GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) (12/11/89)
So the PA PUC finally gave in, and will allow Caller ID beginning next month. What is the interaction with Call Waiting? Now *that* would be useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually interrupted the call-in-progress. I'm not sure if it's $6.50/month- useful, though. Plus equipment. Scott Green
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (12/12/89)
In article <2019@accuvax.nwu.edu>, GREEN@wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) writes: ... regarding Caller*ID and Call-Waiting... > What is the interaction with Call Waiting? Now *that* would be > useful: To know who was interrupting you before you actually > interrupted the call-in-progress... Sorry, but Caller*ID does not function on calls waiting. Because the information is only sent between rings, and because your telephone does not ring when the call-waiting signal is sent, no Caller*ID information is sent. Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) (12/14/89)
I distinctly remember that the first time I saw Caller ID mentioned in
the press, New Jersey Bell was working on it. The description of the
service was very complete (for an article that came out at least five
years before the product itself): it even showed a picture of a
telephone set with a tiny 10-digit LED (this is before LCD displays
hit it big!) display where the number card usually goes.
The text of the article explained what would happen with unlisted
numbers: If you were called by a person whose number was unlisted, the
display would show a numbered code (such as "A51033") which the
telephone company, under court order or for their own investigations,
could translate into the actual number.
Years later, after the big breakup, New Jersey Bell actually does
introduce the service, and this time the story is different. The
company has decided that the right to know who is calling supersedes
the right to keep your number secret. (I'll agree with that,
particularly in the context that if I pay for Caller-ID service, I
want just that. Peephole analogy and all.)
I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an
improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve
the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the
phone. No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE
that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve
certain problems:
1: If you are blocking/ignoring "unknown" caller ID's, you may not be
able to get an emergency call from a person you know if they are
using an "unknown" phone.
2: If you specifically block a particular number, you can't be sure that
the next call from that phone isn't one that you want. If you block
a pay phone because some creep is making prank phone calls, your
daughter might decide to use that phone (which was at a highway
rest stop) to tell you that she was just in an accident and needs
help.
3: If you block specific numbers, like the creep calling from the pay phone,
nothing stops the creep from moving to the next phone and trying again.
The same goes for telemarketers with dozens of outgoing lines. In order
to stop them, you'd have to block ALL calls from unknown numbers, which
brings us back to problem #1.
4: Even if you DO happen to recognize the caller ID that flashes on your
display, you have no idea WHO is calling you.
An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify
the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call. In the UNIX
world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we? We
have usernames and passwords. Why not eventually implement this idea
for the dial network as well? This would solve a host of problems...
1: Fixes 1-4 above. We can allow our example daughter to call us from any
phone anywhere, even if we are blocking "unknown" calls.
2: A tremendous fix to the privacy problem. When placing a call, the use
of a personal ID is OPTIONAL... If I don't want to voluntarily give away
my identity, I don't dial a PID. I then take the risk that the number
I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course.
3: Replaces calling cards; I can request that any call I place using my
PID is billed to me regardless of where I call from.
4: Personal defaults: Your default long-distance company, for example,
can apply to you even away from home if you use your PID.
5: Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible. cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/16/89)
russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) writes: Ah... the topic that won't die... >I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an >improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve >the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the >phone. No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE >that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve >certain problems: [... the mostly-clear problems inherent in CID...] >An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify >the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call. In the UNIX >world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we? We >have usernames and passwords. Why not eventually implement this idea >for the dial network as well? This would solve a host of problems... Just as I opined, about a year ago: the I-can't-deal-with-answering-the- phone-and-just-hanging-up crowd will figure out that CID really doesn't do much for any _real_ problem, and that the "ansering a phone is *privacy* but doing electronic identifying isn't" folks will soon be asking for things like: >2: A tremendous fix to the privacy problem. When placing a call, the use > of a personal ID is OPTIONAL... If I don't want to voluntarily give away > my identity, I don't dial a PID. I then take the risk that the number > I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course. Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone. Not even a matter of conditions on *having* a phone.... and he calls this a tremendous "fix" to the privacy problem... I guess in his worldview the "problem" is that it might still be possible to do *somehting* without the gov't tracking you every step of the way. >5: Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible. Yeah... everything except privacy.. :-( [PS, as an aside I'm curious: when did this notion that "answering the phone" was somehow related to "privacy" in the Constitutional sense? It seems totally bizarre to me. People keep talking about the "peephole" analogy, but the reality is very different: peepholes protect you from *physical* threat, and in some sense DO have to do with your privacy [since the person can see if you're dressed or not, or where the stereo is, or if your new copy of the heavy breathers journal is on the coffee table]. Answering the phone embraces no such threats --- it seems that asking who is calling and if you don't get an answer you like hanging up more than adequately protects your "privacy". Now, you can complain that your *peace* has been disturbed, and I totally agree, but the peephole analogy doesn't work there at all. IF the doorbell rings, you have to go figure out who is there ANYWAY [and if it is an otherwise undistinguished person, you'll STILL have to ask them who they are and what they want... just like answering the phone. [Unless your world is different than mine: no one is "ID"ed on my front porch... the very best I can do is only the crudest of physical guesses about who's there [thereby displaying all your latent fears and prejudices about which book-covers conceal real threats inside-the-book]. That stranger on the porch is as liable to be a new neighbor from the next block as another Jehovah's Witness as a person selling storm windows]. Accepting privacy threat (as I see it) of CID as the response to the breach of your *peace* sure seems like overreaction --- killing a fly with a sledgehammer. There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society]. When we should be up in arms about the abuses to our privacy *already* being done, it is astonishing that there are knowledgable folks seriously arguing that that we should have *less*. If anything, instead of lobbying my PUC to get CID available, I'd be fighting to get *tougher* laws to make it mucho mucho mucho harder to let **ANYONE** see the CID info. Oh well... sorry to flame on again on this long dead topic, but that turn of phrase: that to really "fix" the privacy problem we need *better* electronic tracking of us all really got to me... :-( /Bernie\
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/17/89)
Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com> writes: > Won't that be good --- a nice, nation-wide electronically-tracked > database of *everyone* who wants to __USE__ a phone. > [...] > There are MUCH easier ways [IMHO] to effect some > kind of effective screening of your incoming calls [probably better > than CID could ever dream to be unless the CID-likers get their > apparent wish and we go to a fully-electronically-tracked society]. Bad news, Bernie. The tracking has long been in place and will be made much more sophisticated in the years to come regardless of the Chicken Little rantings of the Preserve our Privacy crowd. The question before us is not whether this network should be created and put into place, but rather if some of the information traveling on that network should be made available to you and me. Obviously you think it shouldn't; only the "big boys" should have it. I disagree. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
wlw2286@uunet.uu.net> (01/11/90)
I live in Rochester NY, and have a question about caller ID. Rochester Telephone says that they are planning to implement thier own version of caller ID, the lady I talked to was not all to sure of exactly what would go into it but she said probably inthe next 6 months it would be out. We are on ISDN here so my question is can I buy a Caller ID box from some 3rd party and plug it in and expect it to work? Lance ************************************************************************ *W.L.Ware LANCEWARE SYSTEMS* *WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu Value Added reseller* *WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu Mac and IBM Access. * [Moderator's Note: The answer is yes you can. Shop the catalogs. PT]