telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (10/15/89)
For those of you who think Caller ID is the worst scourge to ever come to the telephone industry, consider this case from Van Nuys, CA about three weeks ago: Penny and Michael Rodgers are a typical family living in Van Nuys. Their son Jameson is three years old. While Mr. Rodgers was gone to work one day, Mrs. Rodgers became violently ill and began choking. While the nature of her illness was not discussed in the newspaper account, what was noted was that she collapsed on the floor in the family's home, and was choking and gasping for air. Little Jameson saw his mother there and tried to talk to her. She would not, because she could not, answer him. But he knew what to do because his parents had taught him that in any dangerous situation; ie, if anyone tried to hurt him, or his parents; or if anything seemed to be wrong, he was to push the button on the autodialer connected to the phone which had the picture of the policeman. That, he was told, would summon the police and bring help. The autodialer was programmed to simply dial 911, which conneced to the Emergency Services dispatcher at the Van Nuys, CA, Police and Fire Department. Jameson lifted the receiver and pushed the button. He wasn't able to tell the lady who answered where he lived, and he did not know for sure how to say his last name. But he knew he was Jameson, three years old, and that his mother was laying on the floor and would not speak to him; and that she was coughing and 'breathing funny'. By using her Caller ID display, the emergency dispatcher was able to locate the phone number and address of Jameson and his mother. Once the ambulance and paramedics were enroute, the dispatcher asked Jameson to go outside and wait for them to arrive, then take them to his mother when they arrived, about two minutes later. The City of Van Nuys recommended a 'hero award' for little Jameson, and at a ceremony last week, the tape recording of his conversation with the emergency dispatcher was played back. Police officials pointed out there were two lessons to be learned from the experience: One, that all children should be taught, at the earliest possible age, how to summon emergency help over the telephone from '911'; and two, that without the Caller ID enhancement to the community's Emergency Service line, there would have been no way to get help to Mrs. Rodgers in time to save her life. He noted that prior to the installation of Caller ID, there had been several objections to the service; 'violation of privacy' being the major complaint. Some people apparently felt they had the 'right' to talk to the police anonymously, and that this 'right' superceded the rights of the police and fire departments to administer their duties effeciently and effectively. "We think caller ID was responsible for saving Mrs. Rodgers' life." Patrick Townson
smb@hector.att.com (10/15/89)
I'd promised myself I wouldn't comment on this subject any more, but this latest posting is much too inflammatory.... From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> I'm not sure if you can do this, given the login available to you, but you should distinguish between your role as moderator and poster. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but when it does -- i.e., when there's a controversial topic being discussed -- you should try to grant everyone equal access to the debate. For those of you who think Caller ID is the worst scourge to ever come to the telephone industry, consider this case from Van Nuys, CA about three weeks ago: [deleted] The autodialer was programmed to simply dial 911, which conneced to the Emergency Services dispatcher at the Van Nuys, CA, Police and Fire Department. 911 Caller ID service is conceptually very different than ordinary Caller ID. Note that I'm not speaking of the technical differences -- of which there are many -- I'm simply speaking of the benefit to society of having the facility available. [deleted] He noted that prior to the installation of Caller ID, there had been several objections to the service; 'violation of privacy' being the major complaint. Some people apparently felt they had the 'right' to talk to the police anonymously, and that this 'right' superceded the rights of the police and fire departments to administer their duties effeciently and effectively. "We think caller ID was responsible for saving Mrs. Rodgers' life." ``Efficiently.'' A marvelous word. There are parts of the world where the police can operate much more ``efficiently'' because there are no (enforced) prohibitions against, say, beating suspects. And the ``legislature'' makes life even easier for the police by requiring internal passports to travel within the country, official permission to live in certain areas, and lots of nice vague ``crimes'' suitable for arresting just about anyone. Efficient, certainly. But I don't think I'd like to live there. My point is not that Caller ID is or is not a good thing for emergency services. My point is that the issue is not that clear-cut. Factual premise 1: A number of big cities, and the federal DEA, have prosecuted numerous police officers for narcotics-related corruption. Factual premise 2: Many drug dealers have shown no hesitation in ordering the murder of community activists who have tried to shut down their activities. Question 1: if 911 calls have Caller-ID recorded (and all such calls are recorded in most cities, I might note), what are the odds on such a drug dealer bribing a cop to find out who made a particular call? Question 2: how many lives might that cost? Please note carefully what I did and did not say above. I did not say there are no benefits to Caller ID for the police. I did not say anything at all about Caller ID for other purposes. And I said nothing at all about the desirability, or the lack thereof, of current drug laws and policies. All I said is that the issue is very far from clear-cut, and that we should not blindly accept official pronouncements on the subject. --Steve Bellovin smb@ulysses.att.com
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (10/16/89)
In article telecom-v09i0450m01 our Moderator writes: >For those of you who think Caller ID is the worst scourge to ever come >to the telephone industry, consider this case from Van Nuys, CA about >three weeks ago [in which a small child dialed 911 and the dispatcher >sent help based on the address display that E911 provides.] Some of us left wing wackos who dislike the way that telcos are introducing Caller ID think that 911 is a fine example of how Caller ID should work. If you dial 911, your call gets IDed. If you dial the cops' regular seven-digit number you don't get IDed. Many people have made technically straightforward proposals to allow ID to be turned on and off per call and per line. I believe that if the telcos implemented them you would see the opposition to Caller ID disappear. If you want not to answer calls from phones that don't provide ID, that's fine, I'll send a postcard. As has been noted here before, Enhanced 911 is technically different from the Caller ID that has caused all of the argument. As far as I know, no telco proposes to provide the calling phone number's address to Caller ID users like they do to 911. By the way, I called American Express last week to argue about my bill. Amex has been reported to have an 800 version of Caller ID that looks up the phone number of each call and translates it to the caller's card number. When the person who answered asked me for my card number, I asked whether she could tell it from my phone number and she said she couldn't. Either she was lying or they've turned it off. Regards, John Levine, johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl
langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) (10/16/89)
Patrick-- Unlike some who object to the idea of a moderator editorializing, I support your position that your opinion is as valuable to a discussion as is anyone else's, and that therefore you have not only the right, but a moral obligation to state your views (so long as you are cognizant of and responsibe with the added weight they carry by virtue of your position). As long as you are careful not to take action which might curtail others' expression of their (possibly opposing) views, there is little sound argument against your expressiion of your own. However, after your recent request that telecom readers refrain from posting on the merits and disadvantages of Caller ID, I opine that it was irresponsible of you to post your "Caller ID Saves A Life!" article. While it is an interesting news story, it is fairly obvious that you posted it to advocate your personal position that Caller ID is in the main a good thing. By using your authority as moderator to enable the broadcast of your personal view on a topic, after using that same authority to curtail the broadcast of others' views, you have carelessly (I hope) neglected you responsibility as moderator to maintain a realistic and honest presentation of the views of the Usenet telecom community. If you feel it beneficial (as I agree it was in the case of the Caller ID debate) to request curtailment of a discussion here, I hope that in the future you will take the pill along with the rest of us. With respect, Lang Zerner langz@asylum.sf.ca.us UUCP:bionet!asylum!langz ARPA:langz@athena.mit.edu "...and every morning we had to go and LICK the road clean with our TONGUES!" [Moderator's Note: Yes, I know I said Caller ID had occupied a huge amount of space here; and yes, I did suggest some time back it was time to move on to other things. But frankly, if the microcosm of society which makes up Digest readership is any indication, Caller ID is going to be a hot topic for the next few years. I really don't know which way to go with the discussion. It does seem a shame not to touch on 'Caller ID in the news' -- and we *will* be seeing more and more of it in the news -- yet the very real practical limitations of a Digest such as this preclude having the discussion go on and on forever. Be assured though, that for every position or posture taken here, ample space will be given to the 'loyal opposition'...whichever side of the argument that is. Thanks for writing. PT]
telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) (10/16/89)
I printed all of the above message not because this is the Social Issues Digest, but because I would not want Mr. Bellovin to think he was being censored. He implies in his first paragraph that one is unlikely to get a fair hearing or a chance to reply to a message since I did not botber to run the 'change name' program here and convert myself to Patrick Townson for the occassion. Everyone who reads this little Digest knows how bad I am about not allowing my critics the time of day or space in the Digest to reply. The item in particular appeared in several newspapers last week, including both the [Chicago Tribune] and the [Chicago Sun Times]. In addition, it was sent to me by the press clip service I use (yes, I take this Digest rather seriously, and I keep up on news relating to telecommunicatons.) I feel as moderator I would be derelict in not printing an item when it had been considered newsworthy by other media. It was a story that I, in my editorial judgment, considered worth repeating here. Mr. Bellovin, and another recent correspondent who forbade me to print his letter or mention his name point out rightfully that Caller ID when offered as a CLASS feature is different than when the same information is afforded the police in a 911 conversation. Yes and no. There are some technical differences, but the end result is the same: The caller is identified to the callee. And there are some remarkable similarities between the two as well. Some of you must surely recall, in your own communities, as I do in Chicago, how bitterly the concept of E-911 was fought by the same people who are fighting caller ID now in the public realm. Just as some organization now is fighting in the courts against Caller ID as a CLASS offering, the *very same organization* (through its Chicago branch) fought in the courts to prevent the police from having the name and number of the calling party back in 1973. So I think we split hairs and pick nits when we say caller ID as a CLASS offering is 'not the same as' caller ID when emergency services get the information. Caller ID is caller ID is caller ID. Either the caller is identified in some way to the callee, or he is not. It may be some folks who otherwise disapprove of caller ID for the public do not object to it when the police have the information, but we are still talking about the same basic thing. In community after community, when Enhanced 911 service has been installed or regular 911 converted to E-911, there have been complaints regarding violations of privacy, just as today the complaints are made. Van Nuys, CA was no exception. There were people there (maybe still are?) who strongly objected to it. I do not make Official Pronouncements here. I quote news, offer my own opinions, and *usually* entertain the views of others. I think I posted that story Sunday morning by prefacing it saying, "this has been in the papers lately'.....so what would Mr. Bellovin have me to do? Print nothing that might express an opinion? His complaint, along with Nameless, who forbade me to identify him should direct their comments about the matter to the authorities in Van Nuys, CA....that is who was in the news. TELECOM Digest is here to provide a forum for *all aspects* of telephones. Technical, social, political, consumer-oriented. The day I metamorphose into God on High and refuse to print alternative viewpoints is the day Mr. Bellovin and Nameless have valid complaints, with me at least. Patrick Townson
john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (10/16/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0450m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > He noted that prior to the installation of Caller ID, there had been > several objections to the service; 'violation of privacy' being the > major complaint. Some people apparently felt they had the 'right' to > talk to the police anonymously, and that this 'right' superceded the > rights of the police and fire departments to administer their duties > effeciently and effectively. This, of course, is a bogus argument of the first order. From the San Jose Pac*Bell telephone directory under the heading "911" (and I'm sure included in every directory issued from Pac*Bell): "Notice! _Dialing 9-1-1 and Your Privacy_ When reporting an emergency by dialing 9-1-1, your number (including non-published number) and address may be automatically displayed on a viewing screen. This information enables the emergency agency to quickly locate you if the call is interrupted. If you do not wish to have your telephone number and address displayed, use the appropriate 7-digit emergency number." Very simply, if you want to remain anonymous, don't dial 9-1-1. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
William Berbenich (WBERBENI@gtri01.bitnet) (10/16/89)
For those who wish to phone anonymously, most emergency services still maintain a regular CO line. Here in Atlanta, where 911 does not yet have full metropolitan area coverage, that option is still possible. Prior to my move to Atlanta from Mountain View, California, that option was possible <but not publicized by Pac Bell or EMS>. The way I was able to obtain the number was by calling Pac Bell and explaining that I wanted to program my autodialer with the number - the only trouble was that the autodialer would only accept either 7, 10, or 11 digits into its storage <three digit 911 would not store> and I therefore needed the 7 digit number. Pac Bell gave it to me, I dutifully programmed it in, and the autodialer was ready to summon help for my household - however, were I able to call EMS but not able to speak, help would have been seriously delayed. wberbeni@gtri01.gatech.edu Georgia Inst. of Technology [Moderator's Note: If your autodialer's only objection is the lack of seven digits -- as opposed to the digits '911' themselves (for example, IBT speed dialing won't permit 911, 411 and certain others), -- then you can use filler digits of the form, '911-1111' or '911-####' to make the quota required. The network will start processing the call after the 911 is dialed, and the last four filler digits will have been given out long before the PD comes on the line anyway; no one will be offended by extra beeps in their ear. PT]
lear@net.bio.net (Eliot Lear) (10/17/89)
I'd like to commend Steve for once again demonstrating that one of the hottest issues of the early seventies is still with us today - the individual's ``right'' to privacy. I don't propose to argue those rights, now. How can Caller ID be offered so that it does not intrude on the individual's right to privacy? When in doubt, allow configurability. Avoid making policy decisions in implementation, but allow for them in the future. It would be nice if phone companies would give the individual the option, up to any particular phone call, whether caller id should be given, as well as what the default should be. The win, here, is that individuals will be able to decide which is more important, and when. The lose, of course, is that if they pick the wrong default and forget about it, Van Nuys would be just another tragedy; or in Steve's example, some cop would end up a little richer at the expense of another's well being. Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]
rogerk@decwrl.dec.com (Roger B.A. Klorese) (10/17/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0452m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) responds sarcastically to Steve Bellovin: >He implies in his first paragraph that one is >unlikely to get a fair hearing or a chance to reply to a message since >I did not botber to run the 'change name' program here and convert >myself to Patrick Townson for the occassion. Everyone who reads this >little Digest knows how bad I am about not allowing my critics the >time of day or space in the Digest to reply. I don't know, I read the following paragraph and didn't notice anything like what you claim you see, Patrick: >> I'm not sure if you can do this, given the login available to you, but >> you should distinguish between your role as moderator and poster. Most >> of the time this doesn't matter, but when it does -- i.e., when there's >> a controversial topic being discussed -- you should try to grant everyone >> equal access to the debate. Steve made the simple request that you should change your login name, if possible, when participating in a discussion, so that your opinions don't seem like the blessed consensus of the Digest. Nowhere was he anywhere near as condescending as you, and you trivialize his concerns. He was not claiming that you were denying access (although your little explanation, which I omitted, about why you forwarded Steve's message indicates that you are in fact doing so: his message should not have appeared so he shouldn't think you were stifling him, it should have appeared because it is important). As for the subject matter, your entire thesis seems to reduce that the concern of individuals for their constitutional rights is trivial in the face of a facility that saves lives. The case can be made that everything from in-home police surveillance to drunk-driver roadblocks to searches of random black men walking through white suburbs either has or could potentially save lives. The truth is that the cost factors are often the other way around: not that freedoms must be sacrificed to save individual lives, but that sometimes and unfortunately, lives are the necessary cost of maintaining our freedoms, even innocent lives. ROGER B.A. KLORESE MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. phone: +1 408 720-2939 928 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 rogerk@mips.COM {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk "I want to live where it's always Saturday." -- Guadalcanal Diary
bluefire@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Bob Jacobson) (10/17/89)
Caller ID for 911-E (enhanced) services has never been a source of controversy. California state law explicitly provides for the sharing of personal telephone information, including telephone numbers, with emergency service providers via the 911 service. Regrettably, in many rural areas, telephone providers -- particularly the larger firms, Pacific Bell and GTE California -- have not yet upgraded their systems to provide 911-E. It is unlikely that a call to Sears or American Express is going to save someone's life. Oh, wait: I can just envisage a teenage girl now, screaming at her parents, "I've just got to call and order those new jeans or I'm going to die!" Thank goodness for Call ID: next time, the department store can anticipate this need and mail out a solicitation to the family. How nice.
rogerk@decwrl.dec.com (Roger B.A. Klorese) (10/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0454m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> johnl@esegue.segue. boston.ma.us writes: >Some of us left wing wackos who dislike the way that telcos are >introducing Caller ID think that 911 is a fine example of how Caller >ID should work. If you dial 911, your call gets IDed. If you dial >the cops' regular seven-digit number you don't get IDed. ...but in many areas it is difficult, if not impossible to reach an Emergency Services Dispatch Center with a seven-digit number. In Boston, for example, we were told that if we called the seven-digit number for the local police station, they could not guarantee emergency response. ROGER B.A. KLORESE MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. phone: +1 408 720-2939 928 E. Arques Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 rogerk@mips.COM {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk "I want to live where it's always Saturday." -- Guadalcanal Diary [Moderator's Note: But the theory is, if you have a dire emergency -- which is the *only* valid reason for calling 911 -- then you obviously will want the police/fire/paramedic people to be able to immediatly locate you with your emergency circumstances. If all you want to do is call 911 to snitch on your neighbors, or report your car stolen, these are not *emergency* problems, and you should be using the seven digit administrative number. Here in Chicago a huge number of calls to 911 are not *emergencies* at all, but simple complaints or requests to file police reports, etc. 911 is only to be used when *immediate* intervention is required to save a life or report a crime in progress, or a fire going on *now*, etc. And for those conditions, how could anyone object to being immediatly identified and assisted? PT]
rune.johansen%odin.re.nta.uninett@nac.no (Rune Henning Johansen) (10/20/89)
I'm quite sure that the fire department in Oslo uses "caller ID" for emergency calls. In addition to the obvious safety-reason already mentioned, there is another advantage: They can also avoid and/or detect false alerts. <rune.johansen@odin.re.nta.uninett> [Moderator's Note: When 911 was implemented here over ten years ago, the false-alarm rate (at least the malicious ones) dropped to almost zero. For many years, the Chicago Fire and Police Departments were plagued with malicious false-alarms. Typically the Fire Department responded to over two dozen false (or do you say phalse? [smiling sweetly :-)] ) alarms *daily*. Police responded to many more, some of which were simply malicious attempts to lure a police officer into a dangerous situation. As some people began finding out the hard way that there were no more games with the phone, these ugly activities virtually ceased. We still get a tiny number of false-alarms, mostly from people unaware of how it works; usually children playing. PT]
bluefire@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Bob Jacobson) (10/22/89)
If Caller ID is such a hog in a conference dedicated to discussions of
telephone technology, why not put it in a soc.privacy conference? On
the other hand, maybe because it is the central issue in the developing
telecom industry, putting *everything* in another conference would
really turn us into policy ostriches, no?
I don't think it's "splitting hairs" to note that Caller ID as a
commercial service is quite different from 911-E emergency service.
Technology is more than the sum of its parts, and how a technology is
used determines what we think about it and how we regulate its use.
This type of critical discrimination is essential to wise technology
assessment and the moderator of a conference so much in the middle of
things should be able to exercise it well.
The new Caller ID law recently enacted in CA permits a user to block
ID display on a call by call basis. However, it only blocks display,
not carriage of the identifying information. Thus, the local pizza
delivery boy may not get your phone number if you block, but the
telecom manager at Mr. Pizza will be able to provide corporate HQ with
a list of all calls made to all of the local shops, with identifying
data. Pretty soon we're gonna have pizzas designed by neighborhood
taste. I hope I live among the pepperoni lovers.
==============================
[Moderator's Note: Responding specifically to the third paragraph of
Mr. Jacobson's letter, and in general to the rest, I would remind all
readers that a series of articles in the Telecom Archives discusses
Caller ID in a pizza delivery application. During September, 1988,
RISKS published a series of articles, including two from myself,
debating the merits of Caller ID. Will Martin kindly forwarded this to
the Archives on 9-14-88, and it is filed as 'pizza.auto.nmbr.id'. Use
'ftp cs.bu.edu' to get your copy. Log in anonymous, use a non-null
password, then 'cd telecom-archives' and pull the file. PT]