bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) (08/17/89)
First, a thanks to Patrick for his time and energy as moderator.
I believe the biggest problem with Caller ID is that it is new. If telephones
had originally come with this facility there would have been no privacy
question. (I realize it was technically infeasible in the early days, but
that's beside the point!) In the United States we are used to a certain
model of telephone service. Unless specifically blocked, subscriber's
telephone numbers are publicly available information. With some exceptions,
the government cannot legally snoop on telephone conversations. And the
idea of knowing who is calling before you answer is simply new.
If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape,
(and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape
their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three
bases and a home plate? No. It would require adjustments in expectations
from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone.
Let us not forget that telephone usage is not one of the civil liberties
protected by the constitution. Nobody is *forced* to use a telephone, nor
to reveal their telephone network "address." However, without Caller ID,
people can call others without disclosing this information. This is the way
things have been. This is not the way things have to be.
In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that
when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of
where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such
as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the
bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things.
And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother
involved, more power to Caller ID. Since it's now technically feasible,
let's do it. In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without
it. Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without
getting numbers mixed up. All kinds of other benefits present themselves.
Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad.
Aside: As of 1984, a local call in Dillingham, Alaska (907) 842-xxxx costed
10 cents at the local payphones. And that included Aleknagik, which
was 25 miles away. This was an independant phone company, the
Nushagak Bay Telephone Cooperative (or something like that!)
Bill Nickless | bnick%aucis.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu or
Andrews University | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick
Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------
Unix Support Group | "Help! I'm locked up in a .signature factory!"bobf@uunet.uu.net (BFrankston) (08/17/89)
I presume I will be one of many respondants pointing out that just because something is old it is good. Remember that rights themselves were not part of the constitution -- the bill of rights was a last minute patch. The right to privacy is controversial in that many see it as implied by the Bill of Rights and others say that any new (since 1800 or so) technique for invading privacy is good. When I was in junior high school I was told that writing to a Socialist (ok, Communist) embassy caused the FBI to start a file on you (the Joe McCarthy way of doing things for those old enough). What good is privacy if the mere act of placing a phone call, writing a letter, or using a credit card is equivalent to publishing your thoughts. There is no right of free association if it is closely monitored. I very much want the caller ID feature, but the caller must be provided with safeguards. It is not sufficient to say that prefixing a call with *999 provides privacy -- it must be possible to make that a default on a line and to provide legal responsibility if the number gets disclosed through the phone company's negligence. In the battered shelter case, there can be a cost associated with disclosing the number. Bob Frankston
cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Charles Daffinger) (08/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0303m01@vector.dallas.tx.us> bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw. cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes: > [...] >And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother >involved, more power to Caller ID. Since it's now technically feasible, >let's do it. In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without >it. Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without >getting numbers mixed up. All kinds of other benefits present themselves. >Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad. My second line is unpublished and unlisted for a reason. I don't want other people to have it. Not secretaries, not friends... nobody. According to a posting in the Digest a while ago, ATT goes to great lengths to protect the privacy of such a number. If it were to show up on the screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not? Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire. Thus, instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a non-telephone number) would appear. This identification number would be unique and associated with your particular number. If somebody has an unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is treated in the same way as the phone number: with the same level of confidentiality. This way, when you make a call people can identify *who* is making the call once they know that number comes up when you call, while preserving the privacy of your telephone number. In the case of harrassing phone calls from unlisted/unpublished numbers using such a feature, the telephone company could cross-reference the code for the harrassing calls with its telephone logs. If indeed these match, the telephone company alone can easily find the phone from which these calls originated. But then, the harrasser could be from a pay phone... -charles -- Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354 cdaf@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!cdaf Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewater-request@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (08/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0303m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw. cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) writes: > If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape > (and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape > their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three > bases and a home plate? No. It would require adjustments in expectations > from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone. This is a minor quibble, but Abner Doubleday did not decide on a diamond shape, nor did he have very much to do with the design and development of baseball. Baseball as we know it evolved from cricket, rounders, and the New York Game, and took its basic present form before Doubleday began publicizing it. A pentagon shape (or any other major difference) would result in such a drastically different game that it's hard to imagine its survival. > In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that > when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of > where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such > as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the > bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for her. It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and make the call without thinking about potential consequences. She HAS been married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive feelings for him. If there are children involved, the psychological entanglements get even messier. Remember--"when dealing with human beings, a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
lmg@hoqax.att.com (Lawrence M Geary) (08/19/89)
When I first heard of Caller ID, and realized that the phone company
would be sending my phone number to callers without my permission,
and without giving me the opportunity to stop it, I was outraged.
Now I've been on the receiving end of enough annoying phone calls to
change my mind. I want Caller ID.
Just the other day, I was involved in some matters of personal hygiene
when the phone rang. I didn't want the answering machine to get it
because I was expecting a call and had been playing telephone tag for
days. I rushed to the phone and caught it in time. It was the obscene
caller; the one who dials number after number in the night; if a male
answers, he hangs up instantly; but if a female answers he goes into
his routine. I want to stop this creep from ever invading my home again.
I want Caller ID.
Then there are the charitable organizations I once supported until they
hired phone banks and started asking me for "an extra special contribution".
And calling me at dinner time, or late at night. And they won't take "No"
for an answer. $6.50/month is a small price to get them off my back.
There are also new features possible with Caller ID. How about a telephone
that can be programmed to give certain numbers a distinctive ring? How
about a call forwarding or voice mail service that lets you single out
particular numbers for different treatment? Or an answering machine that
records calls from thosse people who never leave messages? How about
blocking calls on your FAX line from junk FAXers? The central office can
do some of these things now. With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box
from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee.
The privacy issue is real, and there could be abuses. But I've changed
my mind and feel Caller ID is a good thing, and I will get it when I can.
--
lmg@hoqax.att.com Think globally ... Post locally att!hoqax!lmgmorris@jade.jpl.nasa.gov (Mike Morris) (08/20/89)
(Charles Daffinger) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 309, message 1 of 8 >(Bill Nickless) writes: >> [...] >> ... lists some of the benefits of caller ID feature... > > ... talks about his desire to keep his second line number private... >... If it were to show up on the >screen of whomever I'm calling, that would be silly, would it not? >Something which *could* be acceptable to some may be the option of >using some kind of an alternate code for those who so desire. Thus, >instead of your unlisted/unpublished number appearing on the screen of >the receiver of the call, an alternative code (certainly a >non-telephone number) would appear. This identification number would >be unique and associated with your particular number. If somebody has an >unlisted/unpublished phone number then this associated number is >treated in the same way as the phone number: with the same level of >confidentiality. I think this is going to be a necessity. I have 2 lines here in the house, soon to be 3. Only one is listed - and I've had that number since 1965. I've given out the modem line number to maybe 4 people in the time I've had it, and that was when somebody wanted to download something. The _only_ calls I get on teh modem line are solicitors. However, the modem line is on the key system, and the light goes on when the modem is off hook. When it isn't, the modem line is used just like any other outgoing line. I can picture several scenarios: My wife is on the main line calling her aunt, and I make a call on the modem line. The receiving party doesn't recognize the number so refuses the call. Or somebody has a "smart" phone that looks the number up and displays the name of the person. Now, let's say that I call from work - and work has a PBX with 20-or-so outgoing trunks. Does the owner of the phone have to program in every trunk number? No, I think that the telco will have to offer a no-cost option where you can have an _alternate phone number_ that you also are the "owner" of be your "alternate code", Mr. Daffinger. This way, my main number, that everyone knows is "me" will show up no matter if I use my main number or my modem line. As long as this cannot be changed by the user, I think it will work. Or maybe I haven't thought it out far enough. Comments? Comment aside: When will Ma Bell offer combined billing? Sprint lists the toll calls from both lines on one bill (saving postage, paper (a.k.a. trees), etc. Why can't Ma Bell? (In my case, Pacific Bell) Mike Morris UUCP: Morris@Jade.JPL.NASA.gov #Include quote.cute.standard | The opinions above probably do not even come cat flames.all > /dev/null | close to those of my employer(s), if any. [Moderator's Note: AT&T <does> list all lines associated with one subscriber on one bill if you ask. My Reach Out America plan is associated with both my numbers. I can use either line during the applicable time period and have the calls charged against my *single* Reach Out Plan. Likewise, billings from Illinois Bell (and AT&T, as the second part of the bill) are combined with all lines on one bill, provided the lines are on the same prefix. My itemized long distance statement from AT&T, via IBT, lists my main number, then references 'calls from xxx-xxxx' as part. PT]
kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) (08/20/89)
Someone suggested that unlisted lines show up on Caller-ID as some
unique number that may be cross referenced by the phone company.
Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different
unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer
or want to avoid, phone numbers are protected, and when necessary they can be
looked up by The Company.
-ken
--
- Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1]
kgdykes@waterloo.csnet kgdykes@water.bitnet watmath!kgdykes
[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on
first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call
will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this
because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors
and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated.
Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our
behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT]kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes) (08/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0311m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> Ken Dykes <kgdykes@ watmath.waterloo.edu> writes: >Well, why just the unlisted ones? Why not ALL numbers mapped into a different >unique value. Users will soon learn to recognize the ones they want to answer >[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on >first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call >will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this >because you are too itsy-poo to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors >and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated. >Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our >behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT] 1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't need Caller*ID at all! 2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the info. 3) Extend my idea to include ACCOUNTS not numbers, ie: I have 3 phone lines so, only ONE ID for any of the 3 show up (now you only need to remember one number, not 3!) Extend this further to calling-cards, any call I place with my card (from a booth, work, vacation) will show with MY ID, see: more useful 4) Besides, I would expect people in general would answer the phone to "strange" IDs, it's just the "repeat offenders" you would ignore. Thus it really shouldn't be necessary to give you my ID in advance, you will learn the ones you DON'T like. 5) Heck, if its associated with my account, it could follow me when I change phone numbers, see: less complicated -- I don't have to inform you in advance when I change my configuration. -- - Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W] kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu [129.97.128.1] kgdykes@waterloo.csnet kgdykes@water.bitnet watmath!kgdykes
peter@uunet.uu.net (08/21/89)
It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They don't even have to be very complex: (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call Waiting prefix. (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End of problem. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Optimization is not some mystical state of grace, it is an intricate act U of human labor which carries real costs and real risks." -- Tom Neff
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (08/22/89)
By the way, It's obvious that the people who designed ICLID had some of this stuff in mind. The possible things you get in the data burst are the phone number, a P indicating the caller won't tell you, and an O meaning the phone system doesn't know. Of course, whether the phone company will allow you to cause your phone to send a P or not is another story. -Ron
uri@uunet.uu.net (Uri Blumenthal) (08/22/89)
From article <telecom-v09i0312m02 kgdykes@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ken Dykes): >>[Moderator's Note: Under your scenario, when we exchange phone numbers on >>first meeting, we also have to exchange secret numbers! "...my phone call >>will generate '123MJ5092G&H?' on your readout.....I am only giving you this >>because you are too ... to answer your phone and tell the bill collectors >>and itinerant telemarketing people to bug off...." Much too complicated. >>Let's just show the number of origin, and start being responsible for our >>behavior and actions on the phone, okay? PT] > > 1) If everyone started being responsible for phone usage, you wouldn't > need Caller*ID at all! > 2) I can be responsible for *my* usage, but want to keep my number guarded > because I can't guarantee the recipient will be responsible with the inf Wrong. If you want to keep your number guarded - make it unlisted (see previous discussion). If you don't - let's keep all the thing simple. It IS a lot more convenient, when you have either REAL person's name or his/her phone number the call's made from. At least ONE of those IS necessary. You don't want to give up the number - let it be another ID. But why make all the matter so complicated for nothing? From article by ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net: > It's pretty obvious that there need to be rules for this sort of thing. They > don't even have to be very complex: > > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call > Waiting prefix. > > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. > > Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. Sorry, both points are wrong (:-). a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all the system. The only way is to make some codes/names show up instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. Regards, Uri. -------------- <Disclaimer>
nogeea@ncar.ucar.edu (Allen Nogee) (08/22/89)
I'd like to dispel some of the myths that have been going around about Calling Line Identification. I have been involved in the hardware design of this feature for GTE. The following info is transmitted from the CO to your home about 1/2 second after the first ring is completed: 1) Month and Day (01 - 12, and 01 - 31) 2) Military Local Hour and Minute (01 - 23, and 00 - 59) 3) One of the following: a) Directory number, 2 - 10 digits b) ascii 'P' for Private Number or c) ascii 'O' for Out of Area With the present standard, nothing more or nothing less can be transmitted. Sorry, but words and letters are not possible. In the future, if the display boxes and standard are changed, we could transmit up to 256 ascii characters with many more interesting possibilities. The latest I've is that if your number is unlisted, you will get the Private Number code. (Displayed as 'PRIVATE #' on most boxes.) I also hear that the phone company allows callers to type a code (* 7, for example) to cancel the output of their numbers. They do, however, have to do this for every call. > With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box > from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee. Not quite true. This feature, like touch-tone, requires the CO to install special equipment in the switch. You can have all the boxes you want, but without the feature you don't get the number. I've heard you can buy boxes for about $50 - $100. AT&T does supply the box in NJ when you subscribe, but in the future, I can guess there will be a rental charge. (Like a cable box.) I hope the above is helpful, as this is a very new and controversial feature. Allen Nogee
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (08/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0312m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net writes: > Outdial phones for emergency centers or shelters would just be unlisted. End > of problem. Good idea, but I would imagine that such "unlistedness" would require extra fees, just as not being listed in the directory does. It's unfair to expect shelters--who operate on shoestring budgets--to pay extra for something that's rather critical to their safe operation (in this area, yearly salaries for experienced shelter staffers average a whopping $13,000). Of course, it could be argued that free unlistedness for shelters should be mandated by law, but we all know the likelihood of that idea getting by PAC-driven politicians. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
jimmy@denwa.uucp (Jim Gottlieb) (08/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0309m03@vector.dallas.tx.us> lmg@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (lawrence.m.geary) writes: > >With Caller ID I'll be able to buy a box >from Panasonic to do it all without an extra monthly fee. I agree; it will probably be Panasonic (Matsushita) and not AT&T that will first come out with a device for the consumer to manipulate the Caller ID info. If only AT&T could produce products like Panasonic... Speaking of Panasonic, I am told that due to the 178% tariff slapped on their communications products, they have ceased shipping of same from Japan. They said they currently have a 6 month supply, and shipments will resume when manufacture is started at a new factory in the UK. -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: <jimmy@denwa.uucp> or <jimmy@pic.ucla.edu> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy> V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454
leonard@bucket.uucp (Leonard Erickson) (08/24/89)
In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >> In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that >> when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of >> where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such >> as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the >> bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. >Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event >of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her >to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for >her. It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and >make the call without thinking about potential consequences. She HAS been >married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how >much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive >feelings for him. If there are children involved, the psychological >entanglements get even messier. Remember-- "when dealing with human beings, >a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable." It just occured to me that this argument about the women's shelter is bogus. For the number to show up, the *shelter* has to be on an office that has the special features available. Just make sure that the "business" phone for the shelter isn't available to the battered wife, and that the other phones don't have an address in the phone book (to insure against the slight chance that the husband has access to a reverse directory). Result? Now the husband has a number *but no address to go with it*! So he can call the number. Big deal... If he gets obnoxius, Call*trace will handle it. So the only danger is that he could convince someone on the *non-business* line to give him the address. I rate that as about as likelty as the wife giving him the address. I keep saying "non-business" to emphasize that this line would be one listed as something innocous. (J. Random User? ) It wouldn't be the line that the shelter gets it's calls on. So it wouldn't be answered "XYZ Women's Shelter, may I help you?" Heck, it could even be an outgoing only line! (They do exist) With a minimal amount of forethought on the part of the people running the shelter, the problem disappears. It's a lot more likely that the wife will *tell* him where she is! After all, I can easily see someone as distraught as everyone is making the wife out to be giving him the phone number if he asks her for it! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
peter@uunet.uu.net (08/28/89)
This is a response to <telecom-v09i0320m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, posted by arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal) I said: > > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call > > Waiting prefix. Uri said: > a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, > somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the particular prefix is. I said: > > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. Uri replied: > b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all > the system. Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting at here? Finally, he argues: > The only way is to make some codes/names show up > instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE > IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling you. What would be the point? The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their phone numbers to be public knowledge. The two conditions I described provide this protection. I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Just once I'd like to meet an alien menace that isn't immune to bullets" 'U` -- The Brigadier, Dr Who.
rli@uunet.uu.net (Buster Irby) (08/30/89)
ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net writes: >I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to >have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling >you. What would be the point? The point here is that *you* are not entitled to my unlisted phone number just because I placed a call to an identifying device which you happened to be standing next to. However, if I am making harrassing calls, the receipient of the call should be able to identify me to the phone company, ala the code names/numbers. I do not see any reason why the Caller ID device cannot provide the required calling party id without finding it necessary to divulge an unlisted phone number. Buster Irby rli@buster [Moderator's Note: However, some of us feel that we have the right to know the identity of the caller -- not necessarily recognize the caller -- just know the identity of the person ringing our bell. We feel you don't have the right to know our number and be able to ring it at will while at the same time witholding your own, preventing us from calling you. PT]
uri@uunet.uu.net (Uri Blumenthal) (09/01/89)
From article <telecom-v09i0329m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, by ficc!peter@uunet. uu.net: > This is a response to <telecom-v09i0320m03@vector.dallas.tx.us>, posted by > arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal) > > I said: >> > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call >> > Waiting prefix. > Uri said: >> a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, >> somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). > > You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the > particular prefix is. Well, that's me, guy. Sorry (:-) > I said: >> > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. > Uri replied: >> b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all >> the system. > > Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting > at here? Yup, I'll be so kind and explain it. What is the purpose of this system? My answer is: to identify the caller. Other reasons may apply, but I'm interested explicitely in this one. Now, if just one number shows up as 'unlisted' - guess what happens to all your identification? You see, when my friend Bob calls me and says: "Hi Uri, I'm Bob" - don't know about you, but I don't need Caller ID service for such cases. And if somebody anonymous calls and his number shows up as 'anonymous' (or 'unlisted') - again, why do I need such a system? How does your version help in this case? If I do have the right to know who calls me - why should there be any exemptions? "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? And when your right to keep YOUR number private clashes with MY right to know who bothers me at 1:00 AM - for a solution possible see below. > Finally, he argues: >> The only way is to make some codes/names show up >> instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE >> IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. > > I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to > have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling > you. What would be the point? First - you missed the point. This was a PART of a scheme and should answer on the question "What to do if the caller doesn't want his number listed?". The aim of the Caller ID service is NOT to let you to call the caller ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ back immediately - it has only to GIVE YOU THE CALLER ID. No less, no more. What kind of ID - it depends. If THE CALLER DOESN'T OBJECT - it can be his REAL PHONE NUMBER, so in this case you'll be able to call him back as soon as he hangs up (or even sooner :-). But if the caller DOESN'T WANT HIS NUMBER TO BE LISTED - the ID shown will be in another form (I don't care which form exactly, the only thing I need - that ID should explicitely identify the caller. Period.) So in second case the number, which is to be private is not shown up on your screen, so the right of your caller is preserved. Also, since his ID does show up - you YOURSELF can trace him down (if you need, of course). Down to either his real name/address and/or to his real (non-private) phone number. IMHO, it's absolutely unnecessary to have a call-back feature (though helpful SOMETIMES). But it IS necessary to have Caller ID service. > The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to > preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their > phone numbers to be public knowledge. For the solution - see above. > The two conditions I described provide this protection. Yes, your scheme provides that protection, but it doesn't serve the original goal - to identify the caller. In your case you're getting either phone number - or nothing (well, for me 'unlisted' is even worse than nothing :-). My scheme gives you either phone number or ID, traceble ID. So I love my scheme better (:-), as providing more consistent service. > I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the > sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want > is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want > that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI. Sorry, since I don't know what the ANI is AT ALL - I can't dicsuss it, unless you be so kind as to explain it (:-). Regards, Uri. <Disclaimer> [Moderator's Note: ANI is Automatic Number Identification, in any form; whether only to the operator for billing, or to other customers, etc. PT]
ellisond@ncar.ucar.edu (Dell Ellison) (09/01/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0333m02@vector.dallas.tx.us>, buster!rli@uunet.uu.net (Buster Irby) writes: > The point here is that *you* are not entitled to my unlisted phone number > just because I placed a call to an identifying device which you happened to > be standing next to. However, if I am making harrassing calls, the > receipient of the call should be able to identify me to the phone company, > ala the code names/numbers. I do not see any reason why the Caller ID device > cannot provide the required calling party id without finding it necessary to > divulge an unlisted phone number. > Buster Irby rli@buster > [Moderator's Note: However, some of us feel that we have the right to know > the identity of the caller -- not necessarily recognize the caller -- just > know the identity of the person ringing our bell. We feel you don't have > the right to know our number and be able to ring it at will while at the > same time witholding your own, preventing us from calling you. PT] We all have the right to Freedom... As long as our freedom does not take away the Freedom of someone else! In other words, I have the Freedom to swing my arm, but my Freedom stops BEFORE my fist hits the end of your nose. You should have the right to not get hit in the nose. I hope my analogy is fairly obvious. But just in case it isn't ... I have the right to call you, but you have the right to know who is calling. The closest thing we have to that is our phone number. (telephone medium) I agree with the moderator.
rli@uunet.uu.net (Buster Irby) (09/03/89)
Several people including the moderator seem to disagree with my earlier posting on this subject, I even got some personal mail from Peter at ficc on it. The problem is that they all have missed the point of my statement, so let me explain it further. First of all, a device which displays an incoming phone number can be visible to anyone who walks by or happens to be in the vicinity. This may not necessarily be the person to whom I placed the phone call, and could possibly be a person whom I would not want to have my phone number. Access to *my* unlisted phone number is something which *I* pay for and which *I* control, not anyone else. I see no problem in displaying a unique code number which can be used to identify the calling party if the call is of an undesirable nature. Remember, the purpose of the device we are discussing is to identify the calling party, not to enable you to return the call! One of the features of the calling party id device is the ability for *you* to screen your incoming calls and stop people from harassing you. This can be done by simply blocking their code/phone number. Must I give up my right to have an unlisted phone number just because someone wants to be able to return an harassing phone call? I think that a much more adult approach to solving the problem is to block any future calls from that party, not to return them. Returning an obscene or harassing phone call can only escalate the problem further. After all, does anyone really believe that they have the right to know my salary, how old I am, what religion I practice, what color I am, or what my phone number is just because I called them on the phone. I think not. -- Buster Irby rli@buster [Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home" or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served. PT]
langz@asylum.sf.ca.us (Lang Zerner) (09/04/89)
The main reason proponents of caller ID state in support of their view is that they should be able to prevent harassment. Just knowing the number at which the call originates doesn't stop the caller from continuing to call, so the only way really to stop the harrassment is to report the number to the telco and request that they take action (unless you view counter-harrassment as a valid response, which idea has its own attractive mercenary attraction :-). One solution implemented by some BOCs is to provide a "Call Trace" *-sequence which logs the number of the most recent caller with the BOC. The call recipient can then call the telco to request action be taken against the caller (as, presumably, she would have done even if she had received the number via a caller ID display). This way, legitimate callers can retain the privilege of keeping their numbers private, while harrassing callers could not make use of this privilege to escape detection. Why is this solution not sufficient? -- Be seeing you... --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: Part of the objection to call-tracing as the *only* option available is our knowledge of telco bureaucracy. A trace request on Friday at 5 PM might well sit in someone's in-basket until Monday morning. Then, there will be some paperwork. By comparison, most of those calls would cease instantly if the called party had the ability to simply return one of them, and advise the caller his number had been identified. Most phreaks and other types of telephone nuisances work best in anonymity. Take that away, and the problem nearly always ends immediatly. PT]
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg) (09/05/89)
If one needs absolute privacy, why not mail a letter? Unlike the imperious insistient jangle of the phone's bell, a letter arriving in the post does not rouse the receiving party from the middle of sleep, ruin his leisure, or break his concentration. As I see it, the critics of caller ID would arrogate to themselves the right to blast in and interrupt the privacy and serenity of the called party. I on the other hand would like to reclaim some of my privacy and serenity, and caller ID could be used to this end. One useful adjunct to caller ID would be some identification indicating a mass marketing cold call (soliciting, etc.). Originators of "junk calls" could be required to use this ID *without* compromising their rights of free speech.
ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) (09/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0344m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, Buster Irby writes: > Remember, the purpose of the device we are discussing is to identify > the calling party, not to enable you to return the call! This has not been established; I wouldn't put this in such rhetorical terms! I personally don't mind the idea of a code, but if the telephone number of the initiator of a harassing caller ever flashed on my box, you can bet I'd call them back pronto and return the favor. I think having the full phone number of the caller, even though it is unlisted, would be preferable to just a code, but either way, there are ways around whatever comes to pass, and your reasons for wanting a code are not really effective, nor completely fair -- read on. > One of the features of the calling party id device is the ability for *you* > to screen your incoming calls and stop people from harassing you. This can > be done by simply blocking their code/phone number. This can also be done by giving *them* a few calls back. How many folks do you think would harass you if you harassed them right back? Not that I would play telephone tag with some jerk I don't know, but it seems reasonable that being able to call people back after they harass you on the phone is a fairly effective method for dealing with the situation. There have been testimonials from people in this forum who have this service and have already used it to put a quick stop to harassing calls simply by calling harassers back. And what if you run out of storage in your blocked number list? All the descriptions of the number blocking service have included limits to the list of numbers that can be blocked. If you are ever so fortunate to be on just one telemarketing list, or to have a credit card, you can be sure that your blocked list will grow right quick. ``So call the telemarketers back and ask them to stop calling you,'' you might say. RIGHT. Ever try to tell a computer you don't have dialup access to to forget about your record in their database? I wouldn't believe any telephone marketing organization would remove my record from their files when I asked unless I could be allowed to remove it myself. > Must I give up my right to have an unlisted phone number just because > someone wants to be able to return a harassing phone call? Read ``must I give up my rights so someone else can have theirs?'' Well, as someone else was mentioning last week, yes and no. Rights are only just if they don't infringe upon those of others. It seems we have that case here, and it's a hard problem to solve. I tend to think that if those with unlisted numbers truly want to have privacy, they should not call anyone. After all, if they don't want anyone to bother them, why should they be able to bother others? Right now, if someone calls you and wakes you up at 4 am, you have no recourse, and cannot return the favor. With CID/non-pub, you remain anonymous inasmuch as you cannot be called back if you should harass anyone else. Why should you have that privilege while the vast majority of callers are held directly and immediately accountable for their calls since their numbers are listed? I think that the rights of those with unlisted numbers are being carried out such that they will be conceptually immune from any identification system, and everyone *else*'s rights to immediately know who is *invading THEIR privacy* are sacrificed. Unless every participant in the telephone network is treated the same, the CID system cannot be truly fair to all, listed and unlisted ALIKE, as it should be. If someone with an unlisted number wanted to remain anonymous (or at least not directly reachable) in the midst of CID, with codes or no codes, one could certainly do so with other methods. One could establish a line for making calls, one that is listed, but is perhaps never answered, or put your modem on this line. Modem carriers are never very exciting. Another separate line could be unlisted, and used only for receiving calls from those to whom I give the number, or for making calls to the same. I realize that adding an extra line may seem a bit excessive of a step to achieve the privacy that CID seems to be reworking, but if you really value your privacy, you sometimes need to take steps to insure it. Being the exception to the rule often involves a price, which is not unreasonable, in my mind, at all. Inconvenience in the interest of fairness for ALL is sometimes the price you have to pay for your own liberty. > Returning an obscene or harassing phone call can only escalate the problem > further. Not according to the testimonials here. As I mentioned above, those who have this service have demonstrated that they can put a quick stop to the harassment by calling the person back and giving them some harassment they can understand. If you have evidence that calling the person back only escalates the problem further, let's see it! > After all, does anyone really believe that they have the right to know my > salary, how old I am, what religion I practice, what color I am, or what my > phone number is just because I called them on the phone. I think not. This is just sensationalism, scare tactics to make this seem like some big brother is going to divulge everything about everyone unless those with unlisted numbers are allowed to have their exception infringing on others rights. Let's stick to the issues, huh? ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben
deej@bellcore.bellcore.com (David Lewis) (09/05/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0344m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, buster!rli@uunet.uu.net (Buster Irby) writes: > Access to *my* > unlisted phone number is something which *I* pay for and which *I* control, > not anyone else. Actually, no. Access to "your" unlisted (unpublished) phone number is something which the telco agrees to not provide in certain circumstances -- published paper directories (with a reasonable likelihood to also include "Electronic White Pages" -- machine-readable or online directories -- if and when telcos get around to providing them) and Directory Assistance. "Your" unlisted phone number is provided by the telco to Interexchange Carriers every time you make an inter-LATA call, beyond your control; provided to information providers every time you access an information (audiotext) service; there may be other cases which don't come to mind immediately. > [Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the > device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, > since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco > carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I > had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the > caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home" > or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served. PT] Actually, people have. Here at Bellcore we have some experimental service trials, one of which is Caller Name Delivery. (Don't have the CPE for it, so we've got a bit of a hack with a DecTalk board -- you pick up the phone, and it says "Call from so-and-so", then you press * to accept the call or hang up to reject it.) The problem is administering the database. You'd like to meet the emerging performance expectations from Calling Number Delivery -- deliver the name between the first and second rings. That means you have to have accessed the appropriate database and found the name before the first ring is finished. If you try to do it from the terminating end, you've got to find a database on the originating end, send back a query, and get a response, all in (probably) under 1-2 seconds. Not easy. If you do the database lookup on the originating end -- makes more sense, because that's where the information is -- you've got to send the information along with the call setup information. There's no place to put it in SS7 basic call setup, so you've got to either hack it in somewhere in SCCP (Signaling Connection Control Part) or go back to standards and modify the protocol. Also not fun. (In the experiment at Bellcore, it's simple -- if the call isn't from a station subtending the Red Bank CO, we don't get the caller name...) In other words, a very good idea, and probably one which is a desirable solution, but a bear to make work. -- David G Lewis ...!bellcore!nvuxr!deej "If this is paradise, I wish I had a lawnmower."
uri@uunet.uu.net (Uri Blumenthal) (09/05/89)
> device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, > since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco > carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I > had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the > caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home" > or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served. PT] You see, to have the name shown would be very nice, except for one little thing. Just how many 'John Smith's may live in your neighborhood? Should I check each one in case of problem? Or the next step in that direction would be to show the caller address also (:-)? <Disclaimer> [Moderator's Note: It does not really matter how many John Smiths live in Chicago. Acceptance or rejection of the call would frequently be based on my personal aquaintence with *some person* named John Smith. If I know of some person by that name, we might assume my aquaintence is calling. PT]
peter@uunet.uu.net (09/06/89)
[ Buster explains (I think) that he intended that a code be given out for unlisted numbers, rather than having a code given out for everyone ] I see, we had a bit of communication mixup then. What I (and apparently everyone else) heard was that you wanted a code for *all* numbers. This is just an enhancement of what seems to be the consensus among pro-Caller*Id folks. > [Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the > device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, Well, this would be quite a bit more expensive to implement, and it would nuke the folks who use chintzy unlisted service (listing their phone under another name), so you'd still have to enact all the same safeguards. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Your mother applies makeup with a hot-glue gun. Your sister bites mailmen.'U` Your face looks like it's been washed in acid and dried with a cheese-grater." [Moderator's Note: True, the people who list under bogus names would have to deal with this, but I should think the ordinary non-pubs would be very pleased with the solution. Unless, of course, there are some who say I am not only to be denied their number, but their name as well! PT]
mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris.com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) (09/06/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0347m04@vector.dallas.tx.us> langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >The main reason proponents of caller ID state in support of their view is that >they should be able to prevent harassment. Just knowing the number at which >the call originates doesn't stop the caller from continuing to call, so the >only way really to stop the harrassment is to report the number to the telco >and request that they take action (unless you view counter-harrassment as a >valid response, which idea has its own attractive mercenary attraction :-). >One solution implemented by some BOCs is to provide a "Call Trace" *-sequence >which logs the number of the most recent caller with the BOC. The call >recipient can then call telco to request action be taken against the caller >(as, presumably, she would have done even if she had received the number via a >caller ID display). This way, legitimate callers can retain the privilege of >keeping their numbers private, while harrassing callers could not make use of >this privilege to escape detection. Why is this solution not sufficient? On major point that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked here is a psychological one. I for one wsould not purchase a feature such as Call Trace or Call Block until I need it. At the present time I haven't needed such an animal for several years. Now paying several bucks a month for a feature I might possibly need once every four or five years does not sound too cost effective. As a consequence the probabilty of any significant fraction of the telephone customer base having this feature is insignificant in the extreme. A harrasing caller would be well assure that his chances of hitting someone, first shot, who already has this feature is somewhat less likely than being hit by a meteor. Now the telco could offer these features for free and install it on everyone's phone ready to use when the need arises, but I fear we have just left the realm of the unlikely and entered the realm of the unreal. Many people (I for one) will purchase Calling Line ID in a heart beat! Now the probablity of stumbling upon someone with this feature suddenly becomes much more significant. Now there exists a distinct possiblity of getting caught in the act ON THE FIRST CALL! Recently, in the metro Atlanta area, an obsence phone caller harrased over 100 women. He called them up on the phone, claiming to have kidnaped their husband or other member of their family, coerced personal information from them, and then proceeded to try to get them to perform various sexual acts that may be best left unsaid. While many did not comply, some did follow some of his instructions, and most were terrorized in the extreme. Now picture this situation. Say 10% of the customers in this area had this feature (high yes, but maybe not, if it becomes real popular). He would have had ten or more women with his phone number reporting him to the police! Now, you say, what if he was calling from a pay phone? Well, now you have some track of his where- abouts and his activities. The police might even scare up a witness or two. With this possiblity, is the risk worth the thrill? The damage he did was considerable and both physical as well as psychological. These women were literally raped over the phone!! Are the people opposed to this feature recommending we all get these protective features and feed the telco coffers just in case of something like this or do they prefer to let someone like this get away with his obsence perversion and let these women fend for themselves?? This guy was not some off-the-street creep. His methods were well thought out, involved superficially personal information, and was extermely convincing. He played on many peoples darkest fears and convinced many extermely intelligent women that their husband or children really were in danger if they did not act out his fantasies! All of this was reported in the Atlanta Constitution that reported most of the victims were in the Gwinnett County area, a generally affluent suburban county where a significant number of individuals could be expected to purchase a fancy new toy like CLID. The reason the harrassing phone calls have gone down in New Jersey is the active risk of somebody having this feature just because they like it, not because they got it for protection! This guy never called anyone back twice. A feature which you don't have and takes a month to get is totally useless against a random caller like this. The key here is not that you can report his number to the telco or the police. The key here is that the risk of getting caught is high enough to discourage this kind of crime in the first place. It's true that even if you have CLID and you have a harrasing caller, you still have to storm the barracades down at the telco bureacracy. It hasn't bought you anything over the other features, if you have them. It's the RISK! It's the PREVENTION! It's raising the probability that a given "mark" already has the feature installed! Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals. Condoning it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well! --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
ben@sybase.com (ben ullrich) (09/07/89)
> By comparison, most of those calls would cease > instantly if the called party had the ability to simply return one of them, > and advise the caller his number had been identified. Most phreaks and > other types of telephone nuisances work best in anonymity. Take that away, > and the problem nearly always ends immediatly. PT] Right on! Thanks! ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc., emeryville, ca "When you deal with human beings, a certain +1 (415) 596 - 3500 amount of nonsense is inevitable." -- mike trout ben@sybase.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis}!sybase!ben
gordon@sneaky.uucp (Gordon Burditt) (09/07/89)
> [Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the > device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, > since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco > carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I > had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the > caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home" > or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served. PT] I have numerous objections to this: - I suspect at least 10% of the households will have a member highly insulted to be identified as *Mr.* when they are *Mrs.* or vice versa, or to be identified as their child or parent. This alone will generate enough bad feeling and charges of sexism to make it a bad idea. The phone company needs to promote separate lines for husbands and wives and have the idea well-accepted before trying this. - It greatly confuses the distinction between telephone numbers and names. Many people will think that the phone company is doing something it can't do - identify which person is using the phone (by fingerprints?). The technically uninformed may be even more unwilling to call "hot lines" even if the hot lines don't have Caller-ID and say so. We have a voice mail system at work which does identify the caller or callee by name or both to the receptionist (inside lines only - outside lines are identified by some code meaning "outside line" and maybe identifying which outside line) when the call gets forwarded or busy/na-forwarded. Somehow, the line/name association is programmed into the system. Voice mail users and the receptionist can get confused with the two-people-sharing-one-line problem. I'm not sure how this can be handled other than one person doesn't get call-answering messages taken, and the other gets messages for both. The person who doesn't get call-answering messages taken probably never bothers to check voice mail. - Use of this information by a customer service department is likely to screw up the already blurred distinction between the Visa cards of Mr. Smith, his father, and his adult son, all at the same address. - Names are not unique. I don't want my calls blocked just because some jerk with my name sells swampland out of his home. - I don't want to block calls from Charles M. Sanchez's medical office just because Charles M. Sanchez's kids make nuisance calls from his home. - A company name alone isn't enough. For example, "Radio Shack" identifies at least dozens of entirely separate locations with thousands of phones in my area code, plus the warehouses, factories, and corporate headquarters. (some of these have PBX's, but they do not share them between locations.) - I wouldn't want to block all calls from a company I do business with just because their fax machine keeps calling my voice number. The phone company will not know which lines are fax lines. But it would still be nice to block the fax calls until I can get the correct fax number onto lists in each of too many departments. - When I was at RPI, I had to have a call traced. Phone company records identified the caller as a pay phone at 110 Eighth Street, and they couldn't give any more specific information. Further examination of phone company records would have revealed enough pay phones at 110 Eighth Street to make a mile-high tower of them on top of the administration building, to say nothing of the non-pay phones. A large area around that had no phones at all (according to the records, which obviously had the billing address). (They finally gave me the NUMBER. It took about 5 minutes to identify it with a campus directory.) Does this mean I would have a choice of blocking both the alumni association and pay phones in the dorms, or neither (assuming I was still in the same area code)? - Caller-ID should provide a "handle" that can be used to identify a line to services like Call Block, Distinctive Ring, etc., so suggestions that Caller-ID display names but Call Block accept numbers only destroy much of the usefulness of having both. Gordon L. Burditt ...!texbell!sneaky!gordon PS: It would be really nice, though, to have something in the caller-ID that identifies: business vs. residential vs. government telemarketing call vs. anything else No. of unresolved complaints to Better Business Bureau against this organization
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (09/07/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0351m04@vector.dallas.tx.us> "Michael H. Warfield (Mike) <wittsend!mhw@gatech.edu> writes: > On major point that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked here is a >psychological one. I for one would not purchase a feature such as Call Trace >or Call Block until I need it. ... In the places where I have seen CLASS features offered, Call Trace unlike all the other features is priced per use rather than per month, which means that everybody has Call Trace available, and it costs a dollar each time you use it. Unless you get an awful lot of heavy breathers, that's cheaper than a monthly fee, anyway. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus}!esegue!johnl, Levine@YALE.edu Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old. -The Globe
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (09/07/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0351m02@vector.dallas.tx.us> arnor!uri@uunet.uu.net (Uri Blumenthal) writes: }X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 351, message 2 of 5 }> device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, }> since this would (a) identify the caller by the name under which the telco }> carried him in its records; (b) probably be the same name under which I }> had made your aquaintence; and (c) protect the private phone number of the }> caller. In other words, the little box would read out, "Dr. Brown at home" }> or "Smith Telemarketing Co." etc...the same purpose would be served. PT] }You see, to have the name shown would be very nice, except for one little }thing. Just how many 'John Smith's may live in your neighborhood? Should }I check each one in case of problem? Or the next step in that direction }would be to show the caller address also (:-)? This is easy enough: All we need is a national "phone ID card", and in order to use *any* phone you should have to key in your magic-number. Then the little box can *absolutely* tell you who was calling. Not only that, but it'll also nail the miscreants even if they try to use pay phones! It also leaves the question of "unlisted phone numbers" out of the equation: they can just stay 'secret' since there is no real need to display the number. Remember: anonymity is just a cloak to hide evil doings! The more light we shed on our doings, to allow them to be more easily electronically tracked, to allow us to do our OWN 'enforcement', the better off we'll be. /Bernie\
das@cs.ucla.edu (David A Smallberg) (09/08/89)
Maybe I missed something between the previous go-round on this issue and now,
but I thought there was a general feeling that the problem could be resolved
this way:
* The caller chooses whether or not to have his/her number transmitted.
* The receiver's equipment decides whether or not to accept certain calls.
Most people would probably choose to have suppressed-origin calls ignored by
their phone (with a recording back to the caller that suppressed-number calls
are not accepted), and most businesses and government agencies would still
accept them (maybe government agencies should be required to accept them,
since callers are not potential profit-generating customers). People might
have their equipment reject certain recognized numbers, but would be wise
accept any other identified call, since it could be an urgent call from a
friend on a strange phone.
Didn't this resolve the major concerns? the obscene caller, the hard-to-trace
telemarketer, the battered wife, calls to the IRS, I-locked-my-keys-in-the-car-
so-I'm-calling-from-this-payphone.
-- David Smallberg, das@cs.ucla.edu, ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!dasjohn@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) (09/08/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0351m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris. com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes: > Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading > mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals. Condoning > it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well! I have been viewing the discussion of caller id (CID) from the sidelines, since it is very doubtful that Pacific Bell will be offering CLASS features in the near future and I'm sure my prefix won't see it in this century (unless they figure out how to make it work in a 1ESS). But, after reading Mr. Warfield's somewhat lengthy article in favor of CID, and specifically having the number itself, not a code or name, show up in the display, I have come to the conclusion that I am against CID in general and Mr. Warfield's proposals in particular. That which knocked me off the fence was the passage quoted above. You bet I want to preserve my precious privacy. All of us have been fighting the erosion of that commodity all of our lives and the battle has been getting tougher and tougher. At this point, I make two assertions. The first is that the problem of crank calls has been overstated and the second is that there are ways of dealing with cranks that do not require the general populace to surrender another chunk of their privacy. I won't take the time here to list all the things one can do to discourage a crank caller, but even in the most extreme case, all one has to do is get a second line and unplug the phone from the first. Then your antagonist can ring it to his heart's content while you use your second, unpublished, line. While you are waiting for its installation, just hang up on your breather. He will get bored quickly. But why should we *all* have to give up our privacy? I don't make crank calls. I have a listed number, but I make all outgoing calls on an unlisted one. No one, and I mean no one, has that number. If it ever rings, I answer it "wrong number, please learn how to dial" and hang up. Why should I surrender that number to everyone that I call? And what good would it do them? If there will be such a thing as a "private" exemption, then what good will CID be in detering crank calls? Any crank caller with an IQ greater than a watermelon will have an unlisted number. And that, to me, is also giving more information than I wish to give. Most people don't know that I have a private line since they have my listed number. When I call them, instead of 723-1395 (calm down, it's in my .signature) showing up in the display, it will say *PRIVATE* or whatever. Cover blown! Whenever someone insists that innocent citizens have to give up something in the name of catching the guilty, the argument's over. If the catching of perpetrators infringes on the rights of non-perpetrators, then another method of catching perpetrators needs to be found. The other (fun) aspects of CID are interesting, and of course I would have it in an instant. But now we're back to academics, since it won't be offered in Perpetually Backward territory in the forseeable future. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Levenson) (09/10/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0361m08@vector.dallas.tx.us>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: ... > I have been viewing the discussion of caller id (CID) from the > sidelines, since it is very doubtful that Pacific Bell will be > offering CLASS features in the near future and I'm sure my prefix won't > see it in this century (unless they figure out how to make it work in a > 1ESS). Here in NJ, we have Caller*Id from our local 1ESS switch. Having subscribed to this service for about six months, I've noticed which areas in this LATA transmit the calling number, and which don't. It appears that the pre-ESS switches, and the 5ESS switches don't identify the calling party. The 1ESS and 1AESS do (except in Summit!). -- Dave Levenson Voice: (201) 647 0900 Westmark, Inc. Internet: dave@westmark.uu.net Warren, NJ, USA UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave [The Man in the Mooney] AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
asg@space.mit.edu (Sergei A. Gourevitch) (09/11/89)
I think that some of the controversy is due to the different nature of the calls which people are envisioning. I can see that if a person is sitting at home and calling a large organization (the IRS? (:- ) one wants his privacy protected. But, damnit, if you're calling me at home it's my privacy that's paramount (ask anybody with small children whose phone rings while the kids are being tended to). If you won't let me know who you are, and that includes your number, I don't want to be bothered. Also: How come the law allows me to tell the Post Office that I don't want junk mail but I can't tell the Phone Company I don't want junk phone calls (Telemarketers) ? Sergei A. Gourevitch MIT Center for Space Research Inet: asg@space.mit.edu Cambridge, MA 02139 UUCP: !mit-eddie!mit-space!asg +1 617 253 8208
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (09/13/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0368m09@vector.dallas.tx.us> asg@space.mit.edu (Sergei A. Gourevitch) writes: |Also: |How come the law allows me to tell the Post Office that I don't want |junk mail but I can't tell the Phone Company I don't want junk phone |calls (Telemarketers) ? Since when? You can only tell the P.O. you don't want obscene mail. You have the same rights regarding obscene phone calls (though they may be harder to exercise). You may request the Direct Marketing Association (?) to ask their members to take you off all their lists. That is the only thing you can do about junk mail, and it is entirely voluntary. /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617) 873-3463 |