"Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU" <leichter@yale.edu> (12/29/89)
All Things Considered ran a piece on Caller-ID services tonight (Thursday, 28 December). There were interviews with Telco people and with someone from an organization concerned with privacy. Most of the things mentioned have been discussed many times here. The problem caused by Caller-ID that got the most discussion, however, has not really drawn much attention here - but has quickly made itself known in New Jersey, which is at the forefront of the debate. It is common for people working with possibly-disturbed patients, ranging from doctors to social workers, to have unlisted numbers. In addition, however, many of them must be reachable by their patients in an emergency. The usual mechanism such people use is an answering service; they then return the call. Of course, with Caller-ID, the "unlistedness" of their number is quickly lost. Such calls are by no means uncommon - my sister, who is a surgeon, had to give up her listed number after repeated abusive calls from someone she treated in an emergency room. Now no patient gets to call her at home, period. The telephone company's representative presented some ways out of this. Some were absurd - call from a friend's phone (right, let a psychotic patient get your friend's number, YOU'LL sleep fine), call from a pay phone (emergency calls usually come in the middle of the night), etc. The rest - e.g., get a second phone line - all had one common thread: They involved the person involved shelling out more money to, you guessed it, the phone company. BTW, the piece as a whole was fairly balanced; if it leaned either way, I'd say it was toward the Telco's: Their speakers seemed to get more air time, and there was a lot of "gee wiz, look at the neat things this allows" to the piece. -- Jerry [Moderator's Note: There is however, something to be said for the idea that if you can call me at home, I can call you at home -- if you don't want calls at home, neither do I. Attornies often fit in this category: they want *my* home number so they can work at home at night; when I ask for theirs, they say 'I don't give it out'. Neither do I, pal. They take calls at the office; so do I. In this respect, Caller*ID helps even the score a little in favor of us peasants, doesn't it! PT]
Ihor J Kinal <ijk@violin.att.com> (12/30/89)
This article refered to a doctor who got a call from her answering service. The fear was that when she returned the call, she would be giving away your unlisted number, perhaps to some mentally-ill person. THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY VALID COMPLAINT. It occurred to me that the answering service should then also offer the service of forwarding her call back to the patient!!! [Hopefully, the added cost would be minimal, since presumably the major cost of the service is the human interface]. Also, perhaps people could subscribe to such services if they wanted to maintain their privacy. The call-forwarding would hopefully keep a log, available under suitable safeguards. Consequently, obscene callers would not be able to hide. Ideally, then forwarding service would display on the receiver's in a manner that would be recognized for what it was, and the receiver could then process the call as desired. This solution might server to solve everyone's complaints [but I'm sure someone will find fault :-) ]. Standard disclaimers apply + I a software person, and only a guest where I work. Ihor Kinal att!cbnewsh!ijk
6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) (12/31/89)
In article <2479@accuvax.nwu.edu> ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) writes: |Also, perhaps people could subscribe to such services if they wanted |to maintain their privacy. Why should I have to spend extra money/time/hair :-) to maintain my privacy? People should have to do something special to give up their privacy, not to keep it. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP
John Higdon <john@bovine.ati.com> (12/31/89)
6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) writes: > Why should I have to spend extra money/time/hair :-) to maintain my > privacy? People should have to do something special to give up their > privacy, not to keep it. And where is this pearl cast in stone? Space forbids listing the legion of encroachments on your privacy that come up every day, that you must make an effort to thwart. But let's put it this way: if the majority of the people either aren't as paranoid as you about this particular privacy matter and/or they wish to avail themselves of this technology that you consider threatening, then it is you, my friend, that will have to bear the expense and go to the trouble to protect your minority interest. If most people don't care if their numbers are known to their callees, isn't it fair that those few who do care would have to be the ones to exert special effort. Remember, Caller-ID doesn't place your number on billboards all over town, just on some displays of *people you, yourself voluntarily call*. You still have to make the call for someone to get your number. How many people do you bother that you don't want bothering you in return? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !