maryland, you can now dial *67 before a call and the CID box shows > "Private #" on the display. As a (free) counter-feature, I would like > to be able to have the phone company block all *67'd and otherwise > private # calls from ringing my phone. If you want to call me (enter > my house as it were), I believe I have a right to know who you are > before granting you entrance. ... > [Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is > pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 ... Call screening (or Call*Block, as it's called in NJ) has another use, as well. You can add the last number that called you, and then have the system read that number back -- verbal Caller*ID on request, without having to subscribe to Caller*ID or buy a display device. Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused *because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller feature. On a related topic, why is Caller ID considered a privacy issue? Aren't people confusing privacy with anonymity? Are the states like Pennsylvania now asserting that their citizens have the right to anonymity when they disturb others by telephone? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [Moderator's Note: Dave raises some interesting points in his final paragraph that are probably better suited for Telecom-Priv rather than here. If anyone wants to respond to him on the last paragraph please do it in the supplementary list. Regarding the 'instant Caller*ID' obtained by blocking the last number then having the directory of screened numbers read back to you, we don't get that here. If you opt to 'screen last call' by *60 #01# rather than by the specifici] number (because you don't know it) the system confirms that you have stored what it terms a 'private entry' which is the way the directory reads it back. PAT]
malcolm@apple.com (Malcolm Slaney) (02/10/91)
>[Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is >pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67 >does not refuse to pass the caller's number to the CO ... but merely >instructs the CO not to give it to you. So what you do is, you have to >get called once by the blocked number. Answer it or not as you >please. When that call is off the line, then do *60 #01# or whatever >you do to 'add last caller whether or not you know the number' to your >list of calls to be screened. But Pat, that's not what he was asking for ... I too would very much like to be able to tell the CO that it shouldn't even bother ringing my phone if the caller says his number is private. If it was an emergency then they could arrange to call me back and send a real number. Which brings me to a more interesting point ... has anybody made a box that translates a CID phone number into an audio message? It doesn't seem very useful to me if I have to get up out of my easy chair and go to the little box to see what's on the display ... besides I suspect I'll have more phones in my house than CID displays. Maybe this won't be a problem in the future when every phone has a little display showing the CID. Malcolm [Moderator's Note: I know what he was asking for, but it does not seem likely in the near future (that CO will block incoming calls to you merely because the other end withholds ID). So the alternative I suggested is one work-around that is less than perfect. PAT]
kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (02/12/91)
dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service >where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused >*because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get >through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller >feature. The {Chicago Tribune} had a article about this about a month ago. They called the feature "block-blocking". They said it had the support of almost everyone involved in the issue. As you point out, it allows you to screen calls. A phone system with Caller-ID and block-blocking will be just as effective in eliminating unwanted calls as one with caller-id and no blocking. At the same time, you will be able to block your number when you call a business, and so you will be able to avoid being automatically placed on their mailing list. [Except Radio Shack, which will probably not accept blocked calls :-)] It seems like a perfect solution; it provides people with the most service; and yet, the phone companies are against it. Why? >On a related topic, why is Caller ID considered a privacy issue? >Aren't people confusing privacy with anonymity? Privacy and anonymity are intertwined: [From the ACLU handbook "Your Right To Privacy", Evan Hendricks, et al, 1990] 'Privacy' can be many things to many people. Some associate the term with right to abortion. Others think of the right to choose a sexual preference. Many simply consider it 'the right to be left alone' in any number of contexts. This book does not cover those notions of privacy. Instead, it focuses on information privacy, which involves the legal rights of individuals in relation to information about them that is circulating throughout society. [...] Many of the data[base] networks are seen as a benign response to societal demands for faster service and greater efficiency -- at least in terms of the way in which they've been operated to present. Nevertheless, information is power. The advent of the computer age -- control of personal data by large institutions and the leverage this provides over individuals -- clashes with the American tradition of privacy and often with desirable limits on institutional intrusion into private lives." >Are the states like >Pennsylvania now asserting that their citizens have the right to >anonymity when they disturb others by telephone? The principle in states like Pennsylvania is that phone calls cannot be recorded and phone numbers cannot released without the consent of both parties. Block-blocking provides a mechanism for providing this consent. Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
dai@cs.washington.edu (Davidson Corry) (02/17/91)
>dave@westmark.westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: >> Ideally, however, the telco should be required to provide a service >> where the calling party is advised that the call is being refused >> *because* the calling number is being blocked, and that the way to get >> through is to call again without invoking the anonymous-caller >> feature. In article <telecom11.115.5@eecs.nwu.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > It seems like a perfect solution; it provides people with the most > service; and yet, the phone companies are against it. Why? You answer your own question: > Privacy and anonymity are intertwined: > The principle in states like Pennsylvania is that phone calls cannot > be recorded and phone numbers cannot released without the consent of > both parties. Block-blocking provides a mechanism for providing this > consent. The phone companies make a profit by providing a service. Caller ID is a service which provides the datum "This is X calling" -- in a convenient, machine-readable form requiring no explicit action taken by the caller. The value of this service to the phone companies' subscribers, and thus the potential for profit, is clearly enhanced by increasing the size of this data pool, and threatened by anything which diminishes it. Thus it's in their interest to make ID-blocking as inconvenient as possible; likewise, block-blocking has a "chilling" effect on telephone (and Caller-ID) usage. The implication is that the telco "owns" -- has the right to control -- the datum "This is X calling". This requires no breach of ethics or intellectual dishonesty: the people at TPC may sincerely believe it. I simply disagree: I believe that the datum belongs TO THE CALLER, for whatever reason appeals to him: a desire for privacy, a desire to stay out of some telemarketer's database, or just plain cussedness ... and the fact that some heavy-breather might block ID for reprehensible intent does NOT justify denying ME that right to privacy and anonymity. Clearly the ACLU, the Pennsylvania courts and others agree. The necessary concomitant of ID-blocking is that the callee has a right to decline to accept communications with someone who declines to identify himself: block-blocking. Without convenient ID-blocking AND block-blocking, Caller ID is NOT a service, as far as I'm concerned, it's an invasion. Davidson Corry (dai@icxn.com)
technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) (02/17/91)
I still like my (and several other people`s) old idea: There are MANY services which are only available to BUSINESS customers ... why not make CALLER*ID available only to RESIDENTIAL customers? That would eliminate the direct marketing and call back fears, and still leave it avail. for personal use... so what if it doesn`t help the pizza parlors cull fake orders. kadokev@iitvax.bitnet technews@iitmax.edu My employer disagrees.
m21198@mwunix.mitre.org (John McHarry) (02/18/91)
technews@iitmax.iit.edu (Tech News Account) writes: > ... why not make CALLER*ID available only to RESIDENTIAL customers? > still leave it avail. for personal use... so what if it doesn`t help > the pizza parlors cull fake orders. O heaven forfend! The pizza parlor's putting my standard order in a data base and getting it right (and to the right address) for a change is one of the best uses I can see for the thing.
gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (02/21/91)
Carl M. Kadie <kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu> writes: > At the same time, you will be able to block your number when you call > a business, and so you will be able to avoid being automatically > placed on their mailing list. [Except Radio Shack, which will probably > not accept blocked calls :-)] > It seems like a perfect solution; it provides people with the most > service; and yet, the phone companies are against it. Why? The phone company is not interested in privacy or customer service, they are interested in selling (unneeded) junk/services. Who will be the big buyers of CID info? Businesses to sell the information. Naturally, TPC does not want you to block it, that would diminish the demand by busineses for CID. They want everybody to be forced to buy it. If X has it and you do not, you will be at a disadvantage, so you will be forced to buy it. The arguments they make on TV about how CID will protect your privacy is just propaganda, designed by their marketing staffs to affect the biggest emotional appeal. Do you really think they would sell service that will allow you block telemarketing calls? Those people are some of their best customers. David
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/24/91)
The phone company doesn't need to sell a service that would block telemarketing calls (ie, blocked call blocking) ... Caller*ID and call-block provide all you need. Just build a box that eats the first ring and dumps the call if the caller-ID says "refused". How cheaply could this be made? (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) [Moderator's Note: Wouldn't you need such a box right at the demark ahead of any phones on your premises? Otherwise what would prevent an exension from ringing? Also, would this box need to output ringing current to ring the phones if the call met your conditions, or would the box itself have some sort of warbler in it? PAT]
system@questor.wimsey.bc.ca (system administrator) (03/03/91)
gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > The arguments they make on TV about how CID will protect your privacy > is just propaganda, designed by their marketing staffs to affect the > biggest emotional appeal. Do you really think they would sell service > that will allow you block telemarketing calls? Those people are some > of their best customers. They may well be "some of their best customers", but the "little people" make up the bulk of the system, don't they? If each of us were to write to the appropriate regulators (public service commission or equivalent), then our voices might just be heard. Steve Pershing, System Administrator The QUESTOR PROJECT - Free Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more Usenet: sp@questor.wimsey.bc.ca | POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486 Phones: Voice/FAX: +1 604 682-6659 | Vancouver, British Columbia Data/BBS: +1 604 681-0670 | Canada V6E 4L2