peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu (Peter Marshall) (12/19/90)
As EFF seems to be interested in some of the following developments in WA State, the following is reprinted from telecom: The WA PUC(WUTC), often considered "progressive" in various areas of telecom regulation, issued an 11/30 statement disagreeing with its staff's recommendation that "Caller ID" not be permitted and with a staff legal opinion that the service appeared likely illegal. The staff report was based on this legal analysis and on a sampling of public opinion. The WUTC initiated neither a rulemaking nor legislative recommendations; i.e., did very little of a public policy nature; but instead, invited WA telephone companies to propose Caller ID trials, to include both per-call and line blocking. The first such proposal is expected from a Pacific Telecom subsidiary, at the apparent instigation of large switch manufacturer Northern Telecom. On a similar front though, a formal complaint filed with the PUC v. US West for allegedly "selling" an unlisted number to various entities, including a US Sprint 900 service, is thought likely to provide more focus here on use of ANI by long-distance carriers. WA also has what seems to be its first e-mail privacy case, as reported several months ago by the SEATTLE TIMES, via a legal action by the WA Federation of State Employees v. the state Dept. of Labor & Industries. With no relevant state policies in place at the time, and with the suit still in process, new policies being developed by the Gov.'s Cabinet are expected to be issued in a subsequent Executive Order. Another possible "first" for the state, under its still relatively new and largely untested Computer Trespass law, is the recently-concluded Kitsap County case, State v. Riley. In the first case of its kind for this county, tried under a new judge and a controversial and outspoken prosecutor--yet reminiscent of other such cases more well-known in this forum and elsewhere--the defendant, a 41-year-old neurosciences Ph.D., was convicted on charges of computer trespass and possession of stolen access devices, for allegedly accessing several LD-reseller systems. Elements of Riley's 11/28 sentence seemed very similar to what we've come to expect in such cases. The case is now in appeal, with stay of a 90-day jail sentence, pending the appeal decision.