gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (03/14/89)
Our dear moderator who is in favor of every new telephone gadget and
service (as long as it is sold by a baby bell or AT&T) has recently
flamed attempts to stop Caller ID. While there are arguments on both
sides of the issue, I feel that Caller ID should not be approved.
1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order.
Caller ID is in violation of most of these laws. There are reasons
for these laws, but even if they were repealed, there are reasons
not to allow Caller ID.
2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers.
If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are
anonymous? Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling
them because they fear that their lines would be traced? If you
saw a crime, would you be less likely to call the cops if you feared
that your phone number would be traced, particularly given the corrupt
nature of many police departments?
3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to
call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist.
4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares,
for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks
recently reported that TWA is keeping a computer database of
``problem'' travelers. The telephone and the computer would allow
several types of abuses. If the airline knows that the person did
not buy a ticket the last time, it could route that call to the end
of the queue. With information about the caller, the airline would
be able to tailor make the fare to the person, or even to ``red line''
and say that the flight is sold out. Database software that
uses census information about locations might become frequently
used with Caller ID. Large companies would probably trade information
much the way the now do. (Every notice how if you order something from
X, Y starts sending catalogs?)
5) There have recently been allegations in this newsgroup that certain
Phone Companies have requested phone numbers and then ordered
service. With Caller ID, this type abuse would be much easier. If you
call a number, a business can quickly determine your phone number
and hence your name. Then it can just say that you ordered some
product. (With the current system it is much more difficult for
that to happen because you can have anonymity when calling).
6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return
addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can
determine who the mail is from before opening it?
7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering
machine. The message could begin "I screen all of my calls, please
tell me your name and phone number and I will decide whether I want
to talk to you." If this sounds obnoxious (and it is), it is no more
obnoxious than having Caller ID. Now the burden is on the callee
instead of everyone. (See below for financial considerations to see
why the burden is one for everyone).
8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if
you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone
number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call?
9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of
fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for
outgoing calls. There is just a clicker that increments based on
the distance and the time of day. At the end of the month, they
send a bill based on the number of clicks.
In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic
questions. Who should pay for this service? Everyone, whether it is
desired or not, or just the people who use it? The phone companies will
implicitly or explicitly force some of the cost on to everyone.
1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software. Who
is going to pay for that? Will the monthly charges really pay for
all of the expense?
2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls. Who
will pay for these? (We all will with higher prices for completed
calls).
3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a
certain number, for example, and the Caller ID software would
display where he is. The same idea could be used to signal that one
got home safely. Should callers who want to talk have to subsidize
those who want to send codes?
4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business
customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper
to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the
companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then
call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls
instead of one, but pay less than before.
5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and
not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by
call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra
buttons to not get a service he does not want?
Finally, I think Patrick thinks Caller ID is a good idea because it
will allow us to screen out solicitors and crank calls. In reality, it
is not likely to help that much. The solicitors could block their
identification. The solicitors could get phones under innocuous
sounding names--Bill Jones, for example. Since only a few numbers
would be recognizably bad, the solicitors will just switch phone
numbers. Today they call from 432-1211, tomorrow they call from
432-1212. Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base
of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls. The next
step will be to have the phone company collect data about an individual
and then sell it these companies. (The consumer will probably end up
paying higher rates because of the extra cost, too).
As far as crank phone calls go, the phone company should have the right
to trace those, but only for determining where the crank phone calls
are coming from. As long as your crank phone caller dials from
different numbers, Caller ID will not help you block the calls.
(Unless you happen to be able to allow only a small finite set of
numbers. In that case, I hope a relative of yours does not have an
emergency from a different phone number than usual).
Overall, I believe that Caller Identification offers little to the consumer,
but a lot to businesses which want to invade our privacy more. I hope it
never goes through, but if it does, I will not subscribe and I will block
all my calls (except if I want someone to call me back :-) ).
David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast
P.S. I will now respond some of Patrick's complaints. I do hope he has
gotten over the dry heaves. :-)
> illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give
> testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their
> victim(s).
Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against
self-incrimination. Perhaps you would prefer living some place that
guarantees the right to self-incrimination. Try 1-900-4STALIN for more
information.
> What of the rights of computer
> system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of
> people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night?
See above. Sys Admins can always call people back if they choose, etc.
> Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than
> the rest of us.
No, they get the same rights as the rest of us. You know, poor Ollie
is now protected by the very same rights against self-incrimination, etc,
that he thought were so bad when he was leading the Iran Contra Affair.
> What truly makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by
> this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge
> -- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity
> of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to
> 'tracing a call'.
Why isn't it? What difference do you see? Is it really worth the dry heaves?
> If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before
> she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in
> violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than
> an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what
> is your call about?'
A person has the choice to answer or not. He may say it is a personal
matter. Do you want your secretary to know where every call to you comes
from? What about your boss? A person may give his name without giving his
phone number. If I give my name, it is done voluntarily. I have not
necessarily given my phone number. That means that if I am at a friend's,
other business, or pay phone, you do not get to find out were I am located
and you cannot call back or sell to others that new phone number. If a
lawyer calls a client and he is at another client, giving away the phone
number and hence name of the other client is a breach of confidentiality.
Lawyers and other professionals are not allowed to divulge client
relationships in such a manner.john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) (03/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0092m01@vector.UUCP>, gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order. Not true in California. The local telco can trace upon the assent of the subscriber who is being called. > 2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers. > If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are > anonymous? Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling > them because they fear that their lines would be traced? Calls can now easily be traced. If it got out that help organization were indeed using Caller ID, they would lose their callers; hence it would be to their advantage to not use it. BTW, all 911 calls show the caller ID anyway. > 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to > call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist. If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing? > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to get back at YOU, deleted] If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to them. > 6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return > addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can > determine who the mail is from before opening it? Frankly, it makes good sense to put return addresses on mail. Furthermore, any envelope in my mailbox without a return address on it is considered junk mail and is dicarded unopened. Besides, it's a little easier to determine the origin of a piece of mail, even sans return address than to assess the origin of a ringing telephone. > 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering > machine. [Low-tech work-around--too silly to comment upon] > 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if > you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone > number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it was driving you crazy.... > 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of > fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for > outgoing calls. There is just a clicker that increments based on > the distance and the time of day. At the end of the month, they > send a bill based on the number of clicks. And at the end of the month in Japan, they just deduct the amount from your bank account. It's a great little system. You have no idea why your bill is so high (when you even find out what it was), the phone company makes, nor can they make, any explanations, and you simply pay without question or lose your phone. It has nothing to do with memories of fascism, it's a matter of technology or lack thereof. > In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic > questions. Who should pay for this service? Everyone, whether it is > desired or not, or just the people who use it? Caller ID is a byproduct of equipment that would have been installed anyway. The newer signaling standards, along with digital switches (and adjuncts for older analog switches) will be implemented in an effort to bring DOWN the cost of telephone service. The equipment used to provide these services costs a lot less to operate than the old switching equipment it replaced. Actually, the cost of providing these enhanced services will be well below what will be charged to those that want them. It's like custom calling. Custom calling features are inherent in the current switching technology used by telcos. Enabling one or a group of features on a subscriber line costs the telco nothing, but it provides enhanced service and convenience for the subscriber and extra revenue for the telco and would theoretically keep the general cost of service lower than otherwise. > 1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software. Who > is going to pay for that? Will the monthly charges really pay for > all of the expense? See above. > 2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls. Who > will pay for these? (We all will with higher prices for completed > calls). Not significant. Unless a call attempt is actually blocking revenue generating calls due to underdesign of the network, there is no cost to the telco. > 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a [discussion of signal calls, similar to bogus person to person and collect calls] It's already being done. If they used Caller ID for this purpose, it would be cheaper than the present methods of involving an operator. > 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business > customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper > to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the > companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then > call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls > instead of one, but pay less than before. No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short business call. This is really reaching. > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > buttons to not get a service he does not want? Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care. > Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against > self-incrimination. Perhaps you would prefer living some place that > guarantees the right to self-incrimination. Try 1-900-4STALIN for more > information. What has the Fifth Amendment got to do with Caller ID? That constitutional guarantee refers to giving testimony that would tend to incriminate the person giving it. It has nothing to do with evidence that may be used against someone who is accused of committing a crime. If you break in to a store and steal merchandise and happen to leave your wallet behind, the police have every right to use that as evidence against you. If you make harrassment calls in violation of state and federal laws, the appropriate agencies have every right to use any appropriate technology to track you down. Or perhaps you would consider any clues left at the scene of the crime "self-incrimination". There are actually some minor valid reasons to have certain controls on Caller ID, but the voice of reason is sometimes hard to hear through the din of silliness. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john
miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (03/25/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0103m01@vector.UUCP>, decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john @ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0092m01@vector.UUCP>, gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) > writes: > > 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to > > call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist. > If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife > went to a shelter. Even if his IQ is 150 or more, in his highly-charged emotional state his behavior will probably exhibit the intelligence of a sea slug. People don't act rationally when they're in an irrational situation. There have been some recent nasty incidents involving college professors and high-level corporate executives attacking their wives and children when they discovered they were in shelters. > Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her? > Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing? One of my best friends worked in a shelter for many years, and this is a SERIOUS problem. It is not at all unusual for husbands to somehow track down the shelter's location and show up at the front door with guns, axes, knives, clubs, etc. The local police are VERY familiar with the shelter's location as they spend a lot of time there arresting husbands who are trying to smash down the door and get at their wives. There are normally one or two injuries or deaths per year when husbands successfully get at their wives inside or right outside the shelter. And this is a shelter in a small city in a medium-sized urban area with a well below-average crime rate. At any given moment, several enraged husbands are cruising the city streets trying to find the shelter so that they can attack their wives and children. I shudder to think of the problems caller ID will present for shelters. I suppose they can initiate a policy of "NO outgoing calls to your husband," but the wives are just as upset as the husbands and they won't act rationally either. Often the irate husband will scream at them over the phone "what's the shelter's address?", and the wife, trained by years of unthinking subservience, will blurt out the address before she realizes the awful thing she has done. -- 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
nomdenet@venera.isi.edu (03/25/89)
In vol. 9 no. 102 John Higdon <decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john@ucbvax.berkeley. edu writes: > In article <telecom-v09i0092m01@vector.UUCP>, gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) > writes: > > > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > > buttons to not get a service he does not want? > > Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from > getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this > society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to > preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't > care. 1) An advertiser pays for a 30-second spot during "LA Law", which I tape on my VCR; by the argument above advertisers should be allowed to curtail provision of VCRs' fast-forward keys because my use of the FF key to skip over commercials deprives advertisers of services they paid for. Poppycock. 2) Europeans in general, and Scandinavians in particular, go to greater lengths to protect the individual's privacy. "It costs governments and corporations a little extra and takes them a little more effort to preserve privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care." 3) In the 1988 SF novel "David's Sling"[1] the author, Marc Stiegler, presents a taxonomy of decisions and decision making: "... three broad classes of decisions, and three broad methods of decision making: Engineering decisions, political decisions, and unresolvable decisions. Engineering decisions were made by finding the correct, or best, answer. ... Political decisions were made by building an answer of consensus. ... Because political decision systems could generate decisions in more situations than engineering decision systems, political systems typically gained preeminence over engineering. For the most part, this arrangement worked well -- except that too often, the politicians made political decisions in situations where engineering applied ... The key question was, how do you decide whether to use engineering or politics to decide?" In this framework it seems to me that all questions concerning calling- party ID and privacy are political. I don't believe any engineer can say there is any "best" answer. Assuming SS#7 or equivalent from end to end, the caller's number is always available; bits are reserved in a packet for that number, or bits go down a subscriber line to the display unit between the first and second rings; and a program in some #<n> ESS decides what to stuff in those bits. Clearly there's a cost to implementing a packet-based protocol and its communication infrastructure, as well as to providing new subscriber-line interface cards; just as clearly at this hardware and protocol level there's no cost associated with the bits' values. At the ESS-program level I would expect the (software) engineering judgement to be that there's virtually no cost differential between always passing on the caller's number and checking whether the caller wants his/her number kept private, either as the norm or for this call only. I believe the program logic of this section of ESS code should be determined by our society as a whole: What do we want, what consensus can we reach? Mr. Higdon's opinion and mine differ. His position can be inferred from the excerpt above. I vote to protect and maximize both the caller's and callee's privacy, and to have the telephone system do so as a default when possible. I'll pay for Calling-Line ID and accept any reconnection to another exchange, but I also want the supplementary service of Calling-Line ID Restriction mentioned by Fred Goldstein in Vol. 9 no. 93. AT NO CHARGE and without requiring any prefatory dialling if I so choose. I also want the ability to choose to reject calls whose originating number has been withheld. A. R. White USC/Information Sciences Institute 4676 Admiralty Way Marina Del Rey, California 90292-6695 (213) 822-1511, x162 (213) 823-6714 facsimile ARPA: nomdenet @ ISI.edu [1] David's Sling, by Marc Stiegler; 1988; Baen Books, distributed by Simon & Schuster; New York. ISBN 0-671-65369-5