goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) (03/16/89)
All of this brouhaha (sp?) about Calling Line ID is guaranteed to add
heat, but I don't see a lot of light. So in the interests of keeping
the flamage more to point, I'll volunteer a little more information.
I am a member of ANSI Technical Subcommittee T1S1, which is the US
standards body for ISDN and other new telephone network services. One
of these services (in the ISDN context) is Calling Line ID (CLID).
Today it's a kludge, but in the ISDN protocols (which are almost the
same for circuit-mode telephony and packet-mode data), the incoming call
message includes the calling number. Of course, you have to subscribe
to the CLID feature or that particular information element won't be
sent. (BTW, the CCITT but not ANSI is working on Connected Line ID,
which tells you where you call was actually answered, if forwarded.)
One of the nice things about CLID is that it is accompanied by CLID
Restriction (CLIR). To quote a very recent service description,
Calling Line Identification Restriction (CLIR) is a
supplementary service offered to the calling party to restrict
presentation of the Calling Line Identification, possibly with
additional address information to the called party.
There are several modes of CLIR. You can subscribe to it in
permanent mode, so it's active for all calls. You number is thus
never displayed. (This might be overriden for 911, but it's not
mentioned in the document.) You can subscribe to it in temporary
mode, so that the called number is displayed or not displayed on
a per-call basis (either default is available). There's also
provision for a User-Provided Number as well as the Network-Provided
Number.
The proposed CLIR is designed to answer most of the "privacy" issues.
Whether it costs extra is up to your (state) regulatory body. Whether
it's implemented is up to the CO vendors (AT&T and NT, in the US) and
the telcos (who will tell them what to implement). I expect that
within a couple of years, CLIR will be deployed along with CLID.
Provided that this actually occurs, the "privacy" issues should be
quelled.
It is the interim arrangements that are potentially more abusive.
Since people don't have the CLIR option today, there is potential
for abuse. Defaulting unlisted numbers to restricted would probably
help a bit, but in any case this transition period won't be free
of conflict.
BTW, there are reasons why you definitely might want a business to
know your number. If, for instance, your electric service goes west,
then if you call the electric company's ACD and there's a long queue
of waiting people (since your neighbors are calling too!), their
computer can do a lookup on the numbers and see that there's a flurry of
calls from a certain area. Heck, if I had "CLIR Temporary - Default
Restricted", then in that case, I'd hit the override code!
I'd also note that 911 service for years has included calling party ID.
The police have long had it; now it's becoming available to the rest of
us. And the "women's shelter" issue might also be mooted by CLIR, but
in any case, having their number wouldn't reveal the address. Some
folks are looking for controversy where there needn't be any.
fredheiby@mcdchg.chi.il (Ron Heiby) (03/29/89)
I've been trying to stay out of this whole thing, but can't any longer. Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388 (goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com) writes: [much interesting things about CLID/CLIR] > There's also > provision for a User-Provided Number as well as the Network-Provided > Number. If I infer correctly, "User-Provided Number" would let me ID as a different number than that from which I was *really* calling. If so, this would be perfect for my situation. I have two phone numbers in my home. Line A is an unlisted number and the one my wife and I use "all the time" for placing calls and for receiving calls from friends and relatives. Line B is a listed number that rings in my "office" downstairs. During the day, an answering machine picks up. At night, my computer picks up. (It's not a BBS, BTW.) When we are asked to put our phone number on checks or (of all things) credit card slips, we put the Line B number on. Likewise, any sales people, contests, etc. I see the default mode for Line B as "send normal ID" and the default mode for Line A as "ID as Line B". Basically, I care little whether some sales type has the Line B number, as my answering machine allows me to screen calls there. Plus, anyone I really want to talk with knows the real Line A number, anyway. > BTW, there are reasons why you definitely might want a business to > know your number. [example] It's fairly obvious that this approach would satisfy such needs. I believe I saw one message whose author believed that just having someone's phone number would not get you name/address information. This (of course) is wrong. "Reverse" directories have been around for quite a while. I *am* concerned about the potential others have stated for combining the ID information with various demographic or history information. Getting back to basics, it seems to me that the ID feature is being touted as being of use to private citizens to allow them to know who is calling them. It is also clear to me that the greatest potential for abuse of the feature comes from individuals calling businesses who may make "undesired" use of the ID information. The simplest way to avoid this whole potential for abuse is to not make caller ID available to business lines. Residence customers could still get the ID, but when they call a business, they have their privacy. (Of course, it might all be a scam and the *real* reason for all this *is* to provide better service to business customers.) There is still potential for abuse by people with "residence" service, but this can easily be handled by the options that Fred outlines. One that hasn't been mentioned (as far as I know) involves unlisted phone numbers. Right now, if I pick up a phone (maybe my own, in my own home) and call the operator and ask to be told the phone number from which I'm calling, I will be told that the information cannot be given out. This is to protect the owner of the line from someone (repair person (e.g. appliance), baby-sitter, etc) from being able to find out my unlisted phone number from the operator. It's important to some people to be able to prevent someone from being able to pick up the phone and easily determine its number (like by calling a friend and having friend read off the ID). Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that large areas of the country, served by old switches are not likely to be *able* to report an ID. Can we assume that all "no ID" calls are not from such areas? If I call XX, it should be my choice whether to ID or not. When XX's phone rings, it should be his choice whether to answer or not. Whether XX chooses to use my choice as part of the basis for his is his business. Either or both of us my have important reasons for choosing as we do. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.chi.il.us Moderator: comp.newprod "Life is indeed an inexplicable sequence of imponderable surprises."