CRW@icf.hrb.com (Craig R. Watkins) (02/10/91)
Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.westmark.com> writes: >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? I rather believe that what we have here in Pennsylvania is an interpretation by the courts of laws that were written without Caller*ID being considered. I don't think that it was taken into account when the wiretap laws were written that consumers may be able to purchase their own "trap and trace" devices for their own lines. You may, however, be right when it comes to the interpretation of the state constitution. Here's the current situation in Pennsylvania: In November of 1989, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission gave approval to Bell of PA to offer Caller*ID. In May of 1990, the courts declared Caller*ID service a violation of the state wiretap act and constitutional privacy rights. Currently pending (as far as I know) is an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, filed by the PUC and Bell of PA. The flavor of Caller*ID that the PUC originally approved included provisions for certain groups (eg domestic violence intervention shelters, their employees, law enforcement, etc) to obtain blocking for free. The residential cost was to be $6.50/month. Craig R. Watkins Internet: CRW@ICF.HRB.COM HRB Systems, Inc. Bitnet: CRW%HRB@PSUECL.Bitnet +1 814 238-4311 UUCP: ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw