chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes) (03/29/91)
The explosion of direct marketing technology has led to dramatic increases in the ammount of junk mail in our mailboxes and sellers on the telephone. Information on potential customers phone numbers and addresses are a valuable comodity, which is bought,sold, and traded in the direct marketing industry. Marketed and in hand with the caller ID service are systems that allow the caller to cross reference the caller phone number with name,address, income, and other personal data. 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 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." Charleed Wymerfan
kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (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.
Oh no, say it isn't so! I better sue my cable company now, for they
are using my television (or at least, allowing my television to be
used) for someone else's commercial purposes! Without my consent and
control, even.
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."
What a nice world.... every usenet article I read and every
face-to-face conversation I enter into gets another copyright notice
on it. Well, the lawyers will enjoy it.....
Let's see..... I wanna give my friend Matt a call. 555-2368. Oh,
he's not home, but here's his answering machine.....
"Hi, I'm not home right now, and you've reached 555-2368. This
information is the express personal property of Matthew Womer and may
not be repeated, recorded or otherwise used in any way shape or form.
Thank you very much, have a nice day, and leave a message at the sound
of the tone...."dysart@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Mitchell D Dysart) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes) writes: > >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." Although it's not exactly the same thing, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled, just days ago, that the White Pages telephone directory is devoid of artistic imput and therefore is not eligible for protection under United States Copyright laws. -- Mitch Dysart dysart@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
mcnab_pd@darwin.ntu.edu.au (03/31/91)
In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu>, chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes) writes: > The explosion of direct marketing technology has led to dramatic > increases in the ammount of junk mail in our mailboxes and sellers on > the telephone. Information on potential customers phone numbers and > addresses are a valuable comodity, which is bought,sold, and traded in > the direct marketing industry. Marketed and in hand with the caller ID service > are systems that allow the caller to cross reference the caller phone > number with name,address, income, and other personal data. The problem with any argument in favour of copyrighting "Telelphone ID" is that, for the most part, all the information in it is in the public domain. Your name, address and phone number are in the telephone directory. On the other hand, your personal information (such as income, job etc) is not and should not be - this is the sort of information that is collected via "census". That information should not be made readily available for commercial purposes. Unfortunately, that sought of info. is required whenever you apply for credit cards and the like - and I've notice on certain application forms for well known cards, that the banks or credit agencies involved reserve the right to use this information. However, the clause is usually ambiguously phrased, so that it includes discloser for legal or legitimate reasons 9i.e. tax fraud investigations) but then it could equally apply to selling the information to a direct-mailing agency!!! What is needed is legislation (I don't think self-regulation would work in this area) which (a) prevents the collection of this information except for legitimate and accurately specified reasons and (b) gives consumers the right to demand - at reasonable notice - to see the information that is stored on certain peoples computers [and if necessary, the right to demand removal of infringing material or correction of inaccurate data]. Hefty fines for default would also be required, instead of some pithy insignificant amount. Until such legislation is introduced, then we cannot live in a truly free democracy!! Now for the controversial aspect - just as we have a "tactical response squad" to deal with terrorist and other such attacks, and just as the various taxation departments (not just in Australia I'm sure) have the power to utilise "commando" like tactics to take suspected companies by surprise, so too, the safeguarding of personal data will require some legitimate enforcement agency:- Why not round up there hacker/cracker's and use their "expertise" at gaining entry to databanks for legitimate reasons - to see EXACTLY what is stored at various places; not merely what companies let you see from their computers. This opinion is still entirely my own, and is still in its formative stages. Any comments and/or criticisms are welcome!!!! Mark Neely NT University Australia
aahz@netcom.COM (Aahzmandius) (04/01/91)
In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (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. One thing which no one has mentioned so far is the analogy between a phone call and someone coming up to your door and ringing the bell. It's easy for you to refuse to answer the door, take their picture and show it to the police if someone persists in harassing you, etc. Shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with a phone? -- --- Aahz (aka Dan Bernstein) New Address!! @netcom.com (or netcom!aahz@apple.com) Why is this newsgroup different from all other newsgroups?
epstein@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) (04/01/91)
In <1991Apr1.035451.25308@netcom.COM> aahz@netcom.COM (Aahzmandius) writes: >One thing which no one has mentioned so far is the analogy between a >phone call and someone coming up to your door and ringing the bell. >It's easy for you to refuse to answer the door, take their picture and >show it to the police if someone persists in harassing you, etc. >Shouldn't you be able to do the same thing with a phone? Actually, the analogy between the phone and the front door has been brought up -- at least it was in the recent discussion of caller ID in misc.consumers. And your example of taking the picture is more analogous to call trace than plain caller ID (call trace, as I understand it, is where you push a button after receiving the harassing call, and the call is traced and the information is forwarded to the police). Some things that came out of the phone/front door analogy: 1) Although you can see who is at your front door, this does not guarantee that you can identify them, or find out any further information about them (as would be the case with caller ID) 2) The person at the front door is not required to show identification -- you can refuse to answer or tell them to leave if they don't, but you cannot force them to show identification -- Milt Epstein Department of Computer Science University of Illinois epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (04/02/91)
In article <27F6FC7F.3E44@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes: >... >2) The person at the front door is not required to show identification >-- you can refuse to answer or tell them to leave if they don't, but >you cannot force them to show identification Neither does caller ID. After all, since when was a phone number identification???????? -- Philip K. Ronzone S e c u r e U N I X pkr@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. MS 9U-500 work (415) 335-1511 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94039 fax (415) 969-2314 ...................................."Why, you little ........", Homer Simpson
lachman@parc.xerox.com (Hans Lachman) (04/02/91)
[sorry if you've seen this before, I posted this message last week, and it apparently got lost] In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes/Charleed Wymerfan) writes: >For privacy reasons I am against this caller ID service... For privacy reasons, I am for Caller ID, depending on how it's offered. Back in the old days, before telephones became ubiquitous, the word "call" meant "to pay a brief visit". Calling by telephone and calling in person are essentially the same thing, except that the telephone transmits only your voice and leaves the rest of you behind. Thus, laws that regulate these two situations should be kept consistent. When someone "comes to call" and knocks on my door, I am free to either ignore them or answer the door. I am free to ask them who they are, and to let them in without asking anything. If I want, I can hire a doorman who will filter out certain visitors, or certain types of visitors. I can put up "No Solicitors" signs, and I can install a peep hole. Also, manufacturers of peep holes are free to sell their product. On the other hand, the visitor can stand where he can't be seen, and refuse to identify himself; he is free to do this, and I am free to either let him in or not. Since the status quo in the case of calling in person seems acceptable to everyone, then calling by telephone should be subject to the same rules (actually, LACK of rules. Who needs more legislation?). Carriers should be allowed to offer Caller ID, and users should be allowed to choose what calls they will answer, what calls should be blocked by the carrier, and, when they make a call, what information the carrier should transmit. This enhances my privacy because I can prevent telemarketers and other undesirables from invading my home and disturbing my peace, especially if the carrier can deliver call classifications like "telemarketer", "private individual", etc. That would be nice. Now, let's look at the case where the callee is a business. Some of you worry that when you call a business, they will capture your personal information, sell it, or do God knows what. Note that when you visit a business, like a grocery store, they do not look at you through a peep hole and demand identification before doing business with you. Those that do would rightly shut down due to lack of customers. Hopefully, natural selection would eliminate businesses who refuse telephone calls from people who withhold their Caller ID info. As a consumer of telephone services, I expect to be able to call businesses and other organizations without providing more information than is needed to transact business. At the same time, when I disturb the home of a private individual, I am prepared to identify myself, if they so require, before (or after) they start speaking to me. Likewise, I expect those who disturb my home to be willing to identify themselves to my satisfaction. I think a minimum (or absence) of regulation of Caller ID will achieve desirable results for the people, as long as the carriers provide users with convenient ways to control how it is used, and don't charge for this control. Hans Lachman lachman@arisia.xerox.com (Disregard return address in the header.) The ideas and opinions expressed here are mine.
gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Reesor) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.181048.21377@odin.corp.sgi.com>, pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: > In article <27F6FC7F.3E44@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes: > >... > >2) The person at the front door is not required to show identification > >-- you can refuse to answer or tell them to leave if they don't, but > >you cannot force them to show identification > > > Neither does caller ID. After all, since when was a phone number > identification???????? It becomes identification when paired with a reversed telephone book. These books are listed by *number*, so the number becomes an index to your identity. I'm not sure of the restrictions on obtaining these, but I browsed one when I was employed by a major insurance company. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Glen Reesor | gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
paul%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Paul E. Black) (04/02/91)
Just as recording conversations is severely restricted, so should use
of the caller ID. How about requiring a company to ask first?
Service Rep: May we note your call in our data bank
for <some good reason>?
You: Yes. (or No)
The service rep. then punches a button. The company gets the
information they want and the caller knows something is being
recorded. It seems a reasonable compromise. Variations or
improvements anyone?
Paul E. Black | UUCP: ...{ames,uunet,amdahl,sun}!oliveb!cirrusl!paul
CIRRUS LOGIC Inc MS 62 | Domain: paul%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com
3100 Warren Avenue | Voice: +1 408 945-8305 extension 3563
Fremont, California 94538 USAjott@crash.cts.com (Joan Tine) (04/02/91)
In article <1991Apr1.201553.6064@watdragon.waterloo.edu> gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Reesor) writes: >> Neither does caller ID. After all, since when was a phone number >> identification???????? > >It becomes identification when paired with a reversed telephone book. >These books are listed by *number*, so the number becomes an index to >your identity. I'm not sure of the restrictions on obtaining these, but >I browsed one when I was employed by a major insurance company. They are obtained by subscription. I used them years ago when I worked in credit. Another option is the 911 database. This is a comprehensive database service provided by the phone company to the police department. If you call 911, the number and address you are calling from is displayed to the person taking your call. It's just a matter of authorization or technical know-how to get it. The average computer operator on night shift in one of these places is paid about twice minimum wage. A tape containing one of these databases is worth inestimable thousands of dollars. Some of the senior operators know enough job control language to copy that database, or part of it, onto a tape and sneak the tape out. But it would be wrong.
jfh20@ccc.amdahl.com (Jack Hamilton) (04/03/91)
Perhaps the rules have changed, but it used to be Pacific Bell's policy to supply, on demand, the name and address associated with charge on your phone bill. Have a number you want to know about? Make a non-local call to it, and when the bill comes, call the phone company and say "Who was this call to?" The unlisted number restrictions don't apply.
whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) (04/03/91)
This has been beaten into the ground, but... Why would you call someone from your home phone if you wanted to remain anonymous? -- whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM | I don't know, who's at DDSW1? | whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM! I asked YOU who's at DDSW1! Ok, there's a guy at DDSW1, right? | Right! Who? | Exactly! | What? | No, he's at lll-winken. | Where? | No, What! | I don't know! | He's at gargoyle. | Who? | No, he's at DDSW1.MCS.COM!
curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca (Curt J. Sampson) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr1.201553.6064@watdragon.waterloo.edu> gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Reesor) writes: > It becomes identification when paired with a reversed telephone book. > These books are listed by *number*, so the number becomes an index to > your identity. I'm not sure of the restrictions on obtaining these, but > I browsed one when I was employed by a major insurance company. 'Round these parts they're pretty easy to get a hold of. BC Directories produces the "Criss Cross" indexed by phone number and street address. You can buy it from BC Directories or just go look it up in the copy in the Library. cjs -- | "It is actually a feature of UUCP that the map of curt@cynic.uucp | all systems in the network is not known anywhere." curt@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca | --Berkeley Mail Reference Manual (Kurt Schoens)
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/03/91)
In article <1991Apr03.002723.19571@ddsw1.MCS.COM> whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >This has been beaten into the ground, but... > >Why would you call someone from your home phone if you wanted to remain >anonymous? > >-- >whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM | I don't know, who's at DDSW1? | whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM! >I asked YOU who's at DDSW1! Ok, there's a guy at DDSW1, right? | Right! >Who? | Exactly! | What? | No, he's at lll-winken. | Where? | No, What! | I >don't know! | He's at gargoyle. | Who? | No, he's at DDSW1.MCS.COM! Not anonymous, Guy, just not identified by telephone number. If someone has your name and address because - and phone number - because you decide to give it to them, that's one thing. If they take these things without your consent, that's another. Get it? Bob Jacobson --
karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (04/04/91)
Really you want a logical ID rather than a physical one. "Call from your husband" rather than "Call from 713-555-1212". Sure, then you'd have to enter an ID when you made a call. If you were using a phone card, though (for example), you'd have already entered one, or maybe run a magstripe through a reader on the phone. You could have private caller ID just with a little voicemail-type system. "You have reached Karl's house, enter your preassigned four-digit code now if you have one. For charity solictations, enter 0000, for unsolicited business calls, press 0000, if you are collecting for a delinquent bill, press 0000" :-) Then you can assign who's priority 1, 2, etc, etc. Trouble with this would be all the different four-digit numbers your various buddies would be assigning to you -- best to have a more universal ID. -- -- 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
pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr1.201553.6064@watdragon.waterloo.edu> gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Reesor) writes: >In article <1991Apr1.181048.21377@odin.corp.sgi.com>, pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes: >> Neither does caller ID. After all, since when was a phone number >> identification???????? > >It becomes identification when paired with a reversed telephone book. >These books are listed by *number*, so the number becomes an index to >your identity. I'm not sure of the restrictions on obtaining these, but >I browsed one when I was employed by a major insurance company. Again - that is not identification. The phone book provides a mapping of the phone number to a name and/or address -- both of which may have little to do with reality. And of course, it is not identification because who knows who the caller is. -- Philip K. Ronzone pkr@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. MS 9U-500 work (415) 335-1511 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94039 fax (415) 969-2314 ...................................."Why, you little ........", Homer Simpson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (04/05/91)
Cross-matching of lists is far more sophisticated than just using reverse directories! The one factor impeding easier matching has been lack of a general identifier. Now that telephone numbers will be available, that process should proceed with expedition. Bob Jacobson --
aahz@netcom.COM (Aahzmandius) (04/05/91)
In article <NRGAGWD@xds12.ferranti.com> karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >Really you want a logical ID rather than a physical one. [omitted] >Trouble with this would be all the different four-digit >numbers your various buddies would be assigning to you -- best to have a >more universal ID. Hmmmm....isn't this right back where we started, where we were worrying about the effects of universal ID? -- --- Aahz (aka Dan Bernstein) New Address!! @netcom.com (or netcom!aahz@apple.com) I am not a race-car driver, but I play one on 17.
smith@NCoast.ORG (Phil Smith) (04/06/91)
As quoted from <27F6FC7F.3E44@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> by epstein@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein): | | Some things that came out of the phone/front door analogy: | | 1) Although you can see who is at your front door, If I don't recognize them or don't wish to be bothered with them I can attempt to ignore them. | 2) The person at the front door is not required to show identification | -- you can refuse to answer or tell them to leave if they don't, but | you cannot force them to show identification If they have chosen not to leave when I attempt to ignore them in case #1 and insist they have reason to speak to me or desire to enter my premises then they must produce ID or leave.
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (04/07/91)
... karl@ficc.ferranti.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >You could have private caller ID just with a little voicemail-type system. >"You have reached Karl's house, enter your preassigned four-digit code >now if you have one. For charity solictations, enter 0000, for >unsolicited business calls, press 0000, if you are collecting for a >delinquent bill, press 0000" :-) Then you can assign who's priority 1, >2, etc, etc. Trouble with this would be all the different four-digit >numbers your various buddies would be assigning to you -- best to have a >more universal ID. These already exist. You dial, then must supply a code sequence before the phone will ring. The caller's name appears on a display so you can decide whether or not to answer. I'm not sure when it was I saw heard of this device, but it was long before all this talk about Caller ID. >-- >-- 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 -- /// ____ \\\ "It says, `Golgafrincham Ark Fleet, Ship B, Hold 7, Telephone | |/ / \ \| | Sanitizer, Second Class,' and a serial number." "A telephone \\_(\____/)_// sanitizer? A dead telephone sanitizer?" "Best greg \_\\\/ hoss.unl.edu kind." "But what's he doing here?" "Not a lot."