Sam Ho <samho@larry.cs.washington.edu> (08/07/90)
Here's a story that combines most of TELECOM Digest's favorite topics: a GTE company, unlisted numbers, and the 911 system. The material is paraphrased from stories in the [Seattle Times] on July 25 and August 1. As most of you know, when an enhanced 911 call is placed, the caller's name, telephone and address are displayed at the PSAP answering the call. Some phone companies print warnings that this happens in the phone book, but the general presumption is that since the caller is in an emergency situation (that's why he called 911) there is no particular expectation of privacy. In mid-July, GTE of Washington, which serves several communities in the area north and east of Seattle, decided to make a change. Citing concerns with the ECPA of 1986, GTE stopped sending the names of unlisted subscribers who dialed 911, although telephone numbers and addresses continued. To top it off, GTE did not bother to discuss the matter with regulators (WUTC) or public safety officials first. When news of the change bubbled through to the authorities, the general opinion was that first off, there was no problem with the ECPA, and secondly, there was a (small) potential for delaying emergency response. Meanwhile, US West, which serves most of the area, had never considered release of unlisted numbers to E911 a problem, though they did balk at after-the-fact release of such information. The matter ended when GTE announced on August 1 that the previous state of affairs would be restored: 911 operators would once again get the names of all callers, even one with unlisted numbers. It all looks like a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Sam Ho samho@larry.cs.washington.edu
onymouse@ames.arc.nasa.gov> (08/12/90)
From article <10517@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by samho@larry.cs.washington. edu (Sam Ho): > The matter ended when GTE announced on August 1 that the previous > state of affairs would be restored: 911 operators would once again get > the names of all callers, even one with unlisted numbers. How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without asking? Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the caller. So, why waste space displaying the name? GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel. jd onymouse@netcom.UUCP
"Marc T. Kaufman" <kaufman@neon.stanford.edu> (08/13/90)
In article <10764@accuvax.nwu.edu> amdcad!netcom!onymouse (John Debert) writes: >How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without >asking? Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the >caller. So, why waste space displaying the name? >GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be >misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel. What is wanted is not the name of the caller, but the information that this is the "Frobaz" residence. It often proves useful -- e.g: officers on the beat tend to know that "Joe Frobaz" always beats his wife, or when they talk to someone at the door, if they ask for identification, and the name isn't Frobaz, they get suspicious. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)