Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: gdelong@cvman.prime.com (Gary Delong)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID Linked to Decline in Harrassing Calls
Message-ID: <telecom-v09i0341m07@vector.dallas.tx.us>
Date: 1 Sep 89 17:00:33 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Lines: 44
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 341, message 7 of 8

As I see it, there seem to be four main objections to the Caller-ID features:

1) Businesses building lists of casual callers to use in future phone
   solicitation campaigns. (and maybe even selling those lists)

2) Callers to various public agencies and hot-lines might wish to remain
   anonymous.

3) Certain calls from parties to domestic abuse may wish to contact other
   parties without revealing their whereabouts.

4) Those who have an un-listed/published number wish to keep it private.

Now maybe I'm taking a too simple approach to the issue, but it would seem
that a few simple step could leave the feature fully functional while
addressing these concerns.

1) Make the Caller-ID feature apply only to residential service.  If that
   restriction is placed in the tariff, the only "business" that could get
   your number via Caller-ID is the person working out of their home.
   (as has been noted, ATT 800 service already provides businesses with a
    list of callers phone numbers)

2) Make the above restriction apply to these agencies (with the exception of
   emergency dispatch services).

3) Route these calls either through the operator or some third party agency
   who would forward the call.

4) Is the only one I see that might require some work.

   There would seem to be two differnt situations here.  Those with more than
   one line and want to use one or more for outgoing calls only.  I think this
   might be handled in the same way billing is handled.  When I had tow lines,
   both were billed to one account/phone number.  Why not have the feature
   report the billing number?  This would provide the called party with a way
   to re-contact the caller and protect the caller's un-published number(s).

   As to those of you who only have one un-listed/published line, I don't have
   any sympathy at all.  If you think you have a valid reason to phone me, I'll
   probably have a vaild reason to want to call you back sometime.

Is this all too simple, or have I missed some other objection? (other than
from the "I want to harrass them anonymously group")