[comp.org.eff.talk] Caller ID problems

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.com

peter@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.com

peter@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.ORG

trebor@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