Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris.com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID: Date: 6 Sep 89 04:27:24 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Reply-To: "Michael H. Warfield (Mike" Organization: Lanier Network Knitting Circle - Thaumaturgy & Speculum Division Lines: 86 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 351, message 4 of 5 In article langz@asylum.UUCP (Lang Zerner) writes: >The main reason proponents of caller ID state in support of their view is that >they should be able to prevent harassment. Just knowing the number at which >the call originates doesn't stop the caller from continuing to call, so the >only way really to stop the harrassment is to report the number to the telco >and request that they take action (unless you view counter-harrassment as a >valid response, which idea has its own attractive mercenary attraction :-). >One solution implemented by some BOCs is to provide a "Call Trace" *-sequence >which logs the number of the most recent caller with the BOC. The call >recipient can then call telco to request action be taken against the caller >(as, presumably, she would have done even if she had received the number via a >caller ID display). This way, legitimate callers can retain the privilege of >keeping their numbers private, while harrassing callers could not make use of >this privilege to escape detection. Why is this solution not sufficient? On major point that seems to be CONSTANTLY overlooked here is a psychological one. I for one wsould not purchase a feature such as Call Trace or Call Block until I need it. At the present time I haven't needed such an animal for several years. Now paying several bucks a month for a feature I might possibly need once every four or five years does not sound too cost effective. As a consequence the probabilty of any significant fraction of the telephone customer base having this feature is insignificant in the extreme. A harrasing caller would be well assure that his chances of hitting someone, first shot, who already has this feature is somewhat less likely than being hit by a meteor. Now the telco could offer these features for free and install it on everyone's phone ready to use when the need arises, but I fear we have just left the realm of the unlikely and entered the realm of the unreal. Many people (I for one) will purchase Calling Line ID in a heart beat! Now the probablity of stumbling upon someone with this feature suddenly becomes much more significant. Now there exists a distinct possiblity of getting caught in the act ON THE FIRST CALL! Recently, in the metro Atlanta area, an obsence phone caller harrased over 100 women. He called them up on the phone, claiming to have kidnaped their husband or other member of their family, coerced personal information from them, and then proceeded to try to get them to perform various sexual acts that may be best left unsaid. While many did not comply, some did follow some of his instructions, and most were terrorized in the extreme. Now picture this situation. Say 10% of the customers in this area had this feature (high yes, but maybe not, if it becomes real popular). He would have had ten or more women with his phone number reporting him to the police! Now, you say, what if he was calling from a pay phone? Well, now you have some track of his where- abouts and his activities. The police might even scare up a witness or two. With this possiblity, is the risk worth the thrill? The damage he did was considerable and both physical as well as psychological. These women were literally raped over the phone!! Are the people opposed to this feature recommending we all get these protective features and feed the telco coffers just in case of something like this or do they prefer to let someone like this get away with his obsence perversion and let these women fend for themselves?? This guy was not some off-the-street creep. His methods were well thought out, involved superficially personal information, and was extermely convincing. He played on many peoples darkest fears and convinced many extermely intelligent women that their husband or children really were in danger if they did not act out his fantasies! All of this was reported in the Atlanta Constitution that reported most of the victims were in the Gwinnett County area, a generally affluent suburban county where a significant number of individuals could be expected to purchase a fancy new toy like CLID. The reason the harrassing phone calls have gone down in New Jersey is the active risk of somebody having this feature just because they like it, not because they got it for protection! This guy never called anyone back twice. A feature which you don't have and takes a month to get is totally useless against a random caller like this. The key here is not that you can report his number to the telco or the police. The key here is that the risk of getting caught is high enough to discourage this kind of crime in the first place. It's true that even if you have CLID and you have a harrasing caller, you still have to storm the barracades down at the telco bureacracy. It hasn't bought you anything over the other features, if you have them. It's the RISK! It's the PREVENTION! It's raising the probability that a given "mark" already has the feature installed! Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals. Condoning it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well! --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!