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
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.
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`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." *
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`
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.
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.
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 --
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)
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.
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.
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`
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
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
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`
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 | \============================================================================/
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. |
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