telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (03/13/89)
Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is calling us before we answer the phone. A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) 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). Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know ahead of time who has come to visit you. 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? Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than the rest of us. What truely 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'. 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?' So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed. Patrick Townson
tanner@bikini.cis.ufl.edu (Dr. T. Andrews) (03/13/89)
Not to worry. The woman calling from the shelter and the person
concerned with keeping his phone number secret will simply call
from a pay phone.
(I'm not entirely convinced that the anti-ACLU rhetoric was called
for. Many of the unpopular causes they support are important. Sure,
we all hate the nazis, or the drug dealers who object to the cops
trashing their houses w/o warrents. You'd mind if the republicans
were barred from recruiting, though; you would probably also object
if the cops came through and trashed YOUR house.)
---
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tannersalex@grad1.cis.upenn.edu (03/14/89)
I would have no objection if the phone company were providing a service whereby a little box on the side of the phone were to indicate that Scott Alexander was calling. This would be the same service that one gets with your doorway peephole. However, Calling Party ID gives an additional piece of information. If my phone number appears on your CPI box, you can now call me. For the vast majority of the calls that I make, I don't mind giving out my phone number. Howerver, there are times when I make calls to businesses or governmental agencies when I want to retain anonymity. For instance, if I call Sears, I don't want to be added to their junk phone call list. I believe that I saw proposed on this list a more complex service where one would be able to block remote Calling Party ID. Instead of my number appearing on your box, you would get a *** sort of display. At this point, you may decide not to answer my call or to let your answering machine answer it. However, you would also have the option of requesting that the call be traced and my number become available to Bell if the call was of some illegal nature. This strikes me as a more reasonable balance of my privacy against your right to be secure against annoying, phone-based intrusions. As a side note, to make my biases somewhat more clear, if it does go through in Pennsylvania, I'll almost certainly get CPI for my phone. If Pa Bell were to take my suggestions as the solutions to all their problems, I would tend to carefully block all calls that I made to non-residences because I believe some large business is going to start collecting numbers fairly soon. Scott Alexander salex@linc.cis.upenn.edu
albert%endor@husc6.harvard.edu (David Albert) (03/14/89)
>Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me >sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are >somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making >phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is >calling us before we answer the phone. While I agree that I do not have the right to invade your privacy, and that you have the right to know who is calling before picking up the phone, I believe that at least one of the proposed solutions would safeguard your right without causing what I consider to be extremely important problems. If I am able to block my number from being sent, you could see from your calling-number-ID display that I have done so and refuse to answer. I imagine that the technology could be put in place that would even keep your phone from ringing under these circumstances. Nevertheless, calling-number-blocking MUST be made available to people who want to call the Samaritans, the police (at their business number), the IRS (or almost any government office), and arguably to people calling any business number. It really makes me sick to think about the whiners and complainers who so callously want to throw away *my right to privacy* when making calls to provide information to or ask questions of people who have *invited* these calls, especially when such information could later be matched to my name and used for telephone solicitation, blackmail, criminal charges, etc. >So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea >they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. People should be able to remain anonymous when calling businesses, government bureaus, and talk and help lines. If such lines could be permanently barred from receving calling-number-ID info, fine, otherwise some sort of blocking system must be developed. Again, you are free to completely ignore (or even never be made aware of) anonymous calls. David Albert |"To hardly know him is to know UUCP: ...{think, rutgers}!harvard!albert | him well." Cary Grant, in INTERNET: albert@harvard.harvard.edu | _The Philadelphia Story_
levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) (03/14/89)
<In a message dated 3/13/89, Patrick Townson writes> >A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered >the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) >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). By this logic, you would have to outlaw testimony from handwriting experts in a kidnapping case. Of corse the kidnapper could have used a typewriter. Then again, the caller could go out and use a pay phone. If anyone can see a difference here, I would like to know what it is. Ken Levitt P.S. I have passed along comments on this subject to the FidoNet Law Conference. If I get any good replies, I'll post them here. -- Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu
ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) (03/14/89)
I can't let the moderator's flaming regarding caller ID go unanswered. If I knock on your door and refuse to identify myself, you don't have to let me in. If I refuse to identify msyelf to your secretary over the phone, you don't have to take the call. The problem is not with caller ID per se, but with making it compulsory. I see nothing wrong with providing callers the option to disable automatic forwarding of caller ID to callee. If I am a drug prevention hot line, I will choose to accept all calls whether or not the caller has disabled forwarding of his/her ID. On my home phone, I will probably choose not to answer or let my answering machine pick up, if caller ID has been diabled by the caller. It is technically not very difficult to allow for disabling of caller ID. In California where some 20+% of all lines are unlisted, Pactel has responded to the marketplace and indicated that it will allow callers to disable caller ID either on a per call basis, or by presubscription. However, anyone who does that will have to take the risk that I won't answer their call. As we enter the ISDN age it will be a trivial matter for me to program my phone so it doesn't even ring if the caller has suppressed caller-ID. However, if the monopoly local network reveals my number, even over my objection, I have no choice but to give up using the phone -- a rather high price to pay, I would argue. The economic theory of legal property rights argues that rights should be allocated in such a way as to minimize the total social burden associated with exercising and protecting these rights. It makes far more sense to put the burden on the callee to refuse to answer if the caller chooses to remain unidentified. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB
sidney@goldhill.com (Sidney Markowitz) (03/14/89)
The controversy has reached Massachusetts, with NYNEX talking about following New Jersey's lead of instituting calling party ID that can not be blocked. MIT's new phone system has calling party ID, but a caller can block it on a per call basis by entering the appropriate code. The student-run peer counseling hot line dealt with the privacy issue by announcing that they had removed the lcd indicators from their phones. It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the idea of being able to screen my calls. At the same time, the very same facility would force me to provide my home number to any business I call in exchange for the convenience of calling from my home. The correct balance would allow anyone to choose whether or not they announce their number before I answer the phone, and allow me to choose whether to answer the phone from an anonymous or unfamiliar number. Perhaps even better would be an additional feature that would allow me to press a button and have the caller's (blocked) ID recorded at the telco office, where they would only release it under proper legal circumstances. That would provide both caller and callee with a useful degree of service, privacy, choice and protection from harassment. The worst solution in my opinion is the current New Jersey one of alleviating the current lack of privacy of the callee by decreasing the privacy of the caller. I find myself on both ends of the phone too often to want to take only side. -- sidney markowitz <sidney@goldhill.com>
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (03/14/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0086m04@vector.UUCP> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 86, message 4 of 4 > > [volumes of vehement verbiage concerning the lack of moral fiber and > general unworthiness of people who want to preserve their privacy when > they call, and a few gratuitous insults directed at the ACLU.] Why should it bother you if people are allowed to call you without reporting their number? Just program your phone to ignore those calls :-) More practically, I would note that providing the calling party ID provides no more and no less information than "tracing a call" - a dated phrase that does not accurately describe the process it identifies. (and hence is an ideal candidate to become legal language.) They are both inquiries, without specification of procedure, and return the same information, from the same source - that looks like good enough grounds for equivalence to convince me. If someone is making harassing phone calls, there is a service you can get today to allow you to trace numbers and report the call to the telco. (they charge for it, which they shouldn't) The point is that it exists to report harassing phone calls. Period. Not so some advertiser can get my number and sell a telemarketing list. Not so someone in Telecom knows everyone who calls me at work, and can distribute that information. Anyway, I think there are reasons that a law-abiding citizen might occasionally want to be able to call anonymously, although I can't think of one off the bat. There are also reasons why the rest of us might want to. (the IRS help line?) Mr. Townson is focusing on what he wants to do to other people, and not on what they want to do to him. Peter Desnoyers
newton@csvax.caltech.edu (Mike Newton) (03/14/89)
There is one "solution" to the problem, though it is expensive. It does have the advantage that it is close to what many people on this list already do: [1] Have a private (unlisted) number that you give to friends and people that you would like to call. Put a normal phone on this line. [2] Have a second line which is your "outgoing" line. Put a phone on it that has the ringer disabled. Note that #2 would also make a very good computer line... - mike ps: I agree w/ the suggestion that "allow blocking by caller, but that the called number can have the phone co. record the info". However, if that isn't implemented, the above would be _my_ solution. Of course, Hawaii has GTE, and this island is so backward i suspect they still use step-by-step, so i dont have to worry much.... From the bit bucket in the middle of the Pacific... Mike Newton newton@csvax.caltech.edu Caltech Submillimeter Observatory kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu Post Office Box 4339 Hilo Hawaii 96720 808 935 1909 "Reality is a lie that hasn't been found out yet..."
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (03/15/89)
Are you seriously saying that if I pay good money to the local telco for a non-published number, I can no longer make a call without telling every Tom/Dick/Harry what my number is? Why do you think I would have been paying for an N.P. number all this time? CPID service with caller suppressible ID and an answering machine seems like the ideal combination. I don't have to tell you my phone number if I don't want to and you don't have to answer my call (live or at all) if you don't want to. /JBL
paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) (03/15/89)
Patrick, I am basically in agreement with you on this. For those who feel a need not to be identified to those they call, how about: 1. A per-call code (#xx, or some such) which would encode the calling number for that one call, and/or a chargeable service where an encoded I.D. would be the default 2. The encoded I.D. could be mapped to the caller's number BY THE TELCO on request of the callee (for cases of harrassment, etc.) or IMMEDIATELY upon request of an emergency center operated by a public safety agency (fire, police, etc.) 3. The Telco would keep records of these I.D. maskings for a long enough time so that any question of abuse on either side could be proven (so the lawyers can get their unfair share...) 4. The encoded number of such a call should be displayed, and should be distinctive enough so that anyone who did not wish to receive an "anonymous" call could choose not to. As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience - not theirs." -- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Paul S. Sawyer uunet!unh!unhtel!paul paul@unhtel.UUCP UNH Telecommunications Durham, NH 03824-3523 VOX: 603-862-3262 FAX: 603-862-2030
PCI@cup.portal.com (03/15/89)
Patrick Townson, I could not agree with you more regarding number ID and privacy. My thoughts regarding ACLU and others trying to "force" right of privacy for the worlds misfits belongs in another conference BUT if a customer wants to pay the phone company for the privilage of knowing who called, it should not be stopped by peceived privacy issues. I am in the common carrier business... a strange but very short leap would be that I am NOT legaly allowed to obtain caller ID for billing.. after all that would invade the "privacy" of someone trying to steal my services..and since that is against the law on Guam as well as the rest of the US... and since the caller's nuber is provided upon placing a call for billing.. he would incriminate himself. I really see little difference in an individual, small carrier or AT&T obtaining the caller ID. If this issue is found in favor of privacy, when will the common carriers lose access to this information? Bob Kelley PCI Guam
jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) (03/15/89)
The Orlando FL area was the first area with caller ID services,
offered under the name TouchStar. But the rules seem to vary from
area to area. I read in that area that calls from an unlisted number
displayed as the word "private" on caller ID displays. Even without
a caller ID display, one could, using some sequence beginning with
an *, call back the last number that called you. Whether this applied
when called from an unlisted number is not clear.
Is there to be an FCC comment period on this?
I propose the following:
- A subscriber can select both whether calls from his number
will be identified, and whether his number will accept calls
from unidentified numbers.
- A call from a nonidentifying number to a number that requires
a caller ID results in an intercept message.
- A call from a nonidentifying number can be made identifying
by using some prefix. This prefix should be mentioned in the
intercept message.
This should preserve everyone's rights.
John Naglerdr@killer.dallas.tx.us (Dean Riddlebarger) (03/16/89)
Patrick, No rebuttal, I'm afraid; I don't disagree with most of your arguments. The thing that interests me about the whole situation is simply why people are suddenly getting hot and bothered over such a thing. It may have something to do with the fact that personal ANI is, well, personal, and it usually takes a situation in which new technology comes in the front door of your home to make you think about such things. [Come on all you closet sociologists....let's have some opinions on this!] I would be a bit more worried about the fact that telco and governmental agencies have had access to ANI-like functions [and more!] for years and years, and we have seen demonstrated instances of abuse. Review a certain case involving Cincinnati Bell, various citizens and officials, and the FBI if you want an example straight from current events. In addition, major companies will most likely add this new offering much faster than average homeowners, such equipment options have been known for a few years [relating to ISDN oriented announcements], and we have not seen half the furor that the home-use announcements have caused. When a new product, service, or option comes along it has always proven very hard to legislate or adjudicate it out of existence. Most of the whiners would be better off if they focused on creating legal structures to guard against or provide recourse in the event of abuse. Dean Riddlebarger Systems Consultant - AT&T [216] 348-6863 reasonable path: att!crfax!crnsnwbt!rdr Disclaimer: They pay the bills, but I don't pretend to represent their views [and I suspect everyone prefers it that way!].
royc@research.att.com (03/16/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0086m04@vector.UUCP>, telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me > sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are > somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making > phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is > calling us before we answer the phone. Yes. During the divorce I am still going through, I went through a 2-4 month period where I was getting sporadic "silent" or "heavy breathing" calls; when it finally hit me that this was not a random event, or possibly not, I made a point of raising the topic in conversations with those concerned. I pointedly noted that some of the Telco billing systems noted not only long distance, but also local, telephone calls; not onyl who originated, but who hung up. After that, the pattern changed from10-15 second "silent" calls to 1-2 ring "no party/dial tone" calls. SO, I received some conirmation of the source of the harrassment. (Believe it or not, my attourney advised me to simply let it go... divorce is as bad in terms of legal representation as you may have heard it rumored to be). What I failed to mention was that ringing tome typically did a 2-second here, 2-second there pattern, so that if I was clost to the phone, I had a good chance of getting a pick up in the frst ring. Nor did I mention that billing records not typically printed with the telephone bill would in some ESS areas would ID all local calls. So, I have a very high interest in seeing this type of thing available; I would prefer to have it on my telephone bill as well, in terms of incoming calls to my phone(s). > A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered > the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) > 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). This _can_be_ an area of great concern. Look back to the 1920s, and later on, when some legislators have made attempts to mandate the use of the social security card as a national identity card. The big thing is that this opens the door on a lot of thing. It is not a trivial matter; fundamentally, your identity is your own, and _no_one_ should be allowed to force you to have to reveal it (all other things being equal, no crime in progress, etc.) This is a basic principle, which I agree with totally. The flip side is, every _other_ individual has the right to require you to identify yourself if they are going to deal with you. This prevents blindside harrassment opportunities. So both sides are in the right in this discussion. > Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in > the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know > ahead of time who has come to visit you. 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? > Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than > the rest of us. I would hope that the protection of both sides can be arranged. In the past being black, gay, having AIDS (cancer, tuberculosis, leprosy), not being blue eyed Aryan, etc. There is, by the way; read on. > What truely 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'. If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before Yah. Judges have been known to make somewhat less than sanguine decisions; such as having a three year old travel 3.5 hours round trip for a two hour visitation. (OH, I could go on). But they are also human, and prone to all of the ailments involved. Getting the apporpriate information to the judge involved at the right time (yes, it does make a difference; the attourneys I have been involved with have been frank frank in (very, very privately) noting that Judgements change radically if there was no coffee for Him in the morning; they have also commented on how weak a particluar judge may be). Pardon my sexist commentary: coffee for Her in the morning. > 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?' Precisely: there is an easy way out of this dichotomy. > So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea > they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. The main worry about this is that in a situation involving an overwhelming preponderance of power, the act of attempting communication _at_all_ can be used as a suppressive means to _prevent_ the accurate transmittal of attestments. I have been involved with such a scene, to my horror; being confronted with 4-5 police officers in an encloistered room with no witnesses changes your idea about these protections, rather rapidly. Please note I have no favor with the ACLU: I like their ideals, disagree with some of their decisions and pursuits, and have been in a bad scene with them as well. When I attempted to pass on this particular occurrence to them, they would not even listen to it unless an act of actual _physical_ abuse could be demonstrated. Please note: the Gestapo did not carry out much physical abuse during a large interval of the war; they did not have to: fear of them stopped most attempts at resistance, and for those that did, there were other branches of the "government" to carry out the "appropriate procedures" then in common practique. > Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed. So here is how to resolve the conflict, really simply: I want to talk to you, and you want to talk to me. I do not want to abridge your rights, and you do not want to enfringe on mine. Neither of us wants to harrass the other. SO, no calling party ID is needed; a verbal "Who are you?" is enough; if you refuse to ID, I can hang up. Given the new service available, the Telco on each end of the conversation can ask each subscriber these questions: - Do you want to ID yourself to the called party? = name or unique identity (credit or calling cards can provide this) = station address (telephone number) = Unique anonymity code on a per call basis (I do not want you to trace me, but I am willing to allow later valid authorities to trace this call to a unique location and time) = Regional anonymity code (identified to a region, a Telco, or some broader form of anonymity); or various flavors if this. = Total anonymity - DO you wish to accept calls from parties who ID corresponds to any of the classes above? Do you wish to place calls to people who will not ID themselves as recipients? - Do you wish your calling party to know who you are? To what level? (The same as s/he is willing to let you know?) - Do you wish to see calling party information on your telephone right away or at billing time? And in the reverse direction? With computers which enable the calling party ID service at all, this type of capability is no additional equipment expense; the additional reverse channel communication should be zero in ALL intraLATA (or whatever they call'em today) calls (the switch has all the pertinent information); and for interLATA calls, a toll chargeback agreement implies reverse channel billing information, along with some kind of a verification protocol; the additional cost would be one more message pass (AT MOST) before the remote would agree to accept the call and the local would agree to continue to place it. In many cases this is already the case just to exchange basic accounting information. Yes, occassionally Telcos are known Not to Minimize Costs By setting the defaults to: - Anonymous caller (I will remain anonymous when I call) with unique anonymity code - Anonymous accept (I will accept calls from people who will not identify themselves) with unique anonymity code - Anonymous receipt (I will call whoever answers) - Anonymous placing (I will not identify myself to the caller) you have the situation just prior to calling party ID services; with the additonal proviso that the Telco should keep records of these anonymous calls for some period of time, or should print on a billing record at the request of the party an anonymous code (different for each end of the link, with only the Telco having the tying information: the rquest of the customer to have it on the billing record would be enough to require it being kept by the Telco). Probably ID'ed caller with anonymous accept & receipt, with unique anonymity code for anonymous placing would be sufficient, as long as some level of trust is placed in our officials (and I do). So both sides of the coin can be satisfied. How about it, folks? roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc US 201-957-6033
kaufman@polya.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) (03/17/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0087m01@vector.UUCP> ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Marvin Sirbu) writes: >The problem is not with caller ID per se, but with making it compulsory. I see >nothing wrong with providing callers the option to disable automatic >forwarding of caller ID to callee. If I am a drug prevention hot line, >I will choose to accept all calls whether or not the caller has disabled >forwarding of his/her ID. On my home phone, I will probably choose not to >answer or let my answering machine pick up, if caller ID has been diabled by >the caller... I read (somewhere ?) that calls to 911 will not complete if caller ID is disabled. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu) [Moderator's Note: I think not. Calls to 911 complete regardless. For example here in Chicago, dialing the number 312-787-0000 connects to Chicago Emergency while leaving the police dispatcher with a blank for the calling number. This number is intended for use by TSPS operators, whom it seems are unable to dial 911 from their consoles. In theory, when the operator receives an emergency service request, he is supposed to stay on the line until 911 (actually 787-0000) answers and then pass the number *as he sees it* to the emergency dispatcher. Not all of them bother doing it. Likewise, emergency calls are sometimes placed to the City of Chicago centrex operators; they hit a transfer button and send the call sailing off to 1121 South State Street at 911 H.Q. Calls transferred that way do not show caller ID to the dispatcher either. PT]
gws@cbnews.att.com (Gary W. Sanders) (03/17/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0089m01@vector.UUCP> "John B. Nagle" <glacier!jbn @labrea.stanford.edu> writes: > Not matter what happens with enable and disable, I would >hope that emergency services or at least the operator could >override system paramters and force a phone to ring. Also I dont know about the rest of you, but unless this services is free I doubt that I would ever want it. At work I need to answer the phone whenever it rings or at least have my machine answer it. At home I answer the phone. Do people really hate answering phones that much? Do you really have that few friends that you could enter their phone number into the "answer list"? I know the salemen are a pain, but "no I am not interested" seems to stop them or hang up the phone. About the only thing I would like from calling party ID is to tell me if its one of those machines calling. I hate coming home and having my answering machine tape used up talking to some other answering machine. These things are as bad as the machines that call YOU and put YOU on hold to wait for a sales person. What a pain!!!! In article <telecom-v09i0089m07@vector.UUCP> levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: > If the phone company is going to ship the phone number >of the call down the line, then how about some more info. Tell me >the name of the person calling or at least the billing name. Sending >me a phone doesn't give me much info, how many phone number >do you know, I know freinds and family. You folks going to refuse to >answer the phone just because the phone number is unknown? maybe >uncle Bob has moved and want to tell you his new number.... It seems that the telco's are trying to nickle and dime folks to death with "service". I still wonder how a telco can charge for touch tone service. Seem to me that they would want to switch things around to get the "aunt Martha" off of rotary dial and into the 90's. How much additional cost is added to a switch to support pulse dial. Its got to start adding up. -- Gary Sanders (N8EMR) gws@cbnews (w) gws@n8emr (h) 614-860-5965 (353-5965 cornet)
geek@mit-amt.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) (03/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0087m05@vector.UUCP> sidney@goldhill.com (Sidney Markowitz) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 5 of 7 > > <talk about MIT's 5ESS and ISDN system> > >It seems to me that the MIT system's solution is the ideal. I like the >idea of being able to screen my calls. It is indeed true that call screening is very useful. Note that our LCD display shows calling party *number*, not name. Because we have calling party ID for internal calls only, it also lets me see when I'm getting an outside call. It is convenient to be able to treat the two cases differently (an inside call is usually brief and let's me help someone in my organization get something done; outside calls are more likely asking *me* to do something). I've noticed a lot of use of calling party ID. People will answer the phone with "hi chris!", and it's not just us phone hackers, so it must be useful. The obvious solution to the privacy issue is that I would like two bits on my phone. 1) I will or will not allow my number to be transmitted 2) I will or will not accept calls which do not ID calling party. <I'd argue that given the widespread use of telemarketing, I would not want to give my number to ANY business> The problem is, it must be trivial (automatic?) to en/dis able the first bit. Here I have to dial a 2 digit prefix for privacy (called party sees "private number" on the display). That's fine for occaisional use, but I think it would be inadequate for my taste in my house. (personally, I might be satisfied with banning telemarketing and prefix-override for those occaisional calls which really should be anonymous). Otherwise, great business for those AOS's running (anonymous) pay phones!! chris
peggy@ddsw1.mcs.com (Peggy Shambo) (03/18/89)
Interesting scenario:
Hubby: Hi, hon.. sorry, but I gotta work late at the office.. again.
Wife: (after noting # on display is that of her best friend, who
is all alone while *her* hubby is out of town [his boss?]
Fine, honey. You can now call your favorite divorce lawyer. :-)
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Peg Shambo | Sophisticated Lady, I know. | Ellington/
peggy@ddsw1.mcs.com | You miss the Love you had long ago | Mills/Parish
| And when nobody is nigh, you cry. |amanda@uunet.uu.net (Amanda Walker) (03/18/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0091m02@vector.UUCP>, paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience - not theirs." This is basically my opinion; I don't have a phone as a service to anyone who feels they want to call me; I installed it for my own convenience. I pay for it, after all. I should be able to decide how and when I use it. Also, something I haven't seen mentioned in this debate is the idea that there are businesses that would be hurt by mandatory caller-id reporting. They may be annoying, but they're not illegal--things like high-pressure telemarketing "boiler rooms." It kind of takes the edge of a hard sell if someone can say "I'll think about it and call you back..." It's not black and white, and because of that I think that the ability to disable caller id reporting is important. It keeps the most options open for everyone. -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@lts.UUCP / ...!uunet!lts!amanda / 703.435.8170 -- C combines the flexibility of assembler with the power of assembler.
kaufman@polya.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) (03/19/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0095m04@vector.UUCP> Amanda Walker <lts!amanda@uunet. uu.net> writes: >In article <telecom-v09i0091m02@vector.UUCP>, > paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: >> As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner >> guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I >> paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience, not theirs." >This is basically my opinion; I don't have a phone as a service to anyone >who feels they want to call me; I installed it for my own convenience. >I pay for it, after all. I should be able to decide how and when I use it. and as Walter Mathau said in the movie (title escapes me... about a female justice of the Supreme Court): "the telephone has no constitutional right to be answered." When I first heard of caller-ID, I suggested to a large E-mail company that they provide end-to-end ID over their net so that BBS operators could verify users... and tag uploaded messages with the originator... so that SYSOPS could pass the responsibility for content back to the source. If you go to another country, you will discover that there is no 'right' to even HAVE a phone, much less make anonymous calls with one. As for using mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect that is due more to ease of implementation (in relay days) than to any real privacy related issue. If you don't want to disclose who you are, send your questions via mail in an envelope with no return address. :-) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)
smb@research.att.com (03/20/89)
>From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <kaufman@polya.stanford.edu>
Organization: Stanford University
As for using mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect
that is due more to ease of implementation (in relay days) than
to any real privacy related issue.
Sorry, not so. Or rather, while that may have been the original motive
for installing the pulse meters, the status quo is very loudly defended
on privacy grounds.les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (03/21/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0089m07@vector.UUCP> levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) writes: >CPID service with caller suppressible ID and an answering machine >seems like the ideal combination. I don't have to tell you my phone >number if I don't want to and you don't have to answer my call (live >or at all) if you don't want to. I hope it will be possible to tell the difference between someone who intentionally suppreses the ID and someone who doesn't have the new equipment. Why would anyone answer a call if you know the caller didn't want you to be able to call back? Les Mikesell
brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) (03/22/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0086m04@vector.UUCP> telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me >sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are >somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making >phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is >calling us before we answer the phone. I *do* consider it to be an invasion of my privacy for many reasons. Example: You place an ad in the paper. I call about the ad. Do you then have the right to know who I am and where I am calling from. No, I think not. My call to you was a result of a solicitation to invade your privacy. Not for you to invade mine. >A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered >the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) >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). Learn something about the legal system. They are protecting this right because, while rediculous on it's face, their claim is technically correct. Allowing this seamingly reasonable violation of a fundamental right may constitute pecedent in some later issue, where the violation of a similar right would otherwise seem less reasonable. >Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in >the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know >ahead of time who has come to visit you. 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? >Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than >the rest of us. No this is childish pantering. The service (mentioned incompletely here) usually includes a feature whereby a user may 'trap' the number of the most recent caller. This information is then available to the local authorities but *not* the user. Thus, the privacy of the calling party is preserved in all but those cases where the authorities become involved. This seems fair to me. If your calls constitute harassment then you will lose this privacy. >What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by Is this *REALLY* necessary? C'om I mean you're supposed to be the moderator, no less. >this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge >-- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity That's ok, what he doesn't know about phones, you more than make up for in your lack of legal knowledge. >of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to >'tracing a call'. 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 No, because you, as the caller, have the option to not answer the question. That's all the ACLU is asking for to begin with. >an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what >is your call about?' Not if you can't decline. >So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea >they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. Protect these rights now. You will need them someday. It is easy to be willing to throw away the rights of others (alleged criminals or not) but when you do so you are throwing away your own rights also. >Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed. I'll be suprised if this one is. -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu [Moderator's Note: Suprised?? What do you think this is, the {New York Times}?? Unlike my competitor, not only do I print all the news that fits my (fill in the blank); I don't even charge fifty cents to read my daily heresies. Thank you for your input in the discussion. PT]
royc@att.att.com (03/23/89)
My earlier posting had a typographical error in it; as bad as the scene of my divorce is, I do not want to inaccurately blind side someone who cannot talk back: In article <telecom-v09i0097m01@vector.UUCP>, att!mtdca!royc@research.att.com writes: [elided] > Yah. Judges have been known to make somewhat less than sanguine decisions; > such as having a three year old travel 3.5 hours round trip for a two > hour visitation. (OH, I could go on). But they are also human, and > prone to all of the ailments involved. Getting the apporpriate [elided] The figure I wanted was 2.5 hours: from 96th Street in Manhattan to the Homdel region of NJ, plus return, by car. Minimum of 2.5 hours (maybe 2:15 if you push the speed limit). roy a. crabtree att!mtdca!royc 201-957-6033
dave@uunet.uu.net (Dave Horsfall) (03/23/89)
In article <telecom-v09i0087m02@vector.UUCP>, desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: | | Anyway, I think there are reasons that a law-abiding citizen might | occasionally want to be able to call anonymously, although I can't | think of one off the bat. A slightly contrived, but nonetheless valid example: You've just unwittingly witnessed a crime, a murder perhaps. They are MOST interested in eliminating you, and they probably have a mole in the police department. The result? Concrete shoes for you, m'boy... The trouble with being a law-abiding citizen is that not everyone else is. And a LOT of people just "don't want to get involved", but will come forward upon a guarantee of anonymity. A regular event in Australia is Project Noah, where you are invited to ring a special number if you have any information whatsoever, no matter how vacuous, on drug deals. It has resulted in successful prosecutions, but naturally some of the callers may not wish to identify themselves. Heck, some of them could be the drug-dealer's competition :-) Another example (which I certainly admit to doing): I want information on a competitor's product, so I play dumb and ring them up, asking them. Or I invite myself to their product seminars. I don't really want them to recognise my number (if Australia had caller ID, which we don't), yet it's not illegal. I'm not impersonating anyone after all, I'm just not volunteering my affiliations. In short, there are many legitimate reasons why a caller should not have to identify him/herself. You should have the right to refuse such calls, but those organisations that expect them will no doubt be tolerant. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave Self-regulation is no regulation