telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (06/03/90)
TELECOM Digest Sat, 2 Jun 90 18:15:00 CDT Special: Call*ID Illegal
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
Court Declares Caller*ID Illegal [Various Correspondents]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu>
Subject: Court Declares Caller*ID Illegal
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 90 17:30:00 CDT
This past week, a court in Pennsylvania ruled that the Caller*ID
service offered by telcos in that state was illegal. The telcos will
most likely appeal to higher courts, including perhaps the United
States Supreme Court for a final resolution. I received a huge number
of messages from readers on this topic. Many were reports as they
appeared in local newspapers around the country. In this special issue
of TELECOM Digest, I have culled through the messages received, and
present several. My thanks to all who wrote, and my apologies to the
several messages I could not include due to space limitations,
including but not limited to 'solomon@mis.arizona.edu' and Pete
Ferris <pff@thumper.bellcore.com> who sent the story as it appeared on
the Associated Press wires.
From: leichter@lrw.com
[From the New York Times, Thursday 31-May-90, Page D1]
Services Identifying Caller Held Illegal In Pennsylvania
By Keith Bradsher
A Pennsylvania court ruled yesterday that services that identify the
telephone numbers of callers represent an illegal invasion of privacy.
The verdict was the first in the nation on the legality of such
services. The five judges of the Commonwealth Court, a mid-level
state appellate court, ruled unanimously that caller identification
services ... violate Pennsylvania's wiretap law.
All five judges found that the services violate the law even when
telephone companies allow some customers to block the release of their
telephone numbers. And the court ruled by a 3-2 vote that the
services violate privacy protections offered by the Pennsylvania
Constitution.
"In the framework of a democratic society, the privacy rights concept
is much too fundamental to be compromised or abridged by permitting
Caller*ID," Judge Doris A. Smith wrote in the majority opinion....
But Bell of Pennsylvania criticized the ruling. "Because of this
decision, Pennsylvanians are being denied a service they eagerly want
and badly need - a weapon against harassing, threatening or obscene
calls," [a spokesman said].
Three Options for Panel
The Commonwealth Court hears appeals of decisions by state and local
administrative bodies in Pennsylvania, and its decisions may be
appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. John F. Povilaitis, the
chief counsel of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, said his
office would review yesterday's decision and make a recommendation to
the commissioners within a few days.
[He] said the commission had three options: to ask [for a rehearing],
to file an appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or to allow
the decision to stand.
Bell of Pennsylvania was not named as a defendant in the case. But
[it] said it qualified as a party [and could appeal if the PUC chose
not to].
Bell ... filed with the commission on June 18, 1989 for permission to
offer caller identification. The commission approved the filing on
Nov. 9 and the company scheduled service to begin Jan. 9. But a
Commonwealth Court judge blocked the service pending judicial review.
The suit was filed against the P.U.C. by the state's Office of the
Consumer Advocate, the [ACLU], the Pennsylvania Coalition Against
Domestic Violence and the Consumer Education and Protective
Association.
[Caller ID is now] widely available in [five states] and on a limited
basis in [three others] ... according to ... a spokesman for Bell
Atlantic Corporation, the parent of Bell of Pennsylvania. Phone
companies in nine other states and Washington are seeking to introduce
caller identification.
Long-distance companies, including [AT&T], also offer caller
identification to some businesses with 800 and 900 numbers.
Yesterday's decision ... did not address whether long-distance
companies should stop providing information for Pennsylvania callers.
"We have to see how, if at all, this ruling affects AT&T," said ... a
spokesman for the company.
Privacy Issue Cited
Bell Atlantic and other defenders of caller identification have argued
that the services discourage obscene callers and protect the privacy
of people receiving calls by allowing them the choice of not
answering. But the court ruled explicitly that the privacy of people
making calls is more important.
The court found that caller identification services function as
call-tracing devices, which under the Pennsylvania wiretap statute may
be used only under certain circumstances. The court noted that
Pennsylvania requires the consent of all parties before a telephone
conversation may be recorded.
As of December, there were fifteen other states with similar
requirements. The remaining states and Federal law allow taping with
the consent of one party. But [FCC] rules require that all parties to
an interstate or international call be aware they are being taped.
The Pennsylvania wiretap statute contains wording similar to the
Federal wiretap statute. Bills are pending in the House and Senate
that would amend the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to
make caller identification explicitly legal while requiring that
telephone companies give customers the option of blocking release of
their telephone numbers. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary
Committee has scheduled a hearing for June 7 on caller identification.
--------------------------------
Next, we have a report from the {Philadelphia Inquirer}:
From: "Scott D. Green" <GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu>
Yesterday, Commonwealth Court ruled that Caller ID violates the
state's Wiretap Act and the caller's constituional rights to privacy.
Judge Doris Smith ruled that obscene and annoying calls can be dealt
with using existing Bell services. Bell of PA will study the ruling
to decide whether to appeal to the state supreme court.
Opponents of CallerID (ACLU, PA Coalition Gainst Domestic Violence, et
al) went to court only to get blocking for any customer who wanted it.
The decision said that CallerID violates the Wiretap Act, with or
without blocking. Bell's VP for Ext. Affairs said, "Because of this
decision, Pennsylvanians are being denied a service they eagerly want
and badly need."
The company said that the ruling would force them to remove CallerID
from police and fire emergency lines. [A threat, perhaps?? -sg].
-----------------------
David Gast makes an excellent suggestion, after paraphrasing the story
as it appeared in the {New York Times}:
From: David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu>
The NYT reports in Thursday's (May 31, 1990) edition that a mid level
PA court has ruled that Caller Id is an illegal invasion of privacy.
All five of the justices found that the services are illegal under PA
wiretap laws even if some customors can block their phone numbers from
being sent. The justices split 3-2 in favor of ruling that caller ID
violates the privacy protections of the PA state constitution.
An AT&T spokesmen said that he would have to look at the ruling to see if
it affects 800 and 900 caller identification programs.
David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast
P.S. Since I tried extremely hard to avoid editorializing (that is,
commenting on whether I believe the decision was good or bad), I
suggest that follow-ups be made to some other newsgroup like
misc.legal.
----------------------
Wayne Correia sent this report from the {San Jose Mercury News}:
From: Wayne Correia <Wayne_Correia.DTS@gateway.qm.apple.com>
5/31/90 SJ Mercury News
CALLER ID SERVICE BREAKS WIRETAP LAW, COURT SAYS
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania court said flatly Wednesday that any
form of Caller ID, a proposed Bell of Pennsylvania service that would
allow customers to see the phone numbers of callers, violates the
state's Wiretap Act and callers' rights to privacy.
Civil libertarians applauded the Commonwealth Court ruling - which
went further than Caller ID's most vocal critics had asked for - and
said it might spark challenges to the service elsewhere.
Bell of Pennsylvania said it was "extremely disappointed" with the
decision and might appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Caller ID has aroused fierce debate in Pennsylvania and other
states where it is being introduced, with both sides arguing that they
are trying to protect privacy. The service permits phone customers
who pay a fee and who have the right piece of equipment to see the
numbers of callers before answering the phone.
Telephone companies and others in favor of Caller ID say it is
like a peephole in a front door, letting customers decide whether to
answer their phones and protecting their privacy. Others say it
sacrifices the privacy of people with unlisted numbers and might
discourage people from making anonymous call to the police or other
investigators or crisis hot lines.
Consumer groups went to court to try to get number-blocking for
any customer who wanted it, which Bell said would defeat the purpose
of Caller ID.
Other Bell companies are testing or introducing Caller ID in a
number of other states but often are running into the same debate that
surfaced in Pennsylvania.
-------------------------
[Wayne then added this personal note at the bottom of the newspaper story.]
I guess they don't know that organizations with Primary rate ISDN
trunks and Feature Group D 800 lines currently receive the CPID and
ANI respectively of the phone number calling them.
Maybe technology will win over emotion next time.
I wonder how much a PRI ISDN trunk and a corresponding Panasonic PRI
ISDN trunk card for my PBX would cost me? (if it were available!) :)
Wayne Correia
wdc@apple.com
---------------------------
A thread started recently in the Digest discussed 'self help' ways of
blocking Caller ID. Some replies have appeared in regular issues of
the Digest; here is one from Dave Levenson:
From: Dave Levenson <dave%westmark@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: Defeating 800 ANI & Caller*ID Using the "O" Operator
Date: 31 May 90 04:17:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
In article <8427@accuvax.nwu.edu>, slr@dhw68k.cts.com (Steve L.
Rhoades) writes:
> On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens
> when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ? (the called
> party being someone that you would normally get a calling number from
> on your Caller*ID display).
In New Jersey, an operator-assisted call (any 0+, whether human or
MCCS-assisted) is displayed as OUT OF AREA. This same display is used
for calls from non-SS7-connected CO switches, and for calls from
outside the LATA.
Dave Levenson Voice: 201 647 0900 Fax: 201 647 6857
Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]
------------------------------
From: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (a mid-level state appellate
court) ruled 4-1 that Caller ID violates Pennsylvania's wiretap law,
reversing a November order by the PUC allowing Bell of Pennsylvania to
offer Caller ID.
The court said Caller ID was unacceptable even if offered with a
blocking device. The court also ruled 3-2 that Caller ID violated
privacy protections offered by the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The decisions of this court can be appealed to the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. The PUC can also ask the court to hear the case again
within fifteen days or let the decision stand.
It's not clear how this will affect the 800 and 900 ANI services
offered by long distance companies. The decision said nothing about
preventing long distance companies from providing ANI on Pennsylvania
callers.
Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com
------------------------------
From: mark kallas <mkallas@digi.lonestar.org>
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.
I heard that Pennsylvania has outlawed Caller ID because it violates
the wire tapping laws. How many other states have taken action against
Caller ID?
Mark Kallas
------------------------------
From: David Lesher <wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Subject: Summary of Florida PUC Meeting on Caller ID
Background:
SBT wants to start selling CID on 5 June for $7.50/month. They do NOT
want to supply blocking at all, but have relented for police officers
and domestic violence workers.
{Disclaimer: This is from memory. I did not take many notes, and so I
may have some names spelled incorrectly. A transcript is available
from Mr. Shreve's office.}
The 30 May meeting regarding Caller ID was slightly stormy. It was
called by Jack Shreve, the state Public Counsel. His office represents
utility consumers before the PSC. It was not well publicized, but
about fifty people attended. 'PRO' speakers included SBT, a Palm Beach
businessman who talked about the ability to monitor customer's buying
patterns by phone number and a woman from an organization called PATT
(I think), in Maryland. (I'm not sure who paid her travel expenses,
but the person next to me mentioned that she has been to several
states and on the Hill testifying about it.)
The first ANTI speaker was from the Florida Medical Association. He
talked about the concern of the medical community in regards to
returning patient's after hours calls. He pointed out that all of the
alternatives SBT suggested (cellular, operator assisted, separate
outgoing line) would cost the subscriber extra. SBT suggested they may
offer a new blocked METERED outgoing line to MD's {note: to the best
of my knowledge, there are no metered/measured lines in the FL tariffs
at present)
Another ANTI speaker was from a volunteer group whose members are
appointed by a judge to represent the child in custody/abuse cases.
Mr. Ellington of SBT suggested she contact her HRS {ie state welfare
system} representative. {SBT has already offered HRS employees
blocking}. She pointed out that her organization has NO connection
with HRS at all, and in fact they often oppose HRS in these cases.
But the largest contingent was from the law enforcement community.
Mr. Ron Tudor of the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement pointed out the
many problems involving the law enforcement community. He also talked
about the large amount of CID equipment being found in raids in other
states. An Assistant State Attorney mentioned the fact that
prosecutors and judges face the same problems as police officers. {SBT
has NOT offered them blocking} Several other PD officers from various
agencies also spoke. {Mr. Tudor is on a FSLE committee that is
studying the entire problem. I gathered this study is a major effort.
I got this impression when he showed up with, and started quoting,
Bellcore spec's. No disrespect, but I work with lots of cops, and I
never before met one that knew Bellcore existed ;-( }
Mr. Robert Sherman, a free lance photojournalist, talked about the
similar situation he would face. He wondered if {Watergate's} Deep
Throat would have ever called the Post with CID around.
The meeting ran well over its time slot and concluded about 1900. Mr.
Shreve announced he was considering holding more such meetings before
deciding his course of action.
Final notes:
a) The FLA PSC is supposed to decide on 5 May. I would *guess* that
they will stall.
b) There was some media coverage (2 rx people, and at least one rag)
the latter because there was a story was on B-1 of the Herald the next
day. The focus of the story was the controversy, and the differing
viewpoints.
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
(305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335
33257-0335
---------------------------
Further news developments will be reported of course, but as David
Gast suggested, misc.legal might be a good place for followups.
PT
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest Special: Call*ID Illegal
******************************