GABEL@qcvax.bitnet (08/14/89)
The following article appeared on page 1 of the New York Times, Saturday, 8/5/89. (copyright 1989 New York Times) Harrassing Calls Show Decline When Phones Identify Callers by Calvin Sims The number of obscene or harassing telephone calls has fallen sharply in the first test of a system that allows people to see the number of the phone the call was dialed on before they answer. The test in Hudson County, N.J., showed a 49 percent drop in requests to track such calls after the system was in place. Telephone companies welcome the results, hoping that they will increase demand for the caller- identification service. Such systems are seen as a significant potential source of telephone revenue but they have been slow to win acceptance from regulators because of criticism that they invade the privacy of callers. The caller-identification system offered in New Jersey displays the number of the calling party on a small digital screen attached to the tel- ephone. The telephone subscriber can also notify the NJ Bell Telephone Co. to make a computer record of where and when a harassing call originated by dialing a code when the call is received. And, by pressing a code, the phone owner can block calls coming in from a designated number, making it impossible for a harasser to make repeated calls from one phone. The Hudson County test was started in late 1987 and has been widely available since the beginning of this year. The number of requests the phone company received to trace calls has declined sharply there. The 236 requests received in the six months that ended April 30, for example, amounted to a 49% decline from the similar six-month period two years earlier, when no one in the area had caller identification, NJ Bell said. "This technology, by its mere presence, is having a chilling effect on the number of crank phone calls that people are reporting," said James W. Carrigan, a spokesman for NJ Bell. "The word is out: people now have the ability to see the phone number of the caller, and many would-be obscene callers are afraid to mess around on the telephone." The service may spread rapidly. Phone companies in New York, Pennsylvania, California and the several Southern states served by the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company plan to introduce the service. The phone companies are enthusiastic about the revenue potential. New Jersey Bell, which charges $6.50 a month for the service, said its surveys showed that about 42% of its customers, or 1.2 million people, received annoyance calls last year and that 72,000 complaints were filed. Many phone companies, however, are moving more slowly than they expected because of the privacy issues the technology raises. Critics contend that the systems violate the rights of phone users who wish simply to keep their numbers private. The critics also say that caller identification will make the public less likely to use confidential social services like AIDS hotlines or shelters for battered women. And consumers phoning businesses might find their numbers being passed on to telephone marketing concerns without permission. The phone companies respond that the caller identification system increases privacy because it gives the called party an "electronic peephole," allowing them to answer only those calls from recognized numbers. Although there was strong opposition to the caller-identification system from the American Civil Liberties Union, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities allowed New Jersey Bell to introduce the service because of the initial success of the phone company's trial run. For billing, telephone companies keep a monthly computer log of all local and long-distance phone calls. Such records take about a month to process. The call-trace system allows the subscriber to create an immediate record of harassing calls. Several New Jersey residents have used the system to rid themselves of harassing calls. Some have recognized the phone number of the harassing caller as that of a relative of friend and asked the known harasser to stop. Other subscribers who were unfamiliar with the number of the harassing call that appeared on the display screen informed callers that their phone numbers could be seen, and the harassers quickly hung up. A family in Middlesex County used the computerized call tracing feature of the system to press charges against a man who called their home about 20 times a night for three months. The family made it possible for the phone company to record the number, date and time of the calls. "The guy had seen my daughter at a party, and he would call our number and say the most profane sexual things about her," said the father, who asked that the family not be identified. "It got to the place where we just took the phone off the hook in the evenings." When the case went to trial, New Jersey Bell provided the judge with its computer records. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year on probation. Experts said the case is typical in that the caller knew the victim. "Over all, we have dealt with very few perverts because most obscene phone callers are old boyfriends who have been dumped," said Martin Harrington, a detective at the Buffalo Police Department who specialized in telephone harassment cases. "The caller-identification device would probably cut my caseload by about 80% because the greatest fear of any obscene caller is having their identity revealed." Making an obscene or threatening phone call is a misdemeanor in most states. In New York State, conviction carries a maximum sentence of a year in jail and a $500 fine. More than 19,000 customers in New Jersey have signed up for the caller identification service. By the end of the year, the service will be available to about 66% of New Jersey Bell's 2.8 million customers. Among the localities that will have the service are Asbury Park, Atlantic City, Camden, Elizabeth, Hackensack, Lakewook, Montclair, Morristown, New Brunswick, Newark, Paterson, Plainfield, Red Bank, Toms River and Trenton. Phone users in other states may have to wait longer than expected because of the growing privacy debate. Pacific Bell, the big local phone company in California, was scheduled to offer caller identification later this year but recently said it would await until 1991 to consider the privacy issues. "We have the obligation to our customers to thoroughly explore the issues surrounding this new technology before we install it in our network," said Ethan Thorman, Pacific Bell's product manager. "At first the system looked like it was free of controversy so we rushed ahead to deploy it. But then we stepped back." The California Legislature is considering a bill that would require phone companies that offer the caller identification system to include a blocking feature that would allow the person making the call to block his or her phone numbers by dialing a special code. The party being called would receive a message on the digital screen indicating that the call is a private one. The bill, which has already passed the California Assembly and goes before the Senate later this year, would require the phone companies to provide the blocking service at no cost. "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the batterer to let him know that she is all right." A similar battle is developing in Pennsylvania, where the Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania hopes to introduce caller identification by the end of the year. As in California, critics are arguing that the service should come with a feature that allows a caller to prevent the recipient from seeing where the call originated. "The introduction of this service poses a variety of privacy intrusions that the phone companies have been well aware of for some time," said Dan Clearfield, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate Office. "That's why they designed the blocking mechanism into the original caller-identification software." New York Telephone plans to offer the service first in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., and parts of Vermont later this year. A New York Telephone spokesman said that the company hopes to offer the service in other New York cities in 1990 but that the introductions would be based on how well the service does in the initial offerings. A spokeswoman for Southern New England Telephone Company siad that plans to start offering call-trace and call-block services in Connecticut later this year but that it has delayed offering caller identification because of the privacy issue. The phone companies say the inclusion of a blocking mechanism may make caller identification far less appealing to consumers. ============================= Dan Blumenthal Gabel%QCVAX.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) (08/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0295m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, GABEL@qcvax.bitnet writes: > The following article appeared on page 1 of the New York Times, > Saturday, 8/5/89. (copyright 1989 New York Times) > > Harrassing Calls Show Decline When Phones Identify Callers > by Calvin Sims > > The number of obscene or harassing telephone calls has fallen sharply > in the first test of a system that allows people to see the number of the > phone the call was dialed on before they answer. I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the phone company can deal with problem calls. They've had those "black boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace a call. Over ten years ago, a friend of my mother's was getting nuisance calls in the middle of the night. After a number of occurrences, the phone company gave her one of these devices, and the next time there was a call, they traced it, and the police ended up knocking on the guy's door not too much later. I guess he was pretty surprised. However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the culprit. Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the following strategy for nuisance calls. Tap the receiver so it sounds like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want you to trace." I think this would probably be enough to scare off the "casual" prankster. There was a neat story here maybe five or six years ago. Apparently the phones at the White House are (or at least were) constantly equipped with tracing devices, so that any threatening calls can be traced immediately. Seems this local high school student was showing off or something, called the White House from a pay phone at the Cohoes High School, and made some kind of vague threat. Well, the call was traced immediately to that pay phone, the Secret Service called their office in Albany, who contacted the Sheriff's Office. They dashed over to the school, asked a few people if they'd seen anybody using the pay phone, and confronted the offending student--all within 45 minutes! You can imagine, that student was pretty impressed with the response. -- "ANGRY WOMEN BEAT UP SHOE SALESMAN Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) WHO POSED AS GYNECOLOGIST" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef
(Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) (08/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0295m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, GABEL@qcvax.bitnet writes: > Consumers phoning businesses might find their numbers > being passed on to telephone marketing concerns without permission. This is serious. This is hard to combat. > "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function > endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of > Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in > Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the > batterer to let him know that she is all right." This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment. Bye." ........................................................................... Andrew Palfreyman There's a good time coming, be it ever so far away, andrew@berlioz.nsc.com That's what I says to myself, says I, time sucks jolly good luck, hooray! [Moderator's Note: With this Digest, we conclude our eighth year of electronic publication. The Digest has grown and expanded tremendously in the past year; and I take this opportunity to thank all of you who have made it possible with your informative and interesting messages. Patrick Townson]
mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris.com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) (08/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0309m06@vector.dallas.tx.us> davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) writes: >I have no doubt that this is true, but this is not the only way the >phone company can deal with problem calls. They've had those "black >boxes" for years, enabling them to keep a line open in order to trace >a call. Yeah well I've been this route and it generally requires complaints stretched out over weeks, if not months; multiple call to the telco security people (you don't get it if you don't become a nuisance to them); and getting past the clerks who insist nothing of that sort exists. Then, if you have your dispensation from God in order, you might just get it, along with the remark that it doesn't always work. >..... However, of course it turned out to be an ex-lover, so my >guess is that in most cases, an educated guess would lead you to the >culprit. Trouble is, educated guesses don't prove a thing and can't be taken to court or the telco to get relief if the bum doesn't quit or admit to it. In fact it might just convince him that he's getting under your skin and to turn up the heat! After all, you're just guessing. >Also, someone once told me that the phone company had given them the >following strategy for nuisance calls. Tap the receiver so it sounds >like a couple of clicks, then say "Operator, this is the call I want >you to trace." I think this would probably be enough to scare off the >"casual" prankster. Oh boy, I though this had died a quiet death ages ago. I tried this once. Pranksters turned out to be a bunch of kids having fun when their parents were out. They though that was funny as all get out. Had to call me back several more times to listen to the routine!!!!!!! My wife and I had to put up with their nonsense for weeks afterwards. Note that this is where I got my first experience with the telco security people and the illusive black box. Never did get the box that time, the kids gave up before the telco security people did. Biggest problem with this is that anyone with the inteligence of a rock is going to recognize it for the bullsh*t that it is. It just feeds their fun. After all they're getting to you! That's exactly what they wanted to do. The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is a modem. After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn the modem on with auto answer. <<<PAINFULL SECOND CALL>>> It rarely takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it. I recommended this to a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious crank call problem very effectively! Problem with it is that you can only use it when you don't want or expect any calls. I've never gotten any innocent victims yet but there is that catch. Calling Party ID is definitly an idea whose time has come. Southern Bell here in the Atlanta area has already announced all of the other related features (Call Block, Call Trace, etc.) but I can wait for the furor to settle and I can get the real thing. I haven't had crank calls for years so Call Block and Call Trace aren't really very useful to me. I would love to turn the tables on some of these *sshole phone solicitors, though. I would also love to see the day when it can be hooked-up up to my answering system (already computer controled) and I can customize my greetings based on who called me (read that last remark anyway you like). --- 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!
john@apple.com (John Higdon) (08/22/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0312m04@vector.dallas.tx.us>, mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris. com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes: > The best thing I found for dealing with late night crank calls is > a modem. After the first crank call in the middle of the night, I turn > the modem on with auto answer. <<<PAINFULL SECOND CALL>>> It rarely > takes more than a call or two for the callers to realize that they can't > frustrate a machine and their ears aren't worth it. I recommended this to > a college student friend a few years back and she also dealt with a serious > crank call problem very effectively! Problem with it is that you can > only use it when you don't want or expect any calls. I've never gotten > any innocent victims yet but there is that catch. This brings up a heretofore unmentioned type of harrassment call: the idiot with the wrong number. These may have been pranks, but they sounded legitimate. On the first instance someone called on my private line and asked for a Tom [Somebody]. I simply said, "you must have the wrong number", and hung up. Minutes later, he calls back and upon realizing that he had reached the same party asked if he had reached 723-XXXX. I told him that he had and that he must have obtained the wrong number somewhere. A few minutes after that, a woman called asking for the same person. Once again, I explained that she had a wrong number--at which point the previous gentleman, who was on the line, spoke up and said, "See, I told you, honey." I thought that was that. Ten minutes later, an operator called and said, "This is the Pacific Bell operator. Have I reached 723-XXXX?" "Yes" "Is there a Tom [Somebody] there?" "No, and there never has been". "Thank-you." That was scenario #1. The second scenario begins simply with a telco repairman showing up at the door. He says, "Pacific Bell repair. You have a line...723-yyyy out of order?" "Not that I'm aware of." "A Mister [Neverheardoftheperson] reported your line out of order." Well, it turns out that 723-yyyy in this case has a Telebit Trailblazer connected to it. For those of you who don't know, it answers with the most gawdawful "bleep-blop-whoosh", repeated once then followed by standard modem tones. Some idiot was so sure he had a right number that he actually called repair service and "turned it in". Even more surprising was that they dispatched without calling on one of my voice lines first. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.uucp | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Don't you love the people who pull those stunts? I once had a lady do that to my modem line, but the repair foreman called me from his office on my other line to inquire, "Pat, don't you have a modem on the second line?" I told him I did, and he related that some lady had put *seven quarters in a row* in a payphone someplace; kept calling my number and getting the modem; got two different operators to assist her because she did not believe the first operator, and finally -- bless her soul -- when she got home she called Repair Service to turn me in for having "...some kind of terrible, loud noise on the line...". And she even asked Repair if they would *refund the buck seventy five she lost* trying to get through. Talk about Dumb! Although I am sure she meant well by calling it in. PT]
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (08/26/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0322m08@vector.dallas.tx.us>, nsc!berlioz.nsc.com! (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head ) writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0295m01@vector.dallas.tx.us>, GABEL@qcvax.bitnet > writes: > > "A caller-identification system that does not have a blocking function > > endangers the lives of battered women," said Gail Jones, director of > > Women Escaping a Violent Environment, a counseling center based in > > Sacramento, Calif. "The woman or her counselor will often contact the > > batterer to let him know that she is all right." > This is ridiculous. If that's all they want to say, let them use a > phone-booth. "I'm all right, dear. I have escaped our violent environment. > Bye." I hate to keep beating on this subject, but "there you go again..." No woman who has just escaped a violent domestic environment is going to make a rational, logical phone call like that. The counselor can be relied upon to behave rationally, but not the victim. We all make the mistake of assuming that people will always do what they should do, but this is like saying that drunk driving should go away simply because drunk driving is wrong. I daresay that Gail Jones knows a lot more about the behavior of battered women than you do. -- 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
gdelong@cvman.prime.com (Gary Delong) (09/02/89)
As I see it, there seem to be four main objections to the Caller-ID features:
1) Businesses building lists of casual callers to use in future phone
solicitation campaigns. (and maybe even selling those lists)
2) Callers to various public agencies and hot-lines might wish to remain
anonymous.
3) Certain calls from parties to domestic abuse may wish to contact other
parties without revealing their whereabouts.
4) Those who have an un-listed/published number wish to keep it private.
Now maybe I'm taking a too simple approach to the issue, but it would seem
that a few simple step could leave the feature fully functional while
addressing these concerns.
1) Make the Caller-ID feature apply only to residential service. If that
restriction is placed in the tariff, the only "business" that could get
your number via Caller-ID is the person working out of their home.
(as has been noted, ATT 800 service already provides businesses with a
list of callers phone numbers)
2) Make the above restriction apply to these agencies (with the exception of
emergency dispatch services).
3) Route these calls either through the operator or some third party agency
who would forward the call.
4) Is the only one I see that might require some work.
There would seem to be two differnt situations here. Those with more than
one line and want to use one or more for outgoing calls only. I think this
might be handled in the same way billing is handled. When I had tow lines,
both were billed to one account/phone number. Why not have the feature
report the billing number? This would provide the called party with a way
to re-contact the caller and protect the caller's un-published number(s).
As to those of you who only have one un-listed/published line, I don't have
any sympathy at all. If you think you have a valid reason to phone me, I'll
probably have a vaild reason to want to call you back sometime.
Is this all too simple, or have I missed some other objection? (other than
from the "I want to harrass them anonymously group")