telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (03/16/89)
The Calling Party I.D. offering now being made available by Bell of
Pennsylvania, and soon to be offered by all the Bell Operating
Companies has drawn a tremendous amount of commentary in the print
media. All the items I have seen thus far have come out strongly in
favor of this new service. While I am sure there have been articles in the
papers speaking against Calling Party I.D., I have not seen any.
Perhaps if you have seen some negative reactions you will be so kind as
to forward some specific cites to my attention in a message. Please
include excerpts when possible ** except from Dow Jones ** to share with
others here. At least the name of the publication, and date of issue, etc.
Here are two positive reactions --
Mike Royko, Chicago Tribune, Monday, March 13, 1989
In a column entitled "Just Whose Privacy Needs Protecting" Royko praises
this technological advancement and notes, (excerpts from column)
"There is nothing impolite about asking who is standing outside your door,
and why, before you open it. If you have a peephole, you can look out. If
you see a Girl Scout standing there with boxes of cookies, you can
safely answer the door. If you see a man with a ski mask over his
face, then it would seem wise to grab the phone and call the cops....."
"There is nothing more precious than your fundamental right to privacy and
security.....when you are in your home, no one can enter without your
consent. Even a cop has to have a search warrant to cross the threshold.
You are under no obligation to answer the knock at your door. You can simply
ignore it."
"But then we have that wondrous and most devilish device: the telephone.
Every day millions of Americans get phone calls they do not want or need...
few unmarried women listed in big-city phone directories have not received
at least one obscene call. Some creeps will call the same female dozens
of times. Some women have been harassed by the same creep for months..."
"For obvious reasons, my home phone number is unlisted. But a guy once
managed to find it and amuse himself by making drunken, abusive calls late
at night. After several nights of this, I had to change my number..."
"I have always thought it would be nice if there was someway of knowing
who was on the other end of the phone when it rang."
".....Through a strange twist of logic, the new service is being called an
'invasion of the privacy of those who make the phone calls....they say
their privacy will be violated because the person they call will know the
number of the phone they are using. And by knowing the number, they can
detirmine who you are and where you are calling from.... Therefore, their
precious right to privacy -- the right to phone you without you knowing
who they are -- will be violated."
"Huh???????"
"Well, that's what they say. My logic may be cockeyed, but it seems to me
the person whose phone rings has a first option on privacy and freedom from
jerks."
"The phone company in Pennsylvania argues that this service acts as a sort
of peephole in the door, so you can see who is calling. The critics
say the caller has the right to put a finger over the peephole. If someone
knocks on my door and covers the peephole, they will soon find a cop
knocking on their back...."
"When this service is offered around here, I will be among the first to
subscribe."
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Still another example of positive acceptance by the press to this new
service offering is found in the [Chicago Sun Times] on Tuesday, March 14.
In an editorial entitled "Wrong Call On Privacy", the editor notes --
"Is anyone stupid enough to argue that you don't have the right to
know who is calling you on the phone? You bet there is. Over in Pennsylvania
you will find consumer 'advocate' David Barasch and the American Civil
Liberties Union complaining that phone subscribers must not be allowed to
buy a device that displays the caller's phone number before they pick
up the phone...."
"Can you believe this? The ACLU is claiming this device violates the *caller's*
privacy..."
"May we be permitted an observation? Saying that a caller has a greater
right to privacy than the person called is about as dumb as saying
that somebody who shows up on your front porch or puts something in your
mailbox has a greater right to privacy than you do..."
"People who enter your home, whether it is on your porch, through the mail
or on your phone give up some of their right to privacy......in
today's world, increasingly populated with lunatics, people buy
answering machines so they can secretly listen to see who is calling
before they pick up the phone. Are the ACLU and the consumer
'advocate' going to argue that these devices trample on the privacy rights
of the lunatics, and therefore should be banned also?"
"Which leaves us with one question: When will they start selling this
service here in Illinois? "
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
According to my contact at Illinois Bell, Caller I.D. service will probably
be available here early next year. The Bell Operating Companies are watching
the 'Pennsylvania experience' to learn something about the general
acceptance of the device prior to making it publicly available. She noted
that, "..the main obstacle to our being allowed to give our
subscribers this additional measure of privacy in their homes is the ACLU
and its claims that you have no right to know ahead of time about intrusive
callers; that you have no right to privacy and an immediate recourse to
people who would use the telephone to invade your home." She noted that
'the telephone has traditionally been the media used by cowards and all
sorts of creeps to do their dirty work undercover.'
[In the next issue of the Digest, David Gast counsels "Just Say NO to Caller
ID" and John Covert shares a letter written to the public utilities people
in his state, and the consumer protection service. Next issue to be
distributed about 2:30 AM Eastern.]