ziegast@eng.umd.edu (Eric W. Ziegast) (03/30/91)
Charles Hymes writes: >For privacy reasons I am against this caller ID service, but one >leagal/commercial point that is largely overlooked is that the phone >company is allowing your telephone to be used for someone elses >commercial purposes, without your consent or control. Given that this >information has commercial worth, I belive that one can argue that >phone company is depriving the caller of rightful income, and can be >sued for. I live in the Wash. DC , a place where Caller ID has already been imple- mented. and I've seen no adverse affects yet. The first commercial place I've seen it used is Dominos Pizza. They use it to scan incoming calls against numbers from which they receive bad checks. While I don't think this was one of the intended uses for this service, you can't blame them. One of the advantages of Caller ID is that it provides protection against obscene phone calls, scams, and other crimes & misdemeanors. But how about those who prefer anoninimity? It lessens the effective- ness of unlisted phone numbers. As a compromise, C&P Telephone, the local company here, provides operator assisted number blocking on a call by call basis for a fee ($.45?). If you were unlisted, how would you like to fork out $.45 to someone just to make sure your number isn't possibly displayed? Let's now consider some possible abuses of Caller ID. While some of these may be far-fetched, don't be surprised if these situations can pop up in the future. Unless there are efforts to control the use of Caller ID, one just might experience some of the scenarios below. Somewhere people have to draw the line. 1. Your number is a commodity which can be used by direct marketers. Joe Doe calls the 800 number shown during the commercial for those neat triple-edge car wipers he saw on TV. A week later, he gets a phone call... "Hello JOSEPH DOE of WASHINGTON DC. We at XYZ gift company would like to extend to you a one-time offer for XYZ's new improvered dashboard heat shields. Our records show that you've recently bought ABC's triple edged wipers. We feel you are a good can- didate for our special offer. For more information, press [1] now..." 2. Sales people can call you back (the proverbial foot in the door). Joe called several computer dealerships in the region to see which was the best place to buy a PC for his kids. The next day, a sales-person from one of those companies (one he really didn't like) calls him and tries another pitch for his product. Joe refuses. The salesperson then asks (subtly demands) to know why you didn't choose to buy from him. Joe never thought he'd have to explain himself. 3. Advertisement One of Joe's kids recently called a 900 sex line. Joe is surprised one day to get a call from some lusty woman saying... "Ohhhhh baby, call me again. I'm waiting for you. 1-900-GOOD-SEX" If Joe decides to press charges (for obscenity) the sex line lawyers can say, "They called us first." 4. Who knows who gets your phone number? Joe's also an alcoholic. (What a coincidence!) Now that he has seen how people can trace his call back, he thinks twice about calling the anonymous help line. He fears that somehow the police will find out about his call. How about a police anonymous tip line? Joe reports that he's seen a cop in his neighborhood distribute drugs. If they've got caller ID on the anonymous line, and that dirty cop has connections with some- one who works the telephone lines (or has access to the call records), Joe might be in for a big surprise. [I know, you think I've seen too many cop shows. Well, I have.] 5. Big brother will find you Imagine a computer database used by the Feds to track people down using phone numbers. Tapping into Caller ID is alot easier and faster than having to trace a call. 6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine I haven't seen anything like this yet, but in this day and age, it's very feasable. Think about it - an answering machine that works differently depending on who is calling. For a set of numbers, you can select what can be done... Bill companies/collectors "You've reached 555-2398. I'm off to Disney World." People you don't want to hear from "Go away. Leave a message if you want, but my machine is programmed to fast worward through it when I scan my messages." People you do want to hear from <RING.....RING.....RING.....RING.....> "Sorry, I'm not in right now. Please leave a message at the boop." While this answering machine has its advantages it certainly abuses the intent of Caller ID. I claim no patent to such a machine, so if you're a enterprising mold-sucking cockroach, feel free to build one. >I wonder what it takes to declare personal information as "property" I >know celberaties can do so for thier voices and likenesses, but I >would like to be able to do so for my name, address, and personal >data, and say "This information is the (property,copyright etc) of >bla bla and may not be reproduced or recorded in any media for >commercial purposes without the express written consent of bla bla." I think an extension of the copyright laws would be needed. This sounds like a bad solution. If you're someone trying to do business with me, I'd be more prone to turn on my answering machine in response. Talk to a lawyer if you're really serious about it. I see a much better solution than Caller ID and I'll go into it in a future posting, but for now I've got some work to do. I haven't yet thought it out much either. Eric Ziegast University of Merryland This information is copyright by bla bla and may not be reproduced or recorded in any media for commercial purposes without the express written consent of bla bla bla or anyone affiliated with bla bla. But feel free to do so anyway. All wrongs reserved. DISCLAIMERS Disney World, Dominos, CallerID and C&P are most-likely trademarks. I made up the number 1-900-GOOD-SEX off the top of my head. The X symbol is a trademark of X-Open and *is* used without their consent.
eli@ima.isc.com (Elias Israel) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> ziegast@eng.umd.edu (Eric W. Ziegast) writes: >6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine > > I haven't seen anything like this yet, but in this day and age, it's > very feasable. Think about it - an answering machine that works > differently depending on who is calling. For a set of numbers, you > can select what can be done... > [...] > While this answering machine has its advantages it certainly abuses > the intent of Caller ID. I claim no patent to such a machine, so if > you're a enterprising mold-sucking cockroach, feel free to build one. I'm not so sure that this is a bad idea. I have a friend who recently went through a divorce. Ever since I've known her (we met shortly after the divorce proceedings began) she's screened her calls manually by letting the answering machine pick up and waiting to hear who was on the line. The phone system that you describe would allow her to pick up the phone without fear that the caller would harrass her, for example. What about a phone that had a special ring for numbers not in its database? That'd give you a good idea that the caller wants to sell you something. What about an automatic rejection message for people you know to be abusive? How about a special alarm kind of ring when the call is from work? It seems to me that having such a phone would greatly reduce the amount of annoyance associated with phone calls because it would allow us to finally guage our reaction to the phone according to some set of predetermined priorities. Of all of the things that caller ID makes possible, I think this is one of the best. Elias Israel | "Justice, n. A commodity which in more or Interactive Systems Corp. | less adulterated condition the State sells Boston, MA | to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, eli@ima.isc.com | taxes, and personal service." eli@village.boston.ma.us | -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) (03/30/91)
Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy of the callee. To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible. I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy. There are exceptional cases, of course. One poster mentioned the case of an anonymous police tip line; this example, however, requires a dishonest or corrupt police agent to be dangerous. I would argue that it is very difficult to design a system to be proof against such people (i.e. if you prohibit caller ID such a person will find another way to get you). If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so without using your home or office phone. A public telephone springs to mind as the most obvious example. Mailing a letter is another one. The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully) screen out solicitors with the right tool. I make this claim in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not copyrightable. Comments? -- Chris Steres 415 335-7150 steres@chaos.sgi.com
byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) (03/31/91)
I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has been interfered with.
edg@netcom.COM (Ed Greenberg) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> ziegast@eng.umd.edu (Eric W. Ziegast) writes: >local company here, provides operator assisted number blocking on a >call by call basis for a fee ($.45?). If you were unlisted, how would Ghastly. *67 is a much better alternative. Too bad the PUC droids nuckled under. > >1. Your number is a commodity which can be used by direct marketers. > > Joe Doe calls the 800 number shown during the commercial for those > neat triple-edge car wipers he saw on TV. A week later, he gets a > phone call... > You know, 800 numbers get automatic number ID now. They have for several years. American Express (I'm told) tried an experiment with answering calls with the customer's name, but gave it up due to bad feedback. Every time I called Amex from a phone other than my own though, they'd ask me to verify my phone number. Nonetheless, people who call 800 numbers do not seem to be bothered with this type of solicitation. > > Joe called several computer dealerships in the region to see which was > the best place to buy a PC for his kids. The next day, a sales-person > from one of those companies (one he really didn't like) calls him and > tries another pitch for his product. Joe refuses. The salesperson then > asks (subtly demands) to know why you didn't choose to buy from him. > Joe never thought he'd have to explain himself. I can see this one happening. It's pretty tempting to the reseller, isn't it. > >3. Advertisement > > One of Joe's kids recently called a 900 sex line. Joe is surprised one > day to get a call from some lusty woman saying... > > "Ohhhhh baby, call me again. I'm waiting for you. 1-900-GOOD-SEX" > I doubt that "Ohhh baby" is obscene, and the same comments that apply to 800 numbers apply to 900 numbers. They already get ANI. Consider though, that all these companies are sensitive to the private nature of the calls and callers. That's why "stuff" is offered in plain brown wrappers, and why calls to 900-OOO-BABY are advertised as being billed as something innocuous. The last thing they want to do is get the guy's wife on the phone. > >4. Who knows who gets your phone number? > > Joe's also an alcoholic. (What a coincidence!) Now that he has seen > how people can trace his call back, he thinks twice about calling the > anonymous help line. He fears that somehow the police will find out > about his call. > > How about a police anonymous tip line? Joe reports that he's seen a These too are legit problems. California phone books come with a privacy notice relating to ANI on 911 calls, and state that individuals wanting privacy should call the seven-digit number for the agency. So much for that. >6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine I want one of these :-) -- Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0184 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | CIS: 76703,1070 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | WB2GOH @ N6LDL.CA.USA
cs4304ak@evax.arl.utexas.edu (David Richardson) (03/31/91)
(Followups to alt.privacy. Change it if you want to.) Does anyone have a problem with caller-id IF the following were universally true: 1. customers can tell the telco never to reveal thier number via caller-id unless explicitly told otherwise. This would be free. 2. Customers can on a call-by-call basis either disable or (if #1 were in effect) enable caller-id. This would either be free or charged per-call, with X free uses per month. (#2 is primarily for use on pay phones or when calling businesses that demand caller ID &, for whatever reason, you are still willing to give them your business). Yes, I know there are places that this isn't true. Time to lobby the utility commissions. -- David Richardson U. Texas at Arlington +1 817 856 6637 PO Box 192053 Usually hailing from: b645zax@utarlg.uta.edu Arlington, TX 76019 b645zax@utarlg.bitnet, SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTARLG::B645ZAX -2053 USA The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (03/31/91)
In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's >like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any >visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has >been interfered with. The use of a peephole does not give the user the ability to find out my home address, name, phone number and other personal information. If you don't recognize me, don't let me in. But if you don't let me in, I shouldn't have to tell you any more than I want to. I think per-call blocking and ANI are a nice comprimise. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories).
byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.230852.9730@menudo.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >>I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's >>like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any >>visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has >>been interfered with. > >The use of a peephole does not give the user the ability to find out >my home address, name, phone number and other personal information. If >you don't recognize me, don't let me in. But if you don't let me in, >I shouldn't have to tell you any more than I want to. > >I think per-call blocking and ANI are a nice comprimise. I don't see how knowing the phone number of the incoming caller enables you to determine his/her address, name, and "other personal information". The phone company does not give out such information over 411, and unless you type in a phone book into a computer, I don't see how you could determine this information yourself. Furthermore, how does the peephole analogy extend to phones without caller ID? I'm forced to pick up the headset, and listen for myself, or not answer the phone at all. Not a very good analogy, hm? I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? I think the issue of "privacy" here is and continues to be a red herring.
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes: >The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to >phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully) >screen out solicitors with the right tool. I make this claim in light of >the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not >copyrightable. Nope. There might be a white-page listing for "Ace Telemarketing" (or whatever), but you'll never receive a call from that number. Phone tanks have dozens (maybe hundreds) of phones in them, and each phone can have a different number. So let's say you get an abnoxious sales call, and you lock out the calling number after cussing out the caller for being so annoying. He can just use the phone on the desk next to his and call you right back. And chances are overwhelming that the next time your name and number come up, it will be on someone else's list, so you'll get a call from yet another number. What's worse, telemarketing organizations tend to move around fairly frequently anyway--they'll have a whole new set of numbers to bombard you from. After Caller-ID, they can even do this intentionally. -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/31/91)
I want Caller-ID. I also want cheap per-call blocking. Why? Because
the information "this caller doesn't want you to know their number"
is more useful than "this caller is either out of area or doesn't want
you to know their number". I'd also like blocked-id-blocking, but
there is already a box on the market that'll give me that...
--
(peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) (03/31/91)
Ed Hall writes: > >What's worse, telemarketing organizations tend to move around fairly >frequently anyway--they'll have a whole new set of numbers to bombard >you from. After Caller-ID, they can even do this intentionally. > You make it sound like telemarketing outfits are organizations whose sole intent is to harrass you. I think it's obvious that obnoxious salesmen are not the ones who will be making sales. Furthermore, having spoken to people who have worked for telemarketing operations, I can tell you that caller id will probably not affect their m.o. all that much anyway: these businesses work by calling numbers at random, or by taking a page out of the phone book and calling everyone on that page. How does caller id help them there?
james@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James Alfred Monschke) (03/31/91)
steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes: >Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on >the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy >of the callee. To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed >to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible. >I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat >diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to >establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive >entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy. The main concern that I have heard voiced about this system is of bussinesses using it to build their mailing lists, or otherwise using it to promote their bussiness at the expense of the privacy of those who call them. I perceive two distinct issues, anonymity, and privacy. That is to say, anonymity and privacy are seperate issues. It is my belief that an acknowledged right to privacy does not include or imply a right to anonymity in communications with another person, but that the information used to convey the caller's identity is potentially an invasion of privacy. The potential for abuse in the case of AT&T's caller id service exists not because of a loss of anonymity, but because of an invasion of privacy when your phone number is given to convey your identity. I would conclude that in order for this system to work without privacy being invaded, it would have to give the caller's name and/or bussiness only. Such a system is impracticle at present since anybody can call from any phone. -- ******************************************************************************** James Monschke * Jerry Falwell is the james@matt.ksu.ksu.edu * Anti-Christ!!!! "A dirty old man in a young man's body." *
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (03/31/91)
In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how knowing the phone number of the incoming caller enables you >to determine his/her address, name, and "other personal information". The >phone company does not give out such information over 411, and unless you >type in a phone book into a computer, I don't see how you could determine >this information yourself. You've apparently never heard of a "Criss-Cross" directory when enables the user to convert phone numbers to names and street addresses. These are commonly used by real estate agents and others who want to convert phone numbers to mailing addresses. One client of mine many years ago would scan the "For Sale" ads, criss-cross the numbers of people selling cars, and remind them that by law they were required to properly transfer the title of their automobile. He generated quite a bit of business from this little practice. The best approach does seem to be the feature which lets you turn off caller ID when you originate the call and which allows you to suppress any calls which have caller ID turned off when you receive calls. -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/31/91)
> > Joe called several computer dealerships in the region to see which was > > the best place to buy a PC for his kids. The next day, a sales-person > > from one of those companies (one he really didn't like) calls him and > > tries another pitch for his product. Joe refuses. The salesperson then > > asks (subtly demands) to know why you didn't choose to buy from him. > > Joe never thought he'd have to explain himself. The sales droid then finds out that he's losing customers to word-of-mouth, because the word is on the street that he's a slimeball. I have driven many miles to avoid going to a computer store, back when they were rare things, when I had heard bad things about one of them. Today there's probably a competitor on the next block. The dealer either goes out of business or wises up and quits being so pushy. End of problem, either way. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (03/31/91)
In article <13952@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >You make it sound like telemarketing outfits are organizations whose >sole intent is to harrass you. Many of them are. The Austin American-Statesman is incapable of not calling someone, even if you beg and plead with them to leave you alone. They will send their little salesnuisance force out every month, followed by the phonenuisance brigade calling you and begging you to subscribe. My office mate asked them to stop calling. He told them that he was tired of them calling all the time. Their offer was to call once a month to make sure no one else from the Stateman had called. -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar30.194145.4202@netcom.COM> edg@netcom.COM (Ed Greenberg) writes: >You know, 800 numbers get automatic number ID now. They have for >several years. American Express (I'm told) tried an experiment with >answering calls with the customer's name, but gave it up due to bad >feedback. I can believe that. I called MacConnection the other day, told them what I wanted to order and then waited for them to ask me for my account number, name, address.... Instead they asked me if I wanted to use my USAA credit card. I just about died. It's a very strange feeling to have a total stranger start telling you stuff about yourself. >>6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine > >I want one of these :-) Ditto! -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/01/91)
byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: > I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather > defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? Not at all. There is already one box on the market that blocks calls that block caller-ID. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/01/91)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > The best approach does seem to be the feature which lets you turn off > caller ID when you originate the call and which allows you to suppress > any calls which have caller ID turned off when you receive calls. Yes, this seems to be the reasonable compromise. Now we only have to get the PUCs and the LECs to act reasonably. Piece of cake, right? Right? -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/01/91)
In article <19139@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: >In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >>I don't see how knowing the phone number of the incoming caller enables you >>to determine his/her address, name, and "other personal information". The > >You've apparently never heard of a "Criss-Cross" directory when enables >the user to convert phone numbers to names and street addresses. These This also gets used by phone salespeople to track down potential sales. If Joe Blow just bought a swimming pool, chances are his neighbors can afford it too. I've also seen it used by what I believe was a skip tracer. I got a call from someone in another state who was asking whether or not a person by a certain name lived next door to me. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") (04/01/91)
In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather >defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? Get a clue -- if you don't recognize the number, don't pick up the phone. -- J. Eric Townsend - jet@uh.edu - bitnet: jet@UHOU - vox: (713) 749-2120 Skate UNIX or bleed, boyo... (UNIX is a trademark of Bell Laboratories).
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/01/91)
In article <6NT2T1F@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >The sales droid then finds out that he's losing customers to word-of-mouth, Word-of-mouth only works when you have a community. The traditional community is gone and the electronic one is not yet widespread enough to replace it. Frankly I think this is one of the most important reasons for expanding the electronic frontier - it's one of the reasons why I spend five or six hundred dollars a year running a BBS. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
cs4304ak@evax.arl.utexas.edu (David Richardson) (04/01/91)
In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how knowing the phone number of the incoming caller enables you >to determine his/her address, name, and "other personal information". The As a rule (if not today, then after Caller-ID becomes universal), businesses will have thier computers tied into caller-id equiment. This is a double-edged sword. It helps customer service, but it all but eliminates privacy if/when desired. >I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather >defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? Yes, it does defeat the purpose of caller-id. That is why it is a nice compromise. It *allows* the phone customer to have privacy at the cost of some companies possibly not doing business with him &/or slower customer service. Without this compromise, the choice would not be there at all. (I can see it now: 1-900-ANON-CAL - we will place your anonymous phone calls - only $0.95 a minute. Kids, ask you parents before you call.) >I think the issue of "privacy" here is and continues to be a red herring. Red herring or not, it is obviously a concern, and can be addressed without too much overhead (I assume) on the telco's part, & still have caller-id for most people. -- David Richardson U. Texas at Arlington +1 817 856 6637 PO Box 192053 Usually hailing from: b645zax@utarlg.uta.edu Arlington, TX 76019 b645zax@utarlg.bitnet, SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTARLG::B645ZAX -2053 USA The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/01/91)
In article <13952@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >You make it sound like telemarketing outfits are organizations whose >sole intent is to harrass you. Why shouldn't he make it sound that way. I do not desire to receive telephone solicitations at home, period. I would be glad to have my number in any database which indicated this. Any attempt to push products on me by calling my home phone number is harassmment. The solution in this case is simple. Just as you can place a "no solicitors" sign on your door and charge solicitors who ignore it with tresspass, so you should be able to place such a sign on your residence phone. The telco should maintain such a database -- it's only one bit in their files, and sell it to phone solicitors. With caller ID, no phone solicitor will be able to get away with breaking the rules, since a firm record is left behind. This might well mean the end of most phone solicitation. I know of few who wouldn't say "good." As much as you may hate junk mail, I believe that junk mail and junk e-mail are the proper ways to make an unsolicited solicitation. I do not mind advertising that is there when I go to look through it at my convenience. (And in the case of junk E-mail, my computer will sort the junk e-mail from my regular e-mail, so that I am not bothered by it when I read my important mail) I do mind advertising that regularly wakes me up or interrupts my dinner. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes: >Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on >the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy >of the callee. To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed >to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible. >I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat >diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to >establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive >entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy. > >There are exceptional cases, of course. One poster mentioned the case of >an anonymous police tip line; this example, however, requires a dishonest >or corrupt police agent to be dangerous. I would argue that it is very >difficult to design a system to be proof against such people (i.e. if you >prohibit caller ID such a person will find another way to get you). > >If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so >without using your home or office phone. A public telephone springs to mind >as the most obvious example. Mailing a letter is another one. > >The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to >phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully) >screen out solicitors with the right tool. I make this claim in light of >the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not >copyrightable. > >Comments? >-- >Chris Steres 415 335-7150 > steres@chaos.sgi.com All of this is interesting, but does it make good sense? In fact, Caller ID (CID) does not offer a user-friendly interface for screening calls, unless you have the memory of an elephant and can recall, bubble-memory like, all of the phone numbers that have given you offense in the past. So you see the number, 123-4567, displayed on your telephone. What's it tell you? If it's a telemarketer calling to bother you -- and that's the biggest bother, according to all polls of consumers -- that number tells you next to nothing. You still have to pick up the phone and say you're not interested. And if it's an obscene phone call, what proof do you have that it is so, for the prosecutor's use? Your word against the caller's is not going to get anyone very far. Just as effective is telephone trace, a related service that doesn't require people to surrender their personal identity just because they call. My biggest concern is not that there is some moral violation in the perpetration of CID, but that in practical terms it turns the use of the telephone on its head -- from using the telephone to find out things, as we currently do, to using the telephone to give away information. I predict this will backfire on the telephone companies and, ultimately, all of us wishing for the faster emergence of the information age, when consumers (after a couple years of dossier compilation) begin to realize what the new service has taken away and how little it gives back. Bob Jacobson --
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/01/91)
To claim that people who use 800 number are not bothered by the collection of their personal information is ridiculous, as few people know that it is even happening. Bob Jacobson --
pierrer@pike.ee.mcgill.ca (Pierre Racz) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Apr01.051101.3386@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > >This might well mean the end of most phone solicitation. I know of few >who wouldn't say "good." As much as you may hate junk mail, I believe >that junk mail and junk e-mail are the proper ways to make an >unsolicited solicitation. I do not mind advertising that is there when >I go to look through it at my convenience. (And in the case of junk >E-mail, my computer will sort the junk e-mail from my regular e-mail, so >that I am not bothered by it when I read my important mail) > >I do mind advertising that regularly wakes me up or interrupts my dinner. The way to fight junk email is to reply with the octal dump of your favorit GNU executables. -- Pierre Racz Internet: pierrer@pike.ee.mcgill.ca Fidonet: Pierre Racz (1:167/116.0)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Apr1.075621.6297@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> pierrer@pike.ee.mcgill.ca (Pierre Racz) writes: >In article <1991Apr01.051101.3386@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I do mind advertising that regularly wakes me up or interrupts my dinner. > >The way to fight junk email is to reply with the octal dump of >your favorit GNU executables. Or with junk snail-mail, take the goodies they sent you and put them in their business reply envelope and mail them back. I accumulate stuff from other junk-mailers and send it to other junk-mailers from time to time as well. Keeps them informed ;-) -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I want to be Robin to Bush's Batman." -- Vice President Dan Quayle
brand@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu (Matthew Brand) (04/02/91)
Most objections to Caller ID have to do with the loss of anonymity in dealing with (1) businesses, (2) help lines (e.g. child-abuse hotlines), and (3) official agencies, such as the police. Aside from making all of one's sensitive calls from a payphone (which is not so easy in suburbs and rural areas), perhaps the following policy would help: (1) Caller ID on your outgoing calls can be blocked for a small extra phone service fee. I suggest the fee because Caller ID is primarily an income booster for phone companies, and there must be some profit incentive in supporting privacy options. Unlisted phone service costs extra for the same reason. Moreover, this kind of blocking should be available only with residential phone service, as above-the-table businesses should have no reason to want anonymity, and part of the appeal of Caller ID to residential customers is in avoiding telemarketers. (2) Another service which phone companies could provide is "Caller ID Required." If someone without Caller ID tries to call, the call is not put through. Instead the caller hears a message saying that he or she must make an ID'd call to get through. This would be useful for pizza delivery places, and for people who want to preemptively block likely crank calls. Or, if telemarketers can get Caller ID blocking, it would do a nice job of screening them out too. (3) People with and without Caller ID should be able to temporarily switch on a per call basis. I suppose a surcharge is in order here too. Some may object that paying for privacy is like submitting to blackmail. It seems to me that phone companies are just beginning to discover that they control a lot of highly private, and thus highly valuable information. Direct regulation will help keep it private, but corporations always manage to find lawyers clever enough to work around or subvert the intent of consumer protection laws, simply because regulation in a vacuum strangles a company's opportunity for growth. I'd rather make regulation a sweet pill for an industry by combining it with the creation of new products (e.g. privacy services) and thus new markets. (By the way, if you want to reply to me, I only read alt.privacy)
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (04/02/91)
jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >>I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather >>defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? >Get a clue -- if you don't recognize the number, don't pick up the phone. Boy...I can see a whole HOST of problems this brings up. You are at a pay phone trying to call a friend. Your friend, who is paranoid about answering calls that he doesn't know the number of, decides not to answer the phone because he doesn't recognize the number of that pay phone. You try to make a phone call from a house who's owner believes in not giving his number out (especially if you are using his phone to call someone he doesn't know). The person you are trying to call is the same friend in the previous example...AND he blocks calls that refuse to identify themselves. If it ain't broke...don't fix it. This whole Caller ID thing is pretty much BS imposed by TelCo in order to be able to trace phone calls faster. Just anouther $0.02. -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh History is not usually what has happened. History is what some people have thought to be significant.
mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) (04/02/91)
In article <BRAND.91Apr1113835@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu>, brand@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu (Matthew Brand) writes: (1) Caller ID on your outgoing calls can be blocked for a small extra phone service fee. I suggest the fee because Caller ID is primarily an income booster for phone companies, and there must be some profit incentive in supporting privacy options. Unlisted phone service costs extra for the same reason. Moreover, this kind of blocking should be available only with residential phone service, as above-the-table businesses should have no reason to want anonymity, and part of the appeal of Caller ID to residential customers is in avoiding telemarketers. It is not at all clear that above-the-table businesses should have no reason to want anonymity. Even if it were, remember that telephones at above-the-table businesses are used by individuals who may be just as interested in protecting their anonymity when at work as at home. A few examples to illustrate the point. 1) A company that calls a lot of printers about prices for printing services, but which doesn't want to get telemarketing calls from all the printers they decide not to do business with. 2) A company with a single switchboard number who doesn't want the actions of one individual to lead to the switchboard operator being deluged with undirected calls from equipment vendors, headhunters, and even personal services operations called at one time or another, either in regards to business or as a personal call, by one of their employees. 3) An individual at a company with direct dial in phone lines who purchases a computer accessory through a mail order firm for their company, but who doesn't want return calls on other computer bargains. 4) An individual who calls a local video store (during working hours because that is when the video store manager is in) to complain about the X-rated tape they checked out which turned out to be the Disney "Bambi" instead, but who doesn't want regular daytime return calls at work with the latest new X releases (regardless of whether they have a direct dial number or a switchboard!) On the other hand, I have noticed that whenever a new technology is introduced that people seem naturally more concerned about the privacy of it than similar existing technologies. At a previous company, I was involved in a study that found that paper mail was 10-100 times more likely to be misdelivered than was electronic mail. However, informed management still decided that they would not allow the most sensitive information to be sent electronically, but rather it had to be printed and sent through the ordinary paper mail system. Even though email was actually more secure, people were more concerned about it because it was new. Everyone knew that paper mail was sometimes misdelivered, that it often sat for extended periods of time in accessible areas (redistribution points, in boxes, etc.) relatively unprotected, but that was old hat and people had long ago come to grips with that. Similarly, people were concerned with the possibilities of "forging" and allegedly forwarded email letter, despite the fact that it was considerably easier to get some letterhead, and a copy of an important signature from the annual report and use the copier to fake a paper copy of a letter. Again, the existing evils are taken for granted while the new ones, even if less of a problem are feared more. I certainly don't want to discourage people from protecting their privacy. I think that is a prudent thing to do. But there are also times and reasons when individuals may willingly choose to divulge some private information in order to get a desired service. Individuals and institutions who treat that information in a way that rewards that trust should be rewarded with continued patronage, those that do not are fair game for ostracism. After caller-ID is old hat, I can see a number of individuals feeling quite good about the fact that their caller-ID is given to a company they call who has earned their trust in the past. They might find that their bank decides not to trade this information with anyone else, but uses this to route their call to their "personal banker" to automatically retrieve their account information more promptly for them, etc. This is not to say that people won't sometimes block this information when calling a business of unknown reputation. But I have noted that many people will willingly leave their business card in a bowl at a restaurant, fill out a contest form with their name, address and number, or voluntarily put their name on a mailing list for some kind of items that they are interested in--despite the fact that lists can be compiled from this information and sold to others. I find it interesting to note that people were quite concerned about Lotus Marketplace, but have ignored the fact for years that this information has been collected by Equifax, TRW, etc. and is already available from them (albeit on 9 track tape and/or printed reports; that census information on 9-track tape indexed by zip code is available and that the two can already be quite easily merged together to produce a mailing list that WHILE NOT PERFECT is quite a bit better than might be generated through other means. The truth of the matter is that many aspects of our lives are co-related in unusual ways, and people who want to provide information to likely customers will want to use some of these correlations to reach their prospects cheaply and efficiently. That can be both to our advantage and to our disadvantage. I see people largely ignore the miscorrelations (type I errors-mail goes to an inappropriate prospect and of course never find out about the type II errors-mail not sent to an appropriate prospect). I've been married for 12 years, but still occasionally get questionaires aimed at singles. But I used to get more when I lived in an apartment--why? because single family homes are much more likely to be occupied by married people than are apartments. It is certainly not exclusively so, and so some mail is mistargetted. And of course, I live in a community with a fairly high divorce rate, and above average disposable income, so some of those singles questionaires are sent to single family houses like mine just the same (or maybe they are meant for my 2 year old). Even in this medium see how much information people willingly give away to others: their name, interests, some indication of their knowledge of and access to computers, the name of an organization they belong to, and (through routing information, cross checked with registered UUNET or Internet site information) some indication of their geographic location. Information that others actually collect and use; for instance, head-hunters, seminar producers, computer product sales people all find contacts through this medium. Amazing isn't it.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/02/91)
Caller ID is not enough on its own. To really work properly, you want to send all sorts of other info in the packet, including the type of call and priority of call. For example, I don't want anything but absolute emergencies to get through when I'm asleep or having sex. I'll accept urgent calls during dinner or busy with something. I'll accept regular calls at other times. Some calls might be diverted to my machine, some might make it to me, depending on what my home computer thinks I am doing. Note that to make an emergency call would require operator intervention, and there would be penalties for misuse. The packet should also include who the call is for, of course, for auto feed into voice mail, or ident-a-call, or direction to an extension or fax. Indeed, ten years down the road, the simple interface of the telephone and keypad will probably not be used for most calls in *my* circle of people. Instead your computer will call my computer, and if everything is ok, a voice connection will be established, or voice e-mail will be sent, etc. At least that's how I want it. Do people who hate caller ID also think that anonymous E-mail should be the default? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/02/91)
In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's >like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any >visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has >been interfered with. It's an invasion of your privacy when the person behind the peephole reaches out, grabs your neck, and wrings your wallet from your pocket long enough to get your name, address, telephone number, and any associated data. Get it? Bob Jacobson --
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/02/91)
Brad Templeton is not alone. Telemarketing consistently rates No. 1 as the business practice most disliked by consumers, bar none. The polls and the experience of telephone regulators supports this. Bob J. --
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (04/02/91)
# I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. # It rather defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? > Get a clue -- if you don't recognize the number, don't > pick up the phone. | Boy...I can see a whole HOST of problems this brings up. | | You are at a pay phone trying to call a friend. Your friend, who is paranoid | about answering calls that he doesn't know the number of, decides not to | answer the phone because he doesn't recognize the number of that pay phone. | | You try to make a phone call from a house who's owner believes in not | giving his number out (especially if you are using his phone to call | someone he doesn't know). The person you are trying to call is the same | friend in the previous example...AND he blocks calls that refuse to identify | themselves. To anyone who KNOWS: What happens when the operator calls (ie, collect or person to person, etc.)? Assuming it's something recognizable, then the solution to the above scenarios is to make an operator assisted call. | If it ain't broke...don't fix it. This whole Caller ID thing is pretty | much BS imposed by TelCo in order to be able to trace phone calls faster. First: Being forced to either blindly answer the phone or miss a potentially important call _is_ broken. (Answering machines are a poor or unacceptable solution for some people.) Second: The TelCo's have already been sending the information back and forth. They just didn't try to sell it before now. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| "I'm not discouraging others from using |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | their power of the pen, but mine will | U | - "Ackphtth" | continue to do the crossword." M. Ho
harkcom@spinach.pa.yokogawa.co.jp (04/02/91)
In article <BRAND.91Apr1113835@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu> brand@mephisto.ils.nwu.edu (Matthew Brand) writes: =} (1) Caller ID on your outgoing calls can be blocked for a small =} extra phone service fee. I suggest the fee because Caller ID =} is primarily an income booster for phone companies, and there =} must be some profit incentive in supporting privacy options. ...now that customer satisfaction and service are worthless... The privacy option should be free. And it should be as easy as pushing a button on your phone or dialing 1 extra digit... =} Unlisted phone service costs extra for the same reason. Unlisted numbers already cost too much (more than nothing is too much for such a service). Al
IO60370@MAINE.BITNET (04/02/91)
ziegast@eng.umd.edu (Eric W. Ziegast): (much interesting stuff deleted) > 6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine > > I haven't seen anything like this yet, but in this day and age, it's > very feasable. Think about it - an answering machine that works > differently depending on who is calling. For a set of numbers, you > can select what can be done... > > Bill companies/collectors > "You've reached 555-2398. I'm off to Disney World." > > People you don't want to hear from > "Go away. Leave a message if you want, but my machine > is programmed to fast worward through it when I scan > my messages." > > People you do want to hear from > <RING.....RING.....RING.....RING.....> > "Sorry, I'm not in right now. Please leave a message > at the boop." > > While this answering machine has its advantages it certainly abuses > the intent of Caller ID. I claim no patent to such a machine, so if > you're a enterprising mold-sucking cockroach, feel free to build one. "Abuses the intent of Caller ID"? Wait a minute - isn't this what it is all about? Heck, until I can buy one of these machines, I don't even want Caller-ID.
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (04/03/91)
In article <1991Mar31.180911.15863@alphalpha.com>, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > I called MacConnection the other day, told them > what I wanted to order and then waited for them to ask me for my account > number, name, address.... Instead they asked me if I wanted to use > my USAA credit card. I just about died. It's a very strange feeling > to have a total stranger start telling you stuff about yourself. > The next time you call MacConnection, call from the phone of another Mac owner and just correct the shipping address. This is a real risk associated with STUPID use of callerid by a merchant. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) (04/03/91)
minich@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) writes: >| If it ain't broke...don't fix it. This whole Caller ID thing is pretty >| much BS imposed by TelCo in order to be able to trace phone calls faster. >First: Being forced to either blindly answer the phone or miss a > potentially important call _is_ broken. (Answering machines > are a poor or unacceptable solution for some people.) Why is this broken? If someone can't deal with some obnoxious fool on the phone, then who's problem is that? How is caller ID going to solve this for the important people who call from a phone number that the recipient doesn't know about? -- Dave Hayes - dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov - ames!elroy!dxh There is a saying: "I believe it because it is impossible" If you make any study of people in a state of what they are pleased to call belief, you will find that you can usually best describe them by the saying: "My belief has made me impossible."
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/03/91)
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes: > In article <6NT2T1F@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >The sales droid then finds out that he's losing customers to word-of-mouth, > Word-of-mouth only works when you have a community. Most people I know do have friends they talk to. People who tend to be in the same SES and shop at the same places. These form a community. > Frankly I think this is one of the most important reasons for expanding the > electronic frontier - it's one of the reasons why I spend five or six hundred > dollars a year running a BBS. Trust me. There *are* other communities. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (04/03/91)
In article <4091.27f8c8bb@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: >> my USAA credit card. I just about died. It's a very strange feeling >> to have a total stranger start telling you stuff about yourself. >> >The next time you call MacConnection, call from the phone of another >Mac owner and just correct the shipping address. > >This is a real risk associated with STUPID use of callerid by >a merchant. They aren't that dumb. They still insist that you read the credit card number to them and they still confirm that they have the address right. In fact it's a very convenient use of the feature and well managed - it just shook me up. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr02.053541.27508@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Caller ID is not enough on its own. To really work properly, you want >to send all sorts of other info in the packet, including the type of >call and priority of call. Yeah, I favor an "unsolicited business or charity call/money request" bit or bits to screen out all of the tape recorders telling me I've just won something fabulous, Shriner and police association variants bugging me for money, etc, etc. (I mentioned this in a RISKS posting several months ago.) -- -- Have computer, will travel. Same old story, same old song; Come to Texas for the it goes all right till it goes all wrong. chili that burns twice!! -- Will Jennings
kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (04/04/91)
In article <1991Apr2.073825.7152@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of >privacy". It's like saying that a peephole on your front door >constitutes an invasion of any visitor's privacy because their >"right" to knock on your door anonymously has been interfered with. It's an invasion of your privacy when the person behind the peephole reaches out, grabs your neck, and wrings your wallet from your pocket long enough to get your name, address, telephone number, and any associated data. Get it? No, I don't get how simply seeing a person's number displayed is equivalent to grabbing their wallet and extracting any data you please. At present, the evil nasty cross-referenced telephone directories everyone warns about are not available in machine-readable format that I know of. Without such a beast, the operator would have to have already gotten the info about you - just like if you already had dealt with the person on the other side of the peephole and knew its face. Even *with* the xref directory, the oper would only have your name and address - or more specifically, the name and address of whomever owns the phone at your residence. In my case, this is *not* my name, though the address may be correct. And if you have an unlisted number, which admittedly is pretty pointless with CallerID in effect (and which I feel should really be abolished), they can't even get that info from the xref directory. If the person on the receiving end of the phone call doesn't have CallerID, it is really analogous to a door without a peephole - the only way to get *any* info about the caller is to make yourself known and *ask* for the info. This is a really complex issue, but I've been using email, which is harder for the average user to forge (i.e. most non-geeks don't know how) and which always identifies the sender, for years now and I've gotten into the habit of letting my machine get my calls rather than answer them myself when I'm in a don't-want-to-talk mood, and getting anonymous stuff in the U.S. Mail usually freaks me out a little. That is to say, I've been spoiled. I also have no reason to be anonymous. Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu> No more bars! No more cages! Just rollerskating, disco music, and the occasional light show....
U21187@uicvm.uic.edu (John Schulien) (04/04/91)
Most of the complaints people seem to have with caller-ID revolve around the fact that the system discloses your phone number, and therefore your identity. Why not set up a system so that: Instead of caller-ID displaying the phone number of the caller, have the box display a *different* number which is unique to that phone number. The index between actual phone numbers and caller-id numbers would be maintained by the telco, and a court order would be required to release entries from the index. You could call someone without revealing your phone number or identity. If you got an obscene phone call, you would report the caller-id number to the police, who would identify the caller via the telco database. You could program your phone to block calls You could program your phone to display names when certain ID's appear on your phone. i.e. Callerid "X265937424" --> "Mom & Dad", so you could use the system to screen calls. You could program your phone to direct certain calls to your answering machine I'd be pretty comfortable with a system like this. Does this sound like a good compromise? - jms =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= John Schulien (U21187@UICVM.UIC.EDU or U21187@UICVM.BITNET) The University of Illinois At Chicago ICBM: 41 52 N 87 40 W =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Amalgamated Interkludge Solutions that work for a while
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/04/91)
The issue with Caller ID is not anonymity, but confidentiality. I don't mind another person knowing that it's me calling. I do mind an institution grabbing up my telephone number and crosschecking it with ever other list it has on which my telephone number appears. Aside from the obvious fact that there will be grevious errors, building dossiers is not generally approved of in democratic societies (except maybe online). Bob Jacobson --
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (04/06/91)
In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: |I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's |like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any |visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has |been interfered with. Not exactly, but you're looking at the wrong side of the transaction. The caller is the one who's privacy has been invaded. Caller ID without convenient blocking corresponds to forcing anyone who knocks on any door to wear an ID card in case the person on the other side of the door happens to have a peephole. That does not correspond to the existing situation with the door. If someone were to put up a sign at their door saying "hold up a sign with your name, address, and telephone number or the door will not be opened" there is no agency forcing their callers to do so, just as there is no agency forcing them to open their door whether the caller complies with this demand or not. Allowing the answerer to screen calls is *not* the invasion of privacy - requiring the caller to provide the screening info to anyone they call *is*. -- sendmail - as easy to operate and as painless as using | John Macdonald manually powered dental tools on yourself - John R. MacMillan | jmm@eci386
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (04/06/91)
In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: |Furthermore, how does the peephole analogy extend to phones without caller |ID? I'm forced to pick up the headset, and listen for myself, or not answer |the phone at all. Not a very good analogy, hm? It corresponds extremely well. A phone without the caller id detector is in exactly the same situation as the door without a peehole. If you think either one helps your security or privacy, you can pay the cost of getting it. |I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather |defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? No it does not. It reduces the value of caller id at the same time as it reduces the invasion of privacy inflicted on the caller. Yes, you can end up being unable to call some people if you are at a phone that cannot or does not provide caller id trying to call a person who refuses to accept a call when caller id is not available. So what? The same situation corresponds to trying to visit someone who only opens their door to people that they recognize after you just came out of the hospital with bandages over your face. |I think the issue of "privacy" here is and continues to be a red herring. No. There is an easily demonstrated reason to fear invasion of privacy resulting from Caller ID. There are two current marketing phenonema that relate to this - mailing list sales, and telephone marketing. Mailing lists are a big business. Any organization that compiles mailing lists for any purpose, has been tempted to market that list. It can be a very lucrative business. It is also subject to privacy concerns. Many organizations are careful to state their mailing list policy, and to provide their members/customers the option of restricting their name and address from distribution on a commercial mailing list basis. The important factor in mailing list commercial value is how well it allows targeting. Companies are willing to pay relatively high amounts for mailing lists that they think will have a good match to the specific audience that they wish to reach. There are a wide range of mailing lists within this "targeting factor" spectrum. Some companies combine mailing lists to provide correlation to become extremely selective. Telephone marketing is currently done in a shotgun fashion - dial every phone number in every exchange at a time when people are likely to be home (in the middle of supper). Despite the intrusive nature of the current practice - it must provide a good enough level of success for some organizations, because it keeps being used. (Newspaper subscriptions seems to be a very common one for people to compain about.) Caller ID provides the ability for organizations to collect a well qualified database at little cost. (A mailing list often requires typing in a name and address from the customers hand written original and can only be collected when the customer provides it.) The same computer that accepts the caller id information and passes it to the telephone answerer can also use the phone number to look up historical records for that number. The answerer can use a very few keystrokes to enter codes for the type of transaction that occurred. This collected info can be extremely detailed at little cost. There will be a huge market in telephone lists, just as there is a market in mailing lists - the better qualified, the more specific infomation about your "private" life that a list has, the more valuable it is for targeting purposes. I do not state that this is a universally *bad* thing. Telemarketers may be able to better target their customers, instead of using the shotgun approach. (This means that far more businesses will find telemarketing worthwile - if you have a well targeted database of phone numbers then you will not be irritating a large number of people who absolutely no interest in your product. Overall, it will probably mean *more* telemarketing calls, but a higher proportion of them will be selling things that you might really want.) But I am sure that it will lead to results in specific cases that will be objectionable and frightening. -- sendmail - as easy to operate and as painless as using | John Macdonald manually powered dental tools on yourself - John R. MacMillan | jmm@eci386
smith@NCoast.ORG (Phil Smith) (04/06/91)
As quoted from <19142@rpp386.cactus.org> by jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II): +--------------- | In article <1991Apr1.075621.6297@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> pierrer@pike.ee.mcgill.ca (Pierre Racz) writes: | Or with junk snail-mail, take the goodies they sent you and put them in | their business reply envelope and mail them back. I accumulate stuff | from other junk-mailers and send it to other junk-mailers from time to | time as well. Keeps them informed ;-) | -- Works for me. But I wish it would work a little better. To make a short story long. Long, long time ago I bought something with a bank loan. At some point in time the bank sold the loan to a finance company. Can't remember if I still sent the payments to the bank or had to send them to the finance company. Since then several times a year I get junk mail from the finance company soliciting me to take a personal loan. This has continued for what seems like hundreds of years. I used to remove any traces of my name and send the stuff back to them in their business reply envelope. The past few years I have starting sending everything back to them (unsigned of course) so they would know who it was coming back from. So far they haven't taken the hint that they should remove me from their mailing list.
bethmo@microsoft.UUCP (Beth MOURSUND) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Mar30.230852.9730@menudo.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes: >The use of a peephole does not give the user the ability to find out >my home address, name, phone number and other personal information. If >you don't recognize me, don't let me in. But if you don't let me in, >I shouldn't have to tell you any more than I want to. Hey, I just thought of a wonderful solution! Install cameras and video screens on all the phones, and instead of caller ID just send a picture of the caller! You wouldn't mind that, right? :-) :-) :-) :-)
gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes: >Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on >the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy >of the callee. To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed >to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible. Use an answering machine. It works much better than Caller ID. >I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat >diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to >establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive >entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy. Suppose that you have called a lawyer, a doctor or some other professional who should not release the name of his/her clients--it may even be a serious ethical breach to do so. Now, should that person wait until s/he gets to the office in morning or would you prefer that s/he call you ASAP and block Caller ID? There are many examples were there is a necessity to block CID. >If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so >without using your home or office phone. A public telephone springs to mind >as the most obvious example. Mailing a letter is another one. I already use public telephones for 800 numbers, but the fact is that I pay for my phone and I would like to be able to use it. If I can't use it to make phone calls, perhaps I should just get rid of it. Under no circumstances can you make a valid claim that the callee has the right know *where* the caller is calling from, yet that is what CID does. It does not tell who is calling, but where the call is coming from. Anyway, humans deal with faces and names, not numbers. It is computers that deal with numbers--perfect from people who want to maintain databases. >The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to >phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully) >screen out solicitors with the right tool. I make this claim in light of >the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not >copyrightable. CID will not help much with telemarketers. They have many phone lines, most are outgoing only (so they don't even have a phone number), many are out of state. Therefore the Supreme Court rulin is not going to help you much. david
mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.085207.19175@cs.ucla.edu> gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: >In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes: >>Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on >>the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy >>of the callee. To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed >>to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible. > >Use an answering machine. It works much better than Caller ID. > >>I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat >>diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to >>establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive >>entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy. > >Suppose that you have called a lawyer, a doctor or some other professional >who should not release the name of his/her clients--it may even be a serious >ethical breach to do so. Now, should that person wait until s/he gets to >the office in morning or would you prefer that s/he call you ASAP and >block Caller ID? > >There are many examples were there is a necessity to block CID. > >>If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so >>without using your home or office phone. A public telephone springs to mind >>as the most obvious example. Mailing a letter is another one. > >I already use public telephones for 800 numbers, but the fact is that I >pay for my phone and I would like to be able to use it. If I can't use >it to make phone calls, perhaps I should just get rid of it. > >Under no circumstances can you make a valid claim that the callee has the >right know *where* the caller is calling from, yet that is what CID does. >It does not tell who is calling, but where the call is coming from. If some is calling me and I'm interested in talking to them, they aren't going to care if I know where they are calling from (or I won't care if they call). If I'm not interested in talking to them, then I don't have a problem with there being a penalty associated with having them annoy me. And if I want to preserve my privacy when making a call, I'll either not call or call from a pay phone. >Anyway, humans deal with faces and names, not numbers. It is computers that >deal with numbers--perfect from people who want to maintain databases. > >>The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to >>phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully) >>screen out solicitors with the right tool. I make this claim in light of >>the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not >>copyrightable. > >CID will not help much with telemarketers. They have many phone lines, >most are outgoing only (so they don't even have a phone number), many >are out of state. Therefore the Supreme Court rulin is not going to >help you much. > >david -- jack mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu * All I ask of Thee, Lord * Christ died for our sins. Dare we * Is to be a drinker and fornicator * make his martyrdom meaningless by * An unbeliever and a sodomite * not committing them? - Jules Feiffer * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.203202.3853@menudo.uh.edu> mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) writes: >If some is calling me and I'm interested in talking to them, they >aren't going to care if I know where they are calling from This isn't really for you to say, is it? If your doctor takes a call on the doctor's beeper from a party at a someone else's home, is it up to you to decide that it's okay for that number to be shown as one where that doctor may (sometimes) be reached? I share a telephone with a mental health professional who often has to return calls for an emergency service. The service calls our number; the call to the patient is placed on our phone. We do not want that number available to patients. How can you state categorically that the caller doesn't care whether you know? >aren't going to care if I know where they are calling from (or I won't >care if they call). If I'm not interested in talking to them, then I >don't have a problem with there being a penalty associated with having >them annoy me. And if they aren't annoying you? -- cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com "It can hardly be coincidence that no language on earth has ever produced the expression "As pretty as an airport." --Douglas Adams
olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) (04/10/91)
jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >The caller is the one who's privacy has been invaded. Caller ID >without convenient blocking corresponds to forcing anyone who knocks >on any door to wear an ID card in case the person on the other side >of the door happens to have a peephole. John's analogy is fatally flawed, since it envisions placing a burden on the caller to provide his/her identity. I have a much better analogy. Suppose that, after extensive research into Ouija boards and divining rods, I invent a magic box. When someone knocks on your door, my magic box will provide you a readout of the caller's name, address, and phone number. Some people want to completely outlaw these magic boxes. Others say that it's OK to have them, but you must let anyone disable the magic box (by remote control) if they want. How do these people have the gall to say what I will or will not do to identify people who wish to enter my home?
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr10.155422.26742@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen) writes:
I have a much better analogy. Suppose that, after extensive research into
Ouija boards and divining rods, I invent a magic box. When someone knocks
on your door, my magic box will provide you a readout of the caller's
name, address, and phone number.
This is not exactly what CID provides. With CID you get the phone
number and, with a little extra work, the name and location of the
person who leases the line that the caller is using. When calling
from home, this is equivalent info, but it won't always be the same
(e.g. if you call from work or a friend's phone).
Some people want to completely outlaw these magic boxes. Others say
that it's OK to have them, but you must let anyone disable the magic
box (by remote control) if they want.
How do these people have the gall to say what I will or will not do to
identify people who wish to enter my home?
You do not have the right to steal this information from the person
who wishes to enter your home. You may request that the person
provide the information before you allow them into your home, of
course. I think we have every right to place limits on your use of
the magic box. You are not currently free to do anything you like to
identify people who wish to enter your home. For example, you cannot
force a person to undergo a cavity search simply because they knocked
on your door. This is exactly the same (albeit a more extreme
example) as "scanning" anyone who comes to your door. You are not
giving them the choice of walking away once they see your requirements.
Caller ID represents a significant invasion of privacy of the
individual who makes the call. The decision about whether to divulge
one's location when making a call should be up to the individual
making the call. I do not see how you can claim the right to wrest
that information away from the caller without their consent.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) (04/11/91)
I have been reading all the various threads about Caller ID for quite a
while now (though I can't figure out what they are doing here on
comp.org.eff.talk :-) and as several others have pointed out there are
basically two requirements that would solve everyone's problems.
1) I have the option of making either anonymous or identified calls.
2) I have the option of refusing to accept anonymous calls.
Perhaps certain numbers should be restricted as to what they can choose
(businesses can only use identified calls? Tip lines can only accept
anonymous?) and maybe a reminder as the call is put through ("This call
will be identified") would be nice, but the above 2 points would
basically cover what everyone wants.
There. If you don't like caller ID, don't use it. Make all your calls
anonymously and accept any calls (can't be hypocritical now can we?).
If you anonymously call someone who has such calls blocked, you can try
again with an identified call. Or not call them.
I can't imagine a business not accepting anonymous calls. Most
businesses do (or should be doing) everything they can to get customers
to call. If someone like Dominoes chooses to only accept identified
calls, fine. If you only use anonymous calls you can take your business
elsewhere.
Allow anyone to set a default when they get their phone service and
allow for easy changing when you dial
Why wouldn't this make everyone (well, almost everyone) happy?
- Bill Seurer IBM: seurer@rchland Prodigy: CNSX71A
Rochester, MN Internet: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.competer@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/12/91)
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) writes: > The caller is the one who's privacy has been invaded. Caller ID > without convenient blocking ... I don't think there's much debate that blocking (preferably free per-call and cheap per-line) is desirable, so long as you know the ID is blocked. How about considering Caller-Id *with* blocking instead? This isn't an eastern bazaar where you have to take an outrageous position and bargain your way down to what you find acceptable. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/12/91)
> |I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather > |defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think? > > No it does not. No, it does not. > It reduces the value of caller id ... Actually, it increases the value of caller-ID, by providing a convenient indicator to an individual at home in their residence that the person calling is an asshole. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr10.142720.22627@panix.uucp> mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) writes: >In article <1991Apr9.203202.3853@menudo.uh.edu> >mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) writes: > > >>If some is calling me and I'm interested in talking to them, they >>aren't going to care if I know where they are calling from > >This isn't really for you to say, is it? If your doctor takes a >call on the doctor's beeper from a party at a someone else's home, >is it up to you to decide that it's okay for that number to be shown >as one where that doctor may (sometimes) be reached? I share a He could always just say "I was at a party. I can't normally be reached at this number.: >telephone with a mental health professional who often has to return >calls for an emergency service. The service calls our number; the >call to the patient is placed on our phone. We do not want that >number available to patients. How can you state categorically that >the caller doesn't care whether you know? Two points. 1) If you are worried about getting calls from them there are simple ways to circumvent the problem. Get a second line to call from and disconnect the ringer (one example). 2) I'm not interested in doing business with a mental health professional who may not want to talk to me. If I get a timely response from calling the answering service I have no need to call directly. If I'm not going to get a timely response... >>aren't going to care if I know where they are calling from (or I won't >>care if they call). If I'm not interested in talking to them, then I >>don't have a problem with there being a penalty associated with having >>them annoy me. > >And if they aren't annoying you? > If they are that worried about my knowing where they are calling from then they are annoying me. >-- >cmcl2!panix!mara Mara Chibnik mara@dorsai.com > >"It can hardly be coincidence that no language on earth has ever >produced the expression "As pretty as an airport." --Douglas Adams -- jack mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu * All I ask of Thee, Lord * Christ died for our sins. Dare we * Is to be a drinker and fornicator * make his martyrdom meaningless by * An unbeliever and a sodomite * not committing them? - Jules Feiffer * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny
gundrum@svc.portal.com (04/13/91)
>Allow anyone to set a default when they get their phone service and >allow
for easy changing when you dial
Most phone companies think they are in the business of making money, not
providing service. They want to charge extra for the unusual service of
blocking the calling numbers. This charge (about $5 per month for constant
blocking proposed in CA) is far more than it should cost them.
One item that seems to be lacking in this discussion is that the proposed
blocking schemes are not really private. There is a function that will call
back the last person who called you, even if that person had a "private
number." Also, there is a feature that will allow you to inform the police
of the last number that called you, even if it was private.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Any statements made by this account are strictly based on heresay and
should be assumed to have no intelligence behind them. (No, that does
not mean they have the approval of management.) gundrum@svc.portal.competer@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/13/91)
gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > Use an answering machine. It works much better than Caller ID. An unsupported assertion. My my. Please expand on this. > There are many examples were there is a necessity to block CID. No argument about that. How about working on supporting that point instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? > I already use public telephones for 800 numbers, but the fact is that I > pay for my phone and I would like to be able to use it. If I can't use > it to make phone calls, perhaps I should just get rid of it. You can't use your phone to make phone calls. I can't use my phone to receive them. How will we ever get anything done? > CID will not help much with telemarketers. They have many phone lines, All on the same prefix. "Oh, it's one of those 242 lines again. Let the machine take it". Caller-id works here. Call-block doesn't, unless you can block wildcards. :-> -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/13/91)
mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) writes: > Two points. 1) If you are worried about getting calls from them there > are simple ways to circumvent the problem. Get a second line to call from > and disconnect the ringer (one example). Just block caller-ID for that call. Why is it so hard to understand why people might want to do that? Legitimately. Caller-ID-blocking enhances the utility of callerID, allowing you to distinguish blocked calls from out-of-area ones. Just block calls where the ID is blocked. Think of it as an asshole filter. There are at least two boxes that will just block calls with the ID blocked, though ideally this should be a service offered by the phone company. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (04/13/91)
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: > This is not exactly what CID provides. With CID you get the phone > number and, with a little extra work, the name and location of the > person who leases the line that the caller is using. When calling > from home, this is equivalent info, but it won't always be the same > (e.g. if you call from work or a friend's phone). OK, you want a better analogy. Let's say I have a magic box that will identify the car the person knocking at my door drove up in. Oh, I already have this information? On the license plate? Amazing. And I do have the right to demand identification from people wishing to enter my home. They have the right to refuse it, and not enter. Both of these rights are necessary. Therefore I see both caller-ID and caller-ID blocking as desirable, and have a great deal of trouble understanding why there is even a debate over caller-ID-with-no-blocking versus no-caller-ID. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (04/14/91)
In article <1991Apr12.140237.13950@menudo.uh.edu> mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) writes: In article <1991Apr10.142720.22627@panix.uucp> mara@panix.uucp (Mara Chibnik) writes: >In article <1991Apr9.203202.3853@menudo.uh.edu> >mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde) writes: >This isn't really for you to say, is it? If your doctor takes a >call on the doctor's beeper from a party at a someone else's home, >is it up to you to decide that it's okay for that number to be shown >as one where that doctor may (sometimes) be reached? I share a He could always just say "I was at a party. I can't normally be reached at this number.: But he shouldn't have to--he should be thinking about the call, not the mechanics of it. (And the host shouldn't have to depend on him to remember!) Besides, somebody who'd make harassing phone calls (say, if he decides he hates the doctor) might very well turn on the doctor's friend (the host) if he can't get the doctor's number. 2) I'm not interested in doing business with a mental health professional who may not want to talk to me. If I get a timely response from calling the answering service I have no need to call directly. If I'm not going to get a timely response... But, if she isn't there, you'd only be annoying Mara... -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Until you stalk and overrun, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | you can't devour anyone. -- Hobbes | \============================================================================/
zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (04/15/91)
In article <Ic0sYPQ91EAf8EqOYb@rchland.ibm.com> seurer+@rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) writes: [Good plan deleted] > >Why wouldn't this make everyone (well, almost everyone) happy? > >- Bill Seurer IBM: seurer@rchland Prodigy: CNSX71A > Rochester, MN Internet: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com Well, the phone companies like to charge about 1.10 for each call you make that is anonymous. I would assume you would like it to be free, but the phone companies won't like that, and they are who count, not the people. -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) (04/15/91)
The problem is --
some people don't want you & I to be able to make private and/or anonymous phone calls.
All I can figger it's the 'pee in this jar, what have you got to hide?' mindset at work.
--
tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings
INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORGtrebor@lkbreth.foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) (04/15/91)
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Just block caller-ID for that call. Why is it so hard to understand why people >might want to do that? Legitimately. I made a devious suggestion, in comp.dcom.telecom, to solve the whole problem by letting people specify 1) how much they would pay for a caller's ID and 2) how much a caller wants in order for his ID to be released. By making a market out of the ID information, those who value their privacy can do just that - VALUE their privacy. And the phone company handles the $ transfer between parties (and slices off a %). So if you don't want to pay for caller's ID, set your phone to "offer" $0.00 for the ID. And if you don't care who gets your ID, set your price to $0.00. The phone company should let you change your default price/offer (for a fee) and change your price on a per call basis (free). They could also allow several pricing structures depending on the nature of the caller (eg: I charge $0.00 for residential callers to get my ID, but $1.00 to local businesses and $5.00 to out-of-area businesses). And you should be able to maintain a list of people/companies to whom you will release your number. Another possible solution is that the phone company could alias "fake" phone numbers to your phone number. WHen you call, the caller gets a consistant fake number (999-XXX-YYYY, say). They can't call you back but they CAN report this number to the phone company/cops in case of trouble, and it can be traced, by the proper authorities, back to you. In other words, it IDENTIFIES you without REVEALING your phone number. I would expect that a lot of people would pay $5/month for such a service, and considering that the phone company aliases 800 numbers anyway, it probably wouldn't be that hard. -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp | | "The Force. It surrounds us; It enfolds us; It gets us dates on Saturday | | Nights." -- Obi Wan Kenobi, Famous Jedi Knight and Party Animal. |
stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) (04/15/91)
In article <X483O9F@taronga.hackercorp.com> peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
OK, you want a better analogy. Let's say I have a magic box that will identify
the car the person knocking at my door drove up in.
Oh, I already have this information? On the license plate? Amazing.
And I do have the right to demand identification from people wishing to
enter my home. They have the right to refuse it, and not enter. Both of
these rights are necessary. Therefore I see both caller-ID and caller-ID
blocking as desirable, and have a great deal of trouble understanding why
there is even a debate over caller-ID-with-no-blocking versus no-caller-ID.
I have no problem with CID as long as it is provided with FREE
per-line and per-call blocking. As far as I can tell, there is no
technical reason we can't offer it this way other than the phone
companies' greed. In California at least, they claim it wouldn't be
worth it if they had to provide per-line blocking. I don't quite
follow the reasoning, but that's the claim.
--
--Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)gundrum@svc.portal.com (04/17/91)
>Another possible solution is that the phone company could alias "fake" >phone numbers to your phone number. WHen you call, the caller gets a >consistant fake number (999-XXX-YYYY, say). They can't call you back >but they CAN report this number to the phone company/cops in case of >trouble, and it can be traced, by the proper authorities, back to you. The "Private Line" business of blocking the outgoing call does exactly this. The phone will display "Private Line" but the called person can press a button to call back the caller, or press another button to send the real number to the police. At least, this is what the phone company pamphlet implied in CA. ~~~Eric -- _______________________________________________________________________ Any statements made by this account are strictly based on heresay and should be assumed to have no intelligence behind them. (No, that does not mean they have the approval of management.) gundrum@svc.portal.com
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/21/91)
In article <13822.280D449D@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) writes: >some people don't want you & I to be able to make private and/or anonymous phone calls. > Tom, there are indeed some people like that. However, many of the people defending caller ID are also defending free blocking, ie. the write to make anonymous calls. They also defend the right of people to refuse anonymous calls -- something we don't have the power to do right now. If you run a BBS (:-) then it is your decision as to whether callers can be anonymous or must be identified. Would you want somebody taking that decision away from you -- either not allowing you to demand ID before "answering" (logging on in the BBS sense, answering in the phone sense) which is what no-ID means, or forcing everybody to give ID even if you don't want it, which is what ID without blocking is. ID with blocking is just more information, provided optionally at one end, used optionally at the other. As such, it is not evil. Forcing either way is bad. what -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473