Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: arnor!uri@uunet.uu.net (Uri Blumenthal) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID: Date: 31 Aug 89 17:41:46 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: IBM Corp., Yorktown NY Lines: 111 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 339, message 2 of 8 From article , by ficc!peter@uunet. uu.net: > This is a response to , posted by > arnor!uri (Uri Blumenthal) > > I said: >> > (a) Have a 'privacy' prefix, like the current *70 Cancel Call >> > Waiting prefix. > Uri said: >> a) Cancel Call Waiting is NOT necessarily *70. Actually, >> somewhere it simply doesn't exist (:-). > > You're picking nits. The point is to have a privacy prefix. Not what the > particular prefix is. Well, that's me, guy. Sorry (:-) > I said: >> > (b) Telephones with unlisted numbers show up as 'unlisted'. > Uri replied: >> b) To allow ANY number to be just 'unlisted' will screw up all >> the system. > > Why? This statement is so outlandish I can't conceive what line of reasoning ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > can lead to it. Could you be so kind as to explain just what you're getting > at here? Yup, I'll be so kind and explain it. What is the purpose of this system? My answer is: to identify the caller. Other reasons may apply, but I'm interested explicitely in this one. Now, if just one number shows up as 'unlisted' - guess what happens to all your identification? You see, when my friend Bob calls me and says: "Hi Uri, I'm Bob" - don't know about you, but I don't need Caller ID service for such cases. And if somebody anonymous calls and his number shows up as 'anonymous' (or 'unlisted') - again, why do I need such a system? How does your version help in this case? If I do have the right to know who calls me - why should there be any exemptions? "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? And when your right to keep YOUR number private clashes with MY right to know who bothers me at 1:00 AM - for a solution possible see below. > Finally, he argues: >> The only way is to make some codes/names show up >> instead of real phone numbers, so that the caller CAN BE >> IDENTIFIED, but YOU CAN'T CALL HIM BACK. > > I want to be able to call them back. I don't see why you would even want to > have the service if you can't see the number of the phone that's calling > you. What would be the point? First - you missed the point. This was a PART of a scheme and should answer on the question "What to do if the caller doesn't want his number listed?". The aim of the Caller ID service is NOT to let you to call the caller ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ back immediately - it has only to GIVE YOU THE CALLER ID. No less, no more. What kind of ID - it depends. If THE CALLER DOESN'T OBJECT - it can be his REAL PHONE NUMBER, so in this case you'll be able to call him back as soon as he hangs up (or even sooner :-). But if the caller DOESN'T WANT HIS NUMBER TO BE LISTED - the ID shown will be in another form (I don't care which form exactly, the only thing I need - that ID should explicitely identify the caller. Period.) So in second case the number, which is to be private is not shown up on your screen, so the right of your caller is preserved. Also, since his ID does show up - you YOURSELF can trace him down (if you need, of course). Down to either his real name/address and/or to his real (non-private) phone number. IMHO, it's absolutely unnecessary to have a call-back feature (though helpful SOMETIMES). But it IS necessary to have Caller ID service. > The service is desirable (I want it, anyway). The only question is how to > preserve the privacy of people who, for whatever reason, don't want their > phone numbers to be public knowledge. For the solution - see above. > The two conditions I described provide this protection. Yes, your scheme provides that protection, but it doesn't serve the original goal - to identify the caller. In your case you're getting either phone number - or nothing (well, for me 'unlisted' is even worse than nothing :-). My scheme gives you either phone number or ID, traceble ID. So I love my scheme better (:-), as providing more consistent service. > I have absolutely no idea why you would want ANI under the > sorts of circumstances you're advocating. The service you really seem to want > is some sort of automatic call tracing, for your own protection. If you want > that, that's fine... but you shouldn't confuse it with ANI. Sorry, since I don't know what the ANI is AT ALL - I can't dicsuss it, unless you be so kind as to explain it (:-). Regards, Uri. [Moderator's Note: ANI is Automatic Number Identification, in any form; whether only to the operator for billing, or to other customers, etc. PT]