gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (12/04/89)
{{{ Well folks, this special issue of the digest will be the last from }}}
{{{ me. The gateway is now being done at nwu.edu, where the digest }}}
{{{ itself originates. As they say, it's been real! and it's been fun! }}}
{{{ -chip }}}
TELECOM Digest Sun, 3 Dec 89 12:10:00 CST Special: Telephone Privacy
Today's Topics: Moderator: Patrick Townson
Telephone Privacy in the 1990's (Marc Rotenberg, via David Gast)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 89 14:00:40 -0800
From: David Gast <gast@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Speech on Telephone Privacy
I normally would not send a such a long posting, but I thought that
this speech was very interesting. It is reproduced with permission.
[Speech text]
"Telephone Privacy in the 1990's"
Marc Rotenberg, Director, Washington Office
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
1025 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1015
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 775-1588
United States Telephone Association
September 13, 1989
Washington, DC
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about "Telephone Privacy
in the 1990's." With the current debate surrounding the introduction
of a particular CLASS feature -- Automatic Number Identification or
"Caller ID" -- it is worth a close examination of the privacy
interests at stake and the responsibilities of the telephone companies
as we look to the 1990's and the possible introduction of a wide range
of new telephone features.
I will make three points this morning about the Caller ID controversy.
The first is that the Caller ID service is unlike previous services
offered to consumers because it compels the disclosure of personal
information, without the consent of the caller. This is at the heart
of information privacy and the reason that so many civil libertarians
and consumer advocates are concerned about the service.
The second point is that what is technically possible is not the same
as what is good public policy. Our system of government, through the
regulatory framework, is designed to ensure that citizens have some
say over technical forces that affect their lives. The protection of
the environment and public safety depend on the efforts of lawmakers
to draw boundaries around technologies that could make our world less
safe, our lives less secure. And this includes personal privacy. It
is a mistake to assume that simply because something can be done it
should be done.
The third point is that the consequences of widespread concern about
privacy protection can be a powerful political force. Although we
have not recently experienced in this country such a movement, the
experience in other countries indicates the need for adequately
addressing privacy issues as we move toward the next decade.
Based on the recent actions of the various phone companies, the public
response to the caller ID service must have came as something of a
surprise. Pacific Bell held off on its plans to introduce the
service, and has chosen instead to undertake an eighteen month study
with various focus groups to assess the privacy issues. New Jersey
Bell is pressing forward though has faced widespread criticism. Two
others BOCs, Southwestern Bell and South Central Bell, have avoided
the controversy by simply not offering Caller ID. [1]
What is it about this service that has sparked such controversy? I
think the answer was well stated by the New Jersey State Consumer
Advocate who said, "the caller ID changes the fundamental expectation
of privacy on the telephone service. Previously, if someone wanted
your phone number, they had to ask for it." It is this prospect that
a new technology diminishes the traditional expectation of privacy
that is so unsettling.
There are a number of organizations, individuals, and members of
Congress who are rightly concerned about this problem. In fact, the
most important group may be the large number of your own subscribers
who have chosen to have their phone numbers unlisted precisely because
they are trying to protect their phone numbers from public disclosure.
The Caller ID service will, in effect, advertise the phone number with
every call.
The Caller ID service, in its common form, violates a central test of
privacy protection -- it compels the disclosure of personal
information without the consent of the caller. Whether or not you
subsequently decide that there are other worthwhile goals served by
the Caller ID service, it's worth stopping at this point and
understanding clearly the privacy problem.
Today, when a person makes a phone call there is an expectation that
the caller's phone number -- and more generally the caller's identity --
will not be revealed until the caller chooses to do so. This
establishes an expectation of privacy on which people base their
action, express themselves, and control their identity.
The problem of destroying the expectation of privacy was revealed when
American Express, using the ANI service, instructed sales representatives
to greet callers by name, before the caller identified himself or
herself. Callers were so startled that American Express discontinued
the practice. American Transtech avoided the problem by not greeting
callers by name. "We could do it, but we don't want to let customers
know we can capture their telephone numbers," said a company
spokesman. [2]
It's been suggested that a blocking service could be sold to those who
would prefer that their numbers not be disclosed. This reminds me a
little of the arms merchants -- you sell one side the ability to
collect the call data and you sell the other side the ability to block
the collection of the call data. I'm not the only person who has
noticed this -- one consumer advocate remarked at a meeting in
Washington a few months ago that Caller ID is not so much about
technology as it is about economics.
The underlying policy problem is who should carry the burden for
protecting personal privacy. Unfortunately, in my opinion, large
companies have assumed that they have the right to make use of
personal information, and have left it to the consumer to, first, find
out about the practice, and, second, to object. My view is that large
organizations, both in the government and the private sector, have an
obligation not to disclose personal information about individuals
without the consent of the individual. This was the principle
underlying the Privacy Act of 1974 and it is the thread that ties
together virtually all of the privacy law in this country. When you
disclose personal information without consent, or effectively compel
the disclosure as the cost of using the phone service, you have
diminished the right of privacy, our most fragile freedom.
Several responses to the privacy concerns about the Caller ID service
have been put forward. One is that, like a peephole, the Caller ID
service provides the receiving party with greater control over phone
calls. According to this description, a peephole provides an
opportunity to determine who is knocking at your door before you
decide whether to open it. Certainly, you wouldn't open your door
without a quick check. Similarly, the argument goes, a person should
not let someone into their home phone without checking the identity of
the caller. From the privacy viewpoint, you can even bolster the
argument by underscoring the importance of the home as the last
defense against intrusions by others into one's personal sphere.
This is a compelling analogy but it doesn't quite work. Calling may
be the next best thing to being there, but it is not the same thing.
There is simply no threat of physical assault, theft, or destruction
from a phone call. I do not mean to understate the problem of
harassing or obscene phone calls, but there are a number of ways to
respond to these problems, including call tracing, that do not require
Caller ID. [3] It also seems unlikely that the service will discourage
the persistent, and perhaps the most dangerous, callers. In fact, one
of the more unsettling problems with Caller ID may be the ability for
a caller to disguise the actual source of the call.
But, still, it is worth noting in the peephole analogy that the
receiving party gains some information about the calling party, and,
like with the phone answering machine, is able to exercise greater
control over incoming calls.
Another response is that you can sell a blocking service to those who
would prefer not to disclose their phone numbers. This is unsettling
because it essentially is the selling back of the privacy interest
phone users currently possess. It also raises a reoccurring problem
in privacy protection -- that is requiring the customer to carry the
burden for protecting privacy.
A final and popular defense of the Caller ID service is most
troubling. A number of people within the phone industry that I have
spoken with have said that the solution to privacy concerns about
Caller ID is "public education," or, according to one trade
publication, "the launching of a widespread campaign to inform callers
of new limits in their calling anonymity." [4] This is disingenuous.
To use an admittedly extreme example, after the Valdez oil disaster,
Exxon had a big public relations problem, but they had the good sense
not try to tell the public, "Travel Tip: Don't Visit Alaska, it's not
as pretty as it once was."
Similarly, caller ID didn't fall from the sky. Your engineers
developed the technology, your managers figured out how to market the
technology, and you are trying to decide how to promote the technology.
You carry the responsibility for its impact and its consequences. To
quote Thomas Edison, "What man makes with his hands, he can control
with his head."
This ties into my second point - technical possibility is not the same
as permissible policy. It is never sufficient to say that technology
has made possible these changes therefore we should employ them.
There are plenty of technologies for reading the contents of a sealed
letter. But to do so is against the law. Part of the challenge
facing policy makers and organizations such as CPSR is to assess the
benefits and risks of new technologies and to determine where
appropriate lines should be drawn.
Each new information technology requires a careful examination to
assess its impact on personal privacy. This is the lesson of privacy
legislation in the 1980's. For example, as the cable industry took
off in the early 1980's, concern about the privacy of subscriber
information also grew. In 1984 a law passed to ensure the protection
of subscriber information.
Electronic mail, a great boon to communications, also raised concern
about the security of the contents of electronic messages. The
Electronic Mail Association was as worried as it customers, perhaps
moreso, because of the concern that a new mail service would not be
very useful if privacy could not be assured. The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 responded to the need for privacy
protection for this new form of communication.
And, when a nominee to the Supreme Court found that his choice of
videos that he watched with his family in their home became the
subject of an article in a local newspaper, Congress looked at the new
technology and developed legislation to protect the rental list of
video users.
In each instance, it seems clear that Congress is ready, willing, and
able to assess the privacy implications of new technologies and to
adopt appropriate legislative safeguards. There is little reason to
believe that it would be different with the phone companies, if they
are unable to resolve the privacy concerns to the satisfaction of
phone customers.
But there is more here than the potential regulation of just this one
service. My guess is that the Caller ID issue is the beginning of a
long public policy debate over the use of personal information by the
phone companies. It is clear that you are sitting on a goldmine of
transactional information. AT&T has freely admitted that the 800
phone service created the telemarketing industry. But, it seems, you
may well go further.
If I call a restaurant today to make a reservation for Friday night,
you could probably extract some commercial information, just from my
identity and the restaurant's identity. And, of course, the Caller ID
service is not of much value without a reverse subscriber directory
that would make it possible to translate the phone numbers into the
name and location of the calling party.
I don't mean to give you any ideas. I'm sure you've already thought
of these possibilities and others. But not many people have yet
discussed these issues and the public understanding of how
transactional information is collected and exchanged has only recently
picked up. I want to warn you as the public becomes aware that you
are selling this information, without their knowledge or consent, you
may be heading for one of the biggest privacy showdowns we've ever had
in this country. And I can tell you right now what the slogan will be:
"From Ma Bell to Big Brother."
You should not underestimate the willingness of people, if they believe
that personal information is misused, to go to almost any length to
stop the practice. The 1980 West German census is a case in point.
In West Germany, growing concern about the use of personal information
by the national government led to widespread opposition by many who
simply refused to fill out census forms. As the government tried
stiff criminal sentences to enforce compliance, census protesters went
to jail rather than comply. Failing to fill out the census was an act
of civil disobedience, comparable to mixed groups eating at segregated
lunch counters in the South during the 1950's. Eventually, the
government backed down when the Constitutional Court cancelled the
decennial census because the government had failed to protect
individuals right to privacy. [5] And West Germany is not the only
example of this.
In Australia, the battle over a national identification card nearly
led to the collapse of the national government. And in Sweden,
France, and Canada, information privacy is carefully monitored by
national boards with authority comparable to the FCC in the United
States. Simply stated, the politics of privacy is a potential powder
keg.
So, here are my recommendations.
First, if you go forward with the caller ID service make sure that no
telephone number is disclosed without the knowledge and the consent of
the phone user, except in emergency circumstances. If a person does
nothing, subscribes to no new service, selects no new feature, his or
her current expectation of privacy should remain unchanged. That will
be the threshold test for evaluating the impact on privacy of this new
service.
Second, "reach out" and involve consumer advocates, privacy experts,
and your customers in the process of developing new services that
expand the usefulness and value of the phone network without
undermining traditional civil liberties interests. There are no doubt
many new services that customers would welcome that do not raise the
privacy concerns of Caller ID.
Third, steer clear of the personal information business. This will be
a privacy minefield and make the current debate over caller ID look
like a small border skirmish. There are certainly enough other
possible ways to expand the use of phone networks without selling
personal information. If customers learn that their routine phone
calls are the basis for unsolicited advertising, they will come to
mistrust the phone service. You may also find yourself caught in the
net of efforts to regulate other industries directly involved in the
sale of personal information.
Having raised these privacy concerns, let me make one final point
about the importance of the integrity of the phone system. The
telephone may be one of the greatest inventions for democratic
society, comparable perhaps to the printing press. It provides a ready
means of communication, at little cost, for virtually anyone in the
country. Even with the growth of all the recent features, the phone
remains essentially the same to the banker and the bus driver. It is
a tool of democracy and the mechanism of social discourse.
It would be unfortunate if the trust that we place in the integrity of
the phone system and our dependence were undermined by the rush to
commercialize personal information. In the long-run, I believe, it
would be a loss for us all.
=====================================================================
End of speech. Footnotes within the speech by Mr. Rotenberg
are enumerated in the listing below:
1 "Privacy, Market Concerns Delay CLASS Roll-out in California," State
Telephone Regulation Report, April 1989, at 7.
2 "Automatic Number Identification," Privacy Journal, April 1989, at 5.
3 "The End of Phone Number Confidentiality?," Privacy Journal, June 1989,
at 1.
4 Network World, May 1, 1989.
5 David F. Linowes, Privacy in America 8 (1989).
=======================================================================
[Moderator's Note: My thanks to David Gast for the work involved in
transcribing/typing in this message from Mr. Rotenberg; and to Mr.
Rotenberg for his presentation. This issue of the Digest will be filed
in the TELECOM Archives under the title 'rotenberg.privacy.speech'
Rebuttals will of course be printed over the next few days. If you
wish to rebut or expand on Mr. Rotenberg's remarks, *please* keep
quoted text to a minimum, or eliminated entirely if possible. The
controversy on this topic tends to go on forever; my patience does
not. :) PT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telephone Privacy
*****************************john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/05/89)
Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because
we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there
is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of
the telephone.
I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not*
had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that
failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if
Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems
from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite"
comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly
technological.
I, for one, barely tolerate the lack of Caller-ID service in
California only because I recognize that Pac*Bell is too backward to
provide it. This, as bad as it is, is at least a legitimate reason
for its non-existence. However, if Pac*Bell could provide the service,
and it was unavailable simply because some Luddites had decided that
people who call me have the right to know my number but I have no
right to know theirs, I would be pulling out all the protestation
stops.
Yes, Mr. Rotenberg covers his ground very well, but unfortunately you
have to subscribe to his basic assumptions to be able to agree. I, for
one, do not.
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395
john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (12/06/89)
All in all a very interesting article, and I add my thanks to David Gast for submitting it to the Digest. Although I tend to disagree with some of the content... and while I was trying to figure out why, I realized that the central theme of Mr. Rotenberg's comments is. "(Calling Number Delivery) compels the disclosure of personal information, without the consent of the caller. This is at the heart of information privacy and the reason that so many civil libertarians and consumer advocates are concerned about the service." Given that, the rest of the arguments tend to flow. There is a basic assumption here that Mr. Rotenburg doesn't address, though: Is a telephone number "personal information"? Or is it corporate information belonging to the telephone company? I don't have an answer, of course (but I smell a Ph.D. thesis...) I will offer some possibilities for discussion, though. What exactly is "personal information"? Name? Blood type? Is there some common thread that distinguishes "personal information" from other types of information? If the telephone company wanted to change your phone number, would you be able to get a restraining order preventing them from doing so? The telephone companies, after all, have changed people's telephone numbers in the past and will continue to do so -- ask anyone whose number used to be 312-NXX-XXXX and is now 708-NXX-XXXX. If a second party can change information, is that information "personal"? I do agree very strongly with Mr. Rotenberg's second recommendation -- involving privacy advocates, public advocates, and so on in the process of defining new services. (And, presumably, getting 'em to sign non-disclosure agreements wouldn't be a problem... :-)) David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter Weiss) (12/06/89)
In addition to what was mentioned in the speech wrt. <disguising the actual source of the call>, is the potential for accidental or purposeful spoofing e.g., I'm at a friend's house and call one of those enterprises that support CLASS.
news@accuvax.nwu.edu (USENET News System) (12/06/89)
In article <1806@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: >X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 9 of 11 >Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because >we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there >is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of >the telephone. >I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not* >had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that >failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if >Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems >from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite" >comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly >technological. Well, Luddite may come to your mind but personal privacy rights come to mine. I am incensed that my personal privacy rights have been eroded both by government and by greedy private companies. I'll give you an example. Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself? If you are at all affluent and/or have had many credit transactions, the personal information the credit databanks maintain on you is a disturbingly accurate reflection of your personal lifestyle. That is disturbing enough but what is worse is that almost anybody that wants access to it can have it. The law says that the credit bureaus must keep a record of who accesses your credit data and must provide it to you on request. In my record, there are literally dozens of inquiries from companies I've never heard of nor done business with. I'm sure that some of these companies were prowling for likely candidates to send free credit card applications to. Others were most likely building profiles for people to inflict telemarketers onto. I terribly resent either use. Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS. They collect data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they think you pay too few taxes. I am personally very vunerable to this type attack. By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my actual income. And yet the IRS could use this very personal information to screw me if they so chose. What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL BUSINESS and no one elses. Particularly those slimebags who are most likely to use such a service - the telemarketers and the government. More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene calls. The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism. I'll give you another example of EXISTING caller ID, or as traditionally known, ANI. I've posted before about the sleeze phone company I wrote switch software for. They had feature group D lines which provided among other things, ANI. ANI was needed for billing but they went further. They collected calling statistics by caller and built and sold mailing list names. While it may be legal, it sure is not right. Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow slime to discover my phone number more readily. Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial automatic redialing service would fly. You know, you dial an access number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. John De Armond, WD4OQC | The Fano Factor - Radiation Systems, Inc. Atlanta, GA | Where Theory meets Reality. emory!rsiatl!jgd **I am the NRA** |
ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu> (12/09/89)
In article <1911@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes: >What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL >BUSINESS and no one elses. The fact that you CONTRACT with the phone company for the use of their facilities says otherwise. If you operated your own telephone system between you and your friends and the social services that you want to use, then MAYBE it would be your own business (I suspect that the govt. would call it a phone company ;-) >Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. >No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically >than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone >is NOT an answer. ><personal anecdote deleted> Except that it is not YOUR phone service - you contract for it. >I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I >want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow >slime to discover my phone number more readily. This is the part of your argument that I fail to follow. CNID will allow YOU to determine if you know the party calling and accept the interruption. It would make sense for you to ask for the phone company to not implement CNID on your outgoing calls. Then, when you call someone as insistent as you are about your right to remain unidentified, that person can ignore the call because the calling party chose to not identify itself. The phone companies are BUSINESSES. Due to the common opinion that phone service is a RIGHT (its really a purchased service), the government decided early to regulate it. Gregory G. Woodbury Sysop/owner Wolves Den UNIX BBS, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...dukeac!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw@ac.duke.edu ggw%wolves@ac.duke.edu Phone: +1 919 493 1998 (Home) +1 919 684 6126 (Work) [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply>
John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (12/09/89)
In article <1911@accuvax.nwu.edu> rsiatl!jgd (John G. De Armond) writes: >Have you ever pulled a credit report on yourself? Yes I have, and what has that got to do with your phone number? My credit report was a surprisingly accurate account of my credit history and was quite detailed. Would you like a copy? >Still another, much more insidious use is by the IRS. They collect >data on lifestyle from this and other databanks, such as mailing lists >so that they can impute an income from lifestyle in the event they >think you pay too few taxes. I am personally very vunerable to this >type attack. By virtue of skillful trading, purchasing and >craftsmanship, I live an apparent lifestyle several multiples of my >actual income. And yet the IRS could use this very personal >information to screw me if they so chose. Again, I fail to see what your tax manipulations have to do with an individual knowing what number you are calling from? Is it because you want to pull some scam involving falsification of who or where you actually are? Sounds to me like you are paranoid about something and for some non-specific reason you are not sure you want anyone to know any more about you than they already do. >What I buy, where I go and who I call are strictly MY PERSONAL >BUSINESS and no one elses. Wrong. What you buy is your credit card company's business, your bank's business, even the IRS's business if you deduct for business purposes. Where you go is generally known by your credit card company. Who you call is known by your telco, your long distance company, and the IRS if you deduct telephone calls. Whenever you use the telephone, your number is given to the long distance company for billing, to the business you called if you used an 800 number, to the information provider if you called a 900 number. These many businesses (some of whom ARE scumbags) already have access to your number. What you seem to be against is the private individual having this same information. >More than adequate means already exist to trap prank and obscene >calls. The only motive that can be assigned to wanting to personally >know the ID of a prankster likely looks somewhat like vigilanteism. That's nonsense. I have already dreamed up some creative things that I will do with my computerized answering machine when the day comes that it is fed callers' numbers. For instance, giving important messages to known friends and business associates, being able to return calls where I couldn't understand the number spoken, etc. Just because you are short-sighted concerning the uses of this technology doesn't mean the rest of us should be deprived of its benefits. >Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. >No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically >than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone >is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, >tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard >way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum >bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That >we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no >consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. It sounds like you are carrying a lot of baggage concerning your affairs. Why do you think that your precious unlisted number will be compromised in a world with Caller-ID? Who do you call that will spread it around? If you thought that you didn't want me to have it, for instance, I would invite you not to call me. After all, what gives you the right to bother me if I can't "bother" you? If you are so hung up about all this, get two lines and use the listed one to make calls to those whom you seem to want to call without them being able to call you on your unlisted number. >I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I >want to talk to or is an emergency. All caller ID will do is allow >slime to discover my phone number more readily. I have more unlisted numbers than you do. I have nine; how many do you have? Am I afraid of Caller-ID? Absolutely not. Those who know me will also tell you that I am a staunch advocate of civil rights, the right to privacy, and that I am a strict constitutionalist. But Caller-ID is not snooping by the government--they don't need it. It is not snooping by big business--they don't need it. It is a useful tool that puts just a little more control of the telephone back into the hands of call recipients. You have yet to convince me why that is undesireable; your obvious paranoia notwithstanding. >Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the >entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial >automatic redialing service would fly. Why go through all that? Why not just have telco offer "calling number hiding"? Because someone will ask, "why do we have to pay to keep our God-given unlisted number private", and the debate starts all over again. >You know, you dial an access >number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's >line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract >to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. Ah, but the service would know. And after awhile, your paranoia would once again surface and you would wonder if the IRS, or whoever you are hiding from was getting a court order to look at their records. And then what would you do? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
Christopher Davis <ckd%bucsf.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu> (12/09/89)
>>>>> On 6 Dec 89 07:43:01 GMT, jgd@rsiatl.uucp (John G. De Armond) said: > Dammit, my phone exists for MY and my family's convenience and use. > No stranger has any more right to invade my privacy electronically > than they do barging through my front door. Not answering the phone > is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard > way when I was a teenager. I got to spend the night in jail on a bum > bust because my parents were not answering the phone that night. That > we later had that cop's ass handed to us on a silver platter was no > consolation for having to spend a hellish night in a city jail. > I insist, no, I demand that a ring on the phone is either someone I > want to talk to or is an emergency. [...] Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in favor* of Caller-ID. Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up the phone... > All caller ID will do is allow slime to discover my phone number more > readily. Depends on who you call; I'd like to note that telesalescreeps managed to find my second line even though Caller-ID was [obviously] not available at that point. (The line was data only, which was always fun; nobody called on that line except salescreeps and folks who I'd asked to call back on that line to free up the main line... that gave me license to just turn on the auto-answer modem much of the time. Ah, sweet revenge.) > Hmm, instead of getting mad, perhaps I should take advantage of the > entraprenural opportunity. Hey guys, how do you think a commercial > automatic redialing service would fly. You know, you dial an access > number to get a dial tone and your call is routed out over the service's > line. You think that this service coupled with an iron-clad contract > to never collect or release calling information would fly? I do. Go for it. Just don't expect me to answer the phone if I don't recognize your number--I'll punt to the answering machine, which is what I do without Caller-ID. Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet>
michael@stb.uucp (Michael Gersten) (12/12/89)
In article <2007@accuvax.nwu.edu> Christopher Davis <ckd%bu-pub.BU.EDU@ bu-it.bu.edu> writes: > > is NOT an answer. Aside from being driven from a service I pay for, > > tragedy can happen by ignoring emergency calls. I found out the hard >Thank you, Mr. De Armond, for one of the strongest arguments *in >favor* of Caller-ID. Presumably you'll have a better idea if you want >to talk to someone if you know their phone number before you pick up >the phone... * Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read. This person is saying that if you ignore phone calls, you can be ignoring important emergency noticies. Then two people claim that if they don't know the number, then it can't be that important. Do you know the number of all the hospitals in the area? What about the police stations? You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know. So you gain nothing by having ANI except being able to recognize numbers you don't want to talk to. And since you're already at the phone it is easy enough to just pick it up, hear the voice, and hang up. ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it. Michael
dcr0@gte.com (David Robbins) (12/13/89)
I find it faintly amusing that one aspect of Caller ID is regularly ignored in the midst of all the heat it periodically generates; Caller ID is in fact nothing of the sort: it identifies the *telephone line* from which the call originated, but says nothing reliable about the *person* who originated the call. If you assume that Caller ID will tell you who is calling, you will at least occasionally be surprised. You really can never be 100% confident that you know who is calling from the number that Caller ID displays: there is always the possibility that someone has tapped into someone else's line to make their call. For those of you who will rely upon Caller ID to, in effect, tell you whether or how to answer the call: If I call you from a friend's house, or from a pay phone, will you refuse to answer the call because you don't recognize the number I'm calling from? How can you ever be sure that a call coming in from a number you don't recognize is a call you can safely ignore? Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished* directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to disclose our numbers to the *public*. We are allowed to choose whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never* *forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the telephone. While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general public. My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers. I don't call the 900 sleazebags, so they won't get my number. I have no doubt that a resourceful telemarketer could, with sufficient expenditure of effort, obtain my unpublished number -- it's not exactly classified TOP SECRET. But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number. Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am personally uncomfortable with. The bottom line is that Caller ID is being oversold -- it promises something that it in fact cannot deliver, namely identification of the *person* who is calling (why do you think they call it *Caller* ID?) -- and it takes something away from those of us who pay for an unpublished number. The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having Caller ID. What on earth would I do with it?
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Horsfall) (12/14/89)
In article <1806@accuvax.nwu.edu>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: | The word "Luddite" comes to mind: A person who automatically resists | change, particularly technological. I was under the impression that the Luddites resisted the introduction of technology because it would put them out of a job. Can't really blame 'em - no such thing as unemployment benefits in those days. This got discussed to death in sci.space on NASA vs. Christics. Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
clements@bbn.com (12/14/89)
In article <2064@accuvax.nwu.edu> michael@stb.uucp writes: > [... cites emergency calls from unknown numbers ...] >You cannot just ignore phone calls from numbers you don't know. > [...] >ANI [sic, really CLID] gives no effective new features to end users. This is just silly. There are five cases: A) Call is unidentified, "Number refused by caller" B) Call is unidentified, "Out of area, number not available" C) Call is identified, and I (the callEE) know the number and like it. D) Call is identified, and I know the number and dislike it. E) Call is identified and I don't know whose number it is. Given that, I can totally ignore categories A and D, always answer category C and route B and E to an answering machine for screening and possible answering. You might choose a different selection. I might change the selections depending on whether I am going to be awake or not. But that is certainly an effective new feature. >It gives plenty of ABUSE to people compiling information and >selling it. That's why selective blocking by the callER is a requirement in my view. It must be possible to CHOOSE whether you will give out your number. If it's an emergency, I think the caller would not be so foolish as to block the calling number. In any case, I would arrange to give a message "I don't take unidentified calls" when I get such a call. Then the caller could redial from an unblocked phone if it were REALLY necessary. (I don't expect this case to arise in practice, but that's how I would handle it if it did. You might choose some other option. It's a free country.) Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com
john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) (12/15/89)
Michael Gersten <michael@stb.uucp> writes: > * Grrr. That's two non-thinking replies to the same point I just read. > [...] > ANI gives no effective new features to end users. It gives plenty of > ABUSE to people compiling information and selling it. And thank YOU for your comprehensive and throughly-thought-out pronouncement concerning Caller-ID. I'm an end user and I can think of plenty of uses. 1. When callers talk to my computerized answering machine, it can recognize their number and give them an appropriate outgoing message, or even a particular message that I have wanted to deliver to them. Unrecognized numbers would still go to a general recording. 2. I am on call and my answering machine can page me. With Caller-ID, the machine could page and insert the caller's number in my pager, eliminating a confusing and error-prone step in the paging process. 3. A list could be prepared of "hang-up calls". This would provide me with evidence of how effective my answering system is in encouraging clients to leave their pertinent information. Also, I could return calls from those retiscent to leave information. 4. Since I have irregular hours, I am frequently sleeping when the world at large is doing business. However, there are some people that I must speak to when they call, regardless. Caller-ID would help my machine to deal with that problem much more effectively than it does now. Believe it or not, I will concede that there are legitimate concerns about the implementation of Caller-ID. But I will not stand still for one second when short-sighted people catagorically dictate that they can't see any reason why we, the public, don't need something they don't like. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (12/16/89)
Unfortunately I cannot remember exactly who made this arguement and I
must admit it was very persuasive for a while, but I just realized why
it is not cogent.
The arguement is that a telephone number is not private because the
telephone company, not the individual controls it. I suggest that the
individual does not have significant control over much private
information.
Most people would agree that a Social Security Number is private, yet
the individual has no control over it. The government assigns it; if
they wished they could change it. Since some SSN's have been given
out more than once, I suggest that the government has excercised that
right.
Most people would agree that a person's salary is private, yet most
individual's cannot unilaterally change their salary.
The list could go on, but I suggest that privacy does not only concern
information the individual has complete control over.
David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast
[Moderator's Note: Well David, you would be happy with phone service
here in Chicago, then. Illinois Bell today announced that while many
CLASS features are being implemented during the last half of 1990
here, including my own CO, Caller-ID will *not* be available in the
IBT LATA in the forseeable future. Bah, humbug! PT]deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (12/17/89)
In article <2168@accuvax.nwu.edu>, dcr0@gte.com (David Robbins) writes: > Those of us (myself included) who presently have *unpublished* > directory numbers are *paying* the telephone company to refuse to > disclose our numbers to the *public*. We are allowed to choose > whether and to whom to disclose the numbers, and we are *never* > *forced* to disclose the number as a consequence of our using the > telephone. Brrrp. Well, define "the public". If by "the public" you mean "any joe schmuck who can read", you're right. If you mean "anyone outside the telco or LD carrier", you're wrong. Any call through an IC, if that IC offers an ANI delivery service, and the called party subscribes to the ANI delivery service, results in your unpublished phone number being disclosed to the called party. Immediately. Irrevocably. Without any possibility of blocking on your part -- even if your local telco offers calling number delivery blocking, you've subscribed to it, and you've blocked CND on this call. Congratulations; you've just been forced to disclose your telephone number by using the telephone, and this has been going on for several years. (Anyone know exactly when ATT-C started offering ANI delivery?) > While it is true that our number is known to the local telco and the > LD carrier, we have some expectation as a result of past and present > practice that the number will not be given or sold to the general > public. Again, define "general public" and see my above comment. > My number has been unpublished for quite a few years, and it > has yet to fall into the hands of telemarketers. Of course, you have no proof of this -- you haven't been bothered by any telemarketers, which is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that they don't have your phone number -- but you have absolutely no way of knowing who knows your phone number. > But the whole idea of unpublished numbers is to give the > customer a certain level of control over the disclosure of the number. > Caller ID does, in fact, change that, and does so to a degree I am > personally uncomfortable with. Again -- Caller*ID doesn't change that; it's been changed for several years. The general public just hasn't been aware of it. > The more I think about it, the less value I can see in having > Caller ID. What on earth would I do with it? I've had it on my work phone for three months now. Yesterday I had some conversations with other people at Bellcore about it, and we talked about the value. I realized that in the three months I had not rejected any calls because I didn't want to talk to the person or didn't recognize the caller -- but that for the past week (while I've had the service temporarily turned off -- it's not really Caller*ID, but part of an experimental package of services we're playing with internally) I've missed it. It was not so much the ability to screen calls that I liked, but just the knowledge of who it was calling so I could prepare myself mentally for the call. If it was my boss, I'd be in a different frame of mind than if it was a drinking buddy... I just felt more comfortable answering the phone knowing in advance who I was going to be talking to -- even if it didn't overtly affect my behavior in answering the phone. If I could have CND, with the number able to be delivered from 80%+ of the phones in the US, with an expectation that no more than about 10% of callers would have blocking, I'd be willing to subscribe, and probably pay about $3 a month for it. David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej (@ Bellcore Navesink Research & Engineering Center) "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
"Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU" <leichter@yale.edu> (12/27/89)
Discussion on this topic continues interminably. What's unfortunate
about it is how many not-quite-truths make it into the discussions.
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.
Another interesting claim he makes is that the alleged privacy right
here is an artifact of history - had Caller ID always been available,
no one would question it. This is a false reading of history. In
fact, essentially ALL our notions of privacy are fairly recent, and
could be seen as artifacts of history. Doors date back only a few
hundred years. Glass windows are even more recent. The degree of
"personal monitoring" in the small towns of yesterday would be
considered grossly unacceptable by almost anyone raised in today's
Western society. (I know to little about other societies to feel
secure in saying anything about them. But things do vary - I am told
that in Japan, to this day, bank statements are sent out on postcards,
and no one is particularly bothered by this.)
Expectations of privacy develop through experience in the world; I
know of no ab initio arguments for what should and should not be
private. Higdon does not expect his phone number to be private.
Others disagree. Neither side is "right" or "wrong" here, and I'd say
neither side is likely to convince the other - these are gut
reactions, learned over many years. The issue is not one of right and
wrong, it is one of public policy.
Whatever Higdon may want, there will always be cases in which calls he
receives will not contain an ID he will find useful - calls from pay
phones, for example. He can't base his arguments on an "every call
ID'ed" model; anything he does must be useful even if some calls are
"anonymous".
Technologically, the possibilities are clear - and even supported by
the relevant standards:
1. A caller can select to send an ID, or not to send an ID.
2. A caller can set either sending an ID, or not sending an ID,
as his default.
3. A callee can select to read the ID sent, or not to.
4. If the callee selects to read the ID sent, he may refuse any call
that does not provide an ID.
From a strictly logical point of view, allowing (1) provides callers
with an additional choice while imposing no constraint on callees
that, as I noted, was not there to begin with.
Given that (1) is available, there is no logical reason for not
allowing (2) - it makes things easier for him and has no effect on
anyone else.
Given that (1) is available (and especially that (2) is available),
there is no logical reason not to give callees the choices in (3) and
(4).
Now, Higdon will argue that giving callers choices (1) and (2) will
decrease the value of his choice (3). Fine - why should the rest of
the world's choices be constrained by his convenience? Presumably a
"philosophical debate" of sorts will emerge as people "vote with
their fingers": If most people agree with Higdon that having their ID
sent is no big deal, hardly anyone will exercise choices (1) and (2).
On the other hand, if most people DO feel this is a big deal, Higdon
may find himself rejecting most calls out of hand. To which all I can
say is, too bad - the voice of the majority will have spoken, and it
will have said that Higdon was wrong in his estimation of where most
people consider their privacy rights with respect to phone numbers to
lie.
Finally, the real crux of the matter here is money. Who should have
to pay for the various choices? The phone companies would obviously
argue that EVERYONE pays - those who want to read Caller ID pay, those
who want special privacy pay (as they pay now for unlisted numbers).
If phone service were a free market, this would, I suppose, be fine.
(Well, maybe not. After all, we do have laws against extortion and
blackmail, "free enterprise" notwithstanding. At what point we
consider a service to become extortion, and beyond the pale, is
difficult to determine; "honest men of good will" may differ.)
However, phone service is not a fully free market, nor can it be, so
questions of fairness come into play. The phone companies have argued
that it costs them extra to keep numbers unlisted, so they should be
entitled to charge for that peculiar negative service, but the
additional costs for providing choices (1) and (2) should be minimal.
Further, I'd argue that the entire system is being created for the
benefit of subscribers who wish to exercise choices (3) and (4) - if
not for them, choices (1) and (2) would be non-issues. Since it is
those who exercise choices (3) and (4) who create the need for OTHERS
to exercise choices (1) and (2), the fairest approach is to let THEM
pay the costs. Frankly, I doubt this will make any significant
difference in what Caller ID users are charged (since rates for
"custom" telephone services have little or nothing to do with the
incremental cost of providing them anyway) - but it will make the
system seem much fairer to those who choose not to use the new
services.
-- Jerry