John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (12/22/89)
In going over the megabytes of discussion on Caller-ID, something suddenly stared me in the face: all objections to Caller-ID are based on the potential for abuse. Line after line, page after page, people rant on about how this could happen or that could happen. Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse? What about junk calls in general? What about bunko scams that fleece the unwary? What about crank calls and threats? What about calls to detect whether someone is home by burglers? What about general harrasment? None of these involve Caller-ID. Maybe we shouldn't have telephones at all. Look at all the harm they cause. Silly, you say? Not half as silly as some of the arguments that have come down the line against Caller-ID. The IRS will learn nasty things about you. Credit agencies will do nasty things to your reputation. Husbands will march down to shelters and beat up their wives. Telemarketers will conspire to sell you things you don't want. Your cable company will keep a dossier on you and send you subliminal messages over the cable (no kidding!). All the mean, nasty people I am forced to call will find out my sacred unlisted number, causing my injury or death. I don't notice that in the areas of the country where Caller-ID is available that people are dropping like flies. It's a non-issue. It will eventually be universal (even here). But how many man-hours of discussion and rehash will have to go on first? Let's just get on with it. I routinely ride my bike at 65 on the freeway and survive, contrary to what people thought about going faster than 30 around the turn of the century. The concerns over Caller-ID sort of sound like that. microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net writes: > This is a good plan and should be given real thought. Does anyone > know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies > everywhere...)? How many times does it have to be said; how loudly does it have to be yelled? Your number as a caller is circulated *all over the bloody network* all the time. People who do conspiracies *already have access to your number*. They don't need Caller-ID--THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR NUMBER AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Period. When we discuss Caller-ID, we're talking about the info that is sent to you and me as lowly individual telephone subscribers. The big boys can get callers' numbers as much as they please. Caller-ID as a CLASS features offering simply provides a way for the *ordinary* telephone subscriber to have access to information about calls they receive, just as the big corporations, the government, and who knows who else, already have. Is this finally clear? Now, can we discuss the real ramifications of Caller-ID and leave out issues of privacy, conspiracy, marketing, the IRS, credit reporting agencies, and many other irrelavent issues that don't even come to mind? The question is: should I as a telephone subscriber have the right to know what other telephone subscriber is calling me before I pick up the phone? You KNOW what I think. I'm open for legitimate objections. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
bill@toto.UUCP (Bill Cerny) (12/27/89)
I need to keep up-to-date with all the 1.0E6 products & services that
are emerging in the World of Telecom, so that I can identify possible
optimizations/enhancements to my company's telecom profile (you, too?)
When the new issue of the trade rag plops on my desk, I scour thru and
make perhaps a half dozen inquiries in one day, resulting in call
backs. When (if) the return call arrives, it starts, "Hi, this is
Joe. What can I answer for you?" And I attempt to figure out who Joe
works for, and what product/service his company has caught my
attention.
Hello Caller*ID! I'd like to build an inquiry record keyed "Company
X, Product/Service Y" by telephone number. Since the return call
won't arrive from the 800 number (marketing) I dialed, I'll have a few
alias entries that include NPA-NXX ("for instate callers"). If the
return call is made to my original inquiry, I'll be able to deduce the
subject of the call quicker (and prevent the notion that I've been in
contact with the competition).
Yep; I'm ready for Caller*ID. If my local telco won't provide it, I
can always get it in another LATA, right?
Bill Cerny
bill@toto.info.com | attmail: !denwa!bill | fax: 619-298-1656alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) (12/28/89)
In article <2369@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: > Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse? > What about junk calls in general? What about bunko scams that fleece > the unwary? What about crank calls and threats? What about calls to > detect whether someone is home by burglers? What about general > harrasment? None of these involve Caller-ID. Is this supposed to be an argument?!! "We already have problems so there is nothing wrong with amplifying them." You are wrong that none of these abuses involves caller ID. Caller ID is attractive to people for the very reason that it solves some of these problems. The purpose of this discussion is the avoidance of other, perhaps worse, problems. You stray dangerously close to a definition of progress that has nothing to do with improving people's lives. > microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net writes: > > This is a good plan and should be given real thought. Does anyone > > know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies > > everywhere...)? > How many times does it have to be said; how loudly does it have to be > yelled? Your number as a caller is circulated *all over the bloody > network* all the time. People who do conspiracies *already have access > to your number*. They don't need Caller-ID--THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR > NUMBER AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Period. Relax, John. I was mostly kidding, but the question is valid. Who cares about police, we're talking really scary organizations like Reader's Digest.
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (12/29/89)
In article <2431@accuvax.nwu.edu> alonzo@microsoft.UUCP (Alonzo GARIEPY) writes: >In article <2369@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: >> Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse? >Is this supposed to be an argument?!! "We already have problems so >there is nothing wrong with amplifying them." Everything we accept in the name of progress carries risks. Driving an automobile, riding a motorcycle, flying in a plane, even, as I pointed out, simply having a telephone. Shall we forgo every new technology that might carry a potential downside? >You stray dangerously close to a definition of progress that has >nothing to do with improving people's lives. So if someone, somewhere, can find a potential disadvantage with a new way of doing things, we should immediately remove that thought from consideration? If a new service or invention won't improve your life, no one should benefit? Can you substantiate harm caused by Caller-ID? It does exist in the world; it should be a simple matter to pull up some case histories. Someone explain why I, JMH, should not be entitled to see the number of those people who call me. Don't tell me about whackos and criminals who might abuse the system; I'm not one of them. Don't tell me about big business and government; they already have access to these numbers. Saying that some of us shouldn't have this technology because others might abuse it is akin to saying that no one should have computers because some malicious hackers might cause trouble, or that no one should have automobiles because there are irresponsible people who will drink and drive and kill people (a much more compelling argument than any against Caller-ID, IMHO). In article <2413@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@yale.edu (Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU)) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 595, message 1 of 7 >Discussion on this topic continues interminably. What's unfortunate >about it is how many not-quite-truths make it into the discussions. Amen, brother. >For example, John Higdon's messages are well argued, but often miss >the point. He claims (correctly) that Caller ID could be very useful >to him, and to others. Fine, but from that it does not follow that >the privacy issues others have raised are of no import. But you are the first to bring up some well-thought-out and legitimate privacy concerns. Heretofore we have been subjected to every conceiveable privacy non-sequitur, from wife-beating to IRS fraud. Previous comments provided no reasons whatsoever for considering the privacy issue; yours did. In my previous post on the matter, I invited legitimate concerns, as opposed to what we had been subjected to so far. >Higdon does not expect his phone number to be private. Here, I will take issue with you. I have *many* private numbers and I expect them to remain so. But I am prepared, in a world of Caller-ID, to take the necessary steps to keep them private. In other words, I will take the responsibility for maintaining my privacy, not by denying the rest of society the advantages of Caller-ID, but by taking prudent steps to make sure that none of these numbers appear on an undesireable display. This can mean watching who I call with what line, or even how I handle incoming calls when I know that my number has been compromised. But do not simplistically dismiss me by saying that "Higdon doesn't care about his privacy". That is absolutely wrong. But maintaining my privacy is my responsibility in any environment, and not that of some utility regulator. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
"John R. Levine" <johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> (12/31/89)
In article <2480@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> writes: >I have *many* private numbers and I expect them to remain so. But I am >prepared, in a world of Caller-ID, to take the necessary steps to keep them >private. ... Me, too. It seems to me appropriate steps are to insist that any C-ID implmentation provide per-line and per-call ways to turn C-ID on and off. That can't be hard; a previous message implied that the Bellcore spec for C-ID already has provisions for that. Few of us claim that it's a bad idea ever to provide the caller's number under any situation. But there is a long-standing presumption in practice and in law that my list of callees is private. That's why every state has laws about wiretaps and pen registers. I realize that there are cases now where the number is delivered (and I wish American Express would stop denying it) but we should be looking for coherent privacy policy, not making it by default as the technology changes. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."