"Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> (08/07/90)
Amidst all the <sturm und drang> over Caller ID, a voice that
finally made the kind of sense I needed to hear occurred on a talk
program here a few days ago.
As soon as I heard it expressed that way, I had to tumble in
favor of Caller ID. Now, several days later, it still makes the kind
of sense that tells me some of you will appreciate it, too.
I have lost the source, but it was a professor of Ethics and
Logic from a Pennsylvania college who made it so clear.
What he said was that the argument in favor of Caller ID is
the long-established principle that a visitor to your home loses all
HIS rights to privacy when he comes to your premises.
That is to say, you sure have a beef if somebody walks in the
door of your private quarters without first Knocking (or ringing your
bell!). And you have every right to demand, "Who's there?"
At that point, you still have every right to decide whether or
not to let them into your private space.
From this it follows that unidentified telephone callers
should have no more right of free access to your private premises or
to the private space between your ears than does the caller at your
door.
As certain elements of our society have grown increasingly
abusive in failing to police themselves, our legislators have tried to
offer legal surcease, but the real lack of positive identification of
the abusers hinders any enforcement. Example: Florida law has for
some time required telemarketers to identify themselves, their
organization, and their purpose within 30 seconds of opening
conversation with you, and then at that point ask you if you wish to
proceed.
Well, I can honestly say that only a minority of the telemarketing
calls I get have any identity that would let me tell the Consumer
Complaints Division who the heck it was, anyway. Obviously, the
illegal ones are totally unidentifiable, and with today's low loss,
noise free trunks, they could be calling from Timbuctou, for all I
know.
And, of course, the really abusive, harassing callers are
always completely unidentified.
So, taken on balance, I have to agree with the professor's
logic and say I will agree to give up my anonymity to sales offices
when I call, just so I might get a shot at the real abusers. What I
might suffer in return from sales people is trivial in my estimation
to what has gone beyond a joke in telephone barbarism here in Florida.Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> (08/11/90)
Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on close exami- nation. a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own home" to try to argue for Caller-ID. However, virtually all the complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES. Clear black-and-white dicotomies - public vs. private places - are nice for arguments, but have little to do with reality. When I go into a store, I give up very few of my privacy rights. A store is not someone's home: It's a place of business, and falls somewhere between public and private. For example, you can if you wish choose to refuse to allow black people into your home. You cannot choose to bar them from your store. By offering services to the public, you have given up certain privacy rights. Conversely, I as a member of the public retain many more of my privacy rights in your store than I do in your home. In particular, you can certainly demand to know who I am before allowing me into your home. You cannot demand identification as a pre-condition for allowing me into your store. All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a right to receive Caller-ID. For all their talk about protecting people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses. That's where the money is. b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business lines, his argument is weak. I have the right to knock on your front door. You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you can't stop me from knock- ing. I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign has any legal weight. (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without invitation and choosing to go after others.) I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to ask for identifica- tion. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer if I didn't send it. (A better analogy - and a better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - would be a button or setting on your phone that explicity asked for Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be unable to lie about it.) BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say that you don't want any telemarketing calls. In the past, you've had no way to enforce this. The bill just passed by Congress, requiring that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides exactly this ability. Jerry
Maynard) (08/12/90)
In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business >lines, his argument is weak. I have the right to knock on your front >door. You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you >can't stop me from knock- ing. I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign >has any legal weight. (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I >can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without >invitation and choosing to go after others.) My city does give "no solicitors" signs legal weight. Solicitors must be licensed, and they must respect such signs, or else they get fined and lose their license. Your statement above makes the case FOR Caller-ID. Yes, someone can ring my phone - but I don't have to answer it, just as I don't have to open my front door, unless they tell me who they are. If I ever have Caller-ID available, I will follow exactly such a policy - and never answer any calls from a blocked number. Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL jay@splut.conmicro.com [Moderator's Note: It is time once again to close the Caller ID discussion to further Digest input. This is not because your arguments are not interesting, but because we continue to run tight on space and a day behind on postings. We will start this topic again in a couple months. Thanks. PAT]
kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) (08/12/90)
In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close exami- nation. I don't usually respond to articles of an argumentative nature but I just can't let this one pass. Your entire prose demonstrates how logic can be reverse engineered just like software. Choose the outcome you wish to substanitate and then work backwards so that the initial circumstances and events appear to lead logically to the desired conclusion. I contend that your argument falls apart even WITHOUT close examination. To wit: >a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own >home" to try to argue for Caller-ID. However, virtually all the >complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential >abuses by BUSINESSES. And I suppose that you would have us believe that the opponents of caller ID are not making an emotional pitch for our sympathy rather than a factual pitch for our support based on FACTS? Bunk, quite the opposite. Note "potential abuses by BUSINESSES" above. The key word is "potential". Aren't we on a witch hunt here and crying wolf to boot? Businesses already have access to a wealth of information about almost all of us, including our phone number if they want that. Every time you pay by check or credit card you have given up your privacy. And just how, pry tell, do you intend to do business with a company by phone without identifying yourself in some manner which reveals a lot more than your phone number? It's going to be pretty tough. It seems to me that what you really want is not to retain your right to pivacy but to create a NEW right to be anonymous. I think there is a BIG difference and the latter just simply doesn't exist in most legal definitions. >All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a >right to receive Caller-ID. For all their talk about protecting >people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you >got it, businesses. That's where the money is. There you go assuming things again. I find this hard to believe since the residence lines in most wire centers outnumber the business lines at least two to one. In some cases it is much higher. In order to completely debunk this argument, I need figures on national totals of residence vs. business lines and I don't have that so I am not on firm ground either on this point. Maybe someone else can provide more solid facts. I contend that the residence market for this feature is MUCH larger than the business market. >I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone >are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to >ask for identifica- tion. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - >in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as >far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. You had a good start here but got side-tracked again with warping the logic to suit your desired result. The phone ringing is analgous to a knock on the door. Answering the phone is like OPENING the door. I contend that I have a right to know who is outside (either physically or electronically) BEFORE I open the portal, not after. >BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say >that you don't want any telemarketing calls. In the past, you've had >no way to enforce this. The bill just passed by Congress, requiring >that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides >exactly this ability. As an individual, just exactly how do you think you can see to it that this is enforced if there is no fool proof way to identify the caller? Just another well meaning statute that is effectively useless because the worst offenders just won't identify themselves. As you probably already can tell, I support the Caller ID feature (and this is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with my employer). As a matter of fact, as an individual, I really don't care if blocking is offered or not. When fully implemented, I simply will NOT answer any calls where the calling number is not present. Very simple and very effective. I simply will not deal with anyone who wishes to remain anonymous. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 kabra437@athenanet.com Illinois Bell Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965
Rochelle Communications <0004169820@mcimail.com> (08/13/90)
In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562) Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> argues that the "peephole" analogy often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid. He writes: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close examination.... However, virtually all the complaints about >invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES. This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous salespeople. Several cases have been effectively raised by Caller ID opponents to stress the need for anonymity: a) A psychologist calling patients from her home, b) A woman calling her husband from a special shelter for battered housewives, c) Individuals who may be "scared away" from calling certain hotlines (AIDS, drug abuse, crime tips, etc.). Many have argued that Caller ID would inevitably result in an increase in telephone solicitations as businesses compile more "telephone lists" of potential customers, and share such lists with other businesses. There is some validity to this argument, but one should consider that telemarketers have access to such lists today, and that Caller ID by itself, wouldn't add much information (I have an unlisted number and I do get several solicitations daily). It is important to recognize that this is essentially a telemarketing problem and not a Caller ID problem. Proper regulation of telemarketing practices is the best way to limit the excesses of telemarketing. As Jerry noted, Congress has just passed a law that would prohibit telemarketers from making computer-generated calls to individuals who have listed their telephone numbers in a special database. Jerry goes on to say: >the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses. >That's where the money is. I don't know on what basis this assertion is made. Caller ID is viewed today by telephone companies as a residential service and has been aggressively marketed it as such. Bell Atlantic indicate that 94% of their Caller ID subscribers are residential customers. This is not to say to Caller ID does not appeal to businesses. There are many great applications of this technology in the business community including computer security, caller-specific voice messaging, pizza delivery, and customer service. But telephone companies seem to be focusing on the residential market since it will give them the critical mass to make the service economical to them. Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ... > A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - >would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for >Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose >to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the >electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be >unable to lie about it... A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. I understand that AT&T and NTI are developing a similar feature at the switch level. Individuals who do not wish to receive anonymous telephone calls would be able to request that when such calls are attempted, that a recording be produced essentially stating that "the party you are calling does not accept anonymous calls. Please dial 1 to have your number transmitted or hang up..." Gilbert Amine Rochelle Communications Austin, Texas voice: +1 512 794 0088
mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) (08/13/90)
In article <10786@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004169820@mcimail.com (Gilbert Amine) writes: >This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from >the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of >being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous >salespeople. I realize this may be a naive comment, but won't "the right to make anonymous phone calls" be preserved so long as we still have pay phones in this country? Wouldn't pay phones allow for effective caller anonymity even if phones had optional settings that demanded caller phone numbers before putting calls through? Mike Godwin, UT Law School mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (512) 346-4190 [Moderator's Note: You are correct about payphones, but what phreak do you know who is going to go stand on a dark street corner on a cold January night with a modem and terminal hunting for lines that answer with carrier? Some payphone abuse will continue, granted. PAT]
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/13/90)
0004169820@mcimail.com (Rochelle Communications) writes: }In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562) }Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com> argues that the "peephole" analogy }often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid.... }Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ... }> A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - }>would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for }>Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose }>to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the }>electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be }>unable to lie about it... }A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate }answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to }anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. You can have such a system *today*, and have no need to affect the privacy of anyone else in having it. Someone markets a 'call screener' [does anyone know who does, or if it is really still available ... I confess to not having seen any ads for it in a couple of years]: it will pick up the phone and nominally route *every* caller to an answering machine ... but ... you can program 'security codes' into it, and you can simply tell your friends whatever security code(s) you choose. The box will recognize the code, and your actual phone will ring ONLY after a person enters an acceptable code. For example, you could have a single 'password', and just tell everyone. OR ... you could have a group-password: give everyone at work one password, give the folks on your Ultimate Frisbee team a different number, etc. OR.. you can simply 'special' people to use *their*phone*number* as their 'password': that has the interesting side effect of your knowing that it is your brother calling no matter WHERE he is calling from. There are two interesting properties of this kind of approach, versus the 'big brother should do it all' approach: (a) no ones privacy is coercively invaded, and (b) only the people who want this kind of incoming-call-filtration need pay for it, and only their correspondents will have to deal with it. /Bernie\
rlf@mtgzy.att.com (Ronald L Fletcher) (08/14/90)
In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu>, leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: > I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone > are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to > ask for identification. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - > in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as > far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. > In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my > ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer > if I didn't send it. This analogy is not quite complete. The last time I used the "knock on the door" analogy against Caller ID, a co-worker pointed out that it is actually an argument for Caller ID. People forget that doors have windows and peepholes. If someone knocks on my door, I can see the person knocking and given that information, I decide whether or not to even answer the door. If I recognize the person, I have their identification without asking them for it. The same is true for Caller ID. Upon seeing the calling number, I can decide whether or not to answer the call. The ring equals the knock, and the Caller ID equals the window/peephole. I dont really understand why so many people have this "telemarketing list" fear of Caller ID. The way I see it, when Caller ID is fully implemented and ALL numbers are transmitted we will then have a powerful tool to filter out the meaningful calls from the chaff. This same co-worker has an idea that I like. He says that in addition to the number, CID should carry a code describing whether the call originates from a residence or business, then someone can market a high-tech phone that can be programmed to send all calls marked "business" to /dev/answering-machine. Ron Fletcher att!mtgzy!rlf
siegman@sierra.stanford.edu (siegman) (08/14/90)
Jerry Leichter writes: >In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send >my ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to >answer if I didn't send it. >A better Caller-ID system - though perhaps technically impractical >- would be a button or setting on your phone that explicity asked >for Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and >could choose to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This >would be the electronic analogue of your asking for my name - >except that I would be unable to lie about it. You've got it! Exactly right! The telco won't like it, the prospective business users of Caller-ID will absolutely hate it, BUT I WANT THAT BUTTON! (NOT some special code I have to send each time, NOT a special service I have to pay for, but _that button_, right there on the phone for each and every call). (And it's not technically impractical at all either, is it?)
jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com (08/15/90)
I propose that we call this the "Subject that Wouldn't Die." I am past the point of being tired with the topic. I suggest that someone volunteer to set up a mailing list and/or newsgroup devoted to caller id. It is apparently hot enough to generate opinions for months -- if not years -- to come. This, of course, is just my opinion. Jeff E. Nelson, Digital Equipment Corporation, jnelson@tle.enet.dec.com Affiliation given for identification purposes only [Moderator's Note: See Bruce K. in the message before this one. I quite agree a mailing list to handle the overflow I am getting on this topic would be a good idea. I had to reject *nineteen* messages today on Caller ID and return them to the sender unused. Talk to Bruce. PAT]