Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!attctc!vector!telecom-gateway From: smb@hector.att.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Saves A Life! Message-ID: Date: 15 Oct 89 16:49:13 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 68 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 452, message 5 of 6 I'd promised myself I wouldn't comment on this subject any more, but this latest posting is much too inflammatory.... From: TELECOM Moderator I'm not sure if you can do this, given the login available to you, but you should distinguish between your role as moderator and poster. Most of the time this doesn't matter, but when it does -- i.e., when there's a controversial topic being discussed -- you should try to grant everyone equal access to the debate. For those of you who think Caller ID is the worst scourge to ever come to the telephone industry, consider this case from Van Nuys, CA about three weeks ago: [deleted] The autodialer was programmed to simply dial 911, which conneced to the Emergency Services dispatcher at the Van Nuys, CA, Police and Fire Department. 911 Caller ID service is conceptually very different than ordinary Caller ID. Note that I'm not speaking of the technical differences -- of which there are many -- I'm simply speaking of the benefit to society of having the facility available. [deleted] He noted that prior to the installation of Caller ID, there had been several objections to the service; 'violation of privacy' being the major complaint. Some people apparently felt they had the 'right' to talk to the police anonymously, and that this 'right' superceded the rights of the police and fire departments to administer their duties effeciently and effectively. "We think caller ID was responsible for saving Mrs. Rodgers' life." ``Efficiently.'' A marvelous word. There are parts of the world where the police can operate much more ``efficiently'' because there are no (enforced) prohibitions against, say, beating suspects. And the ``legislature'' makes life even easier for the police by requiring internal passports to travel within the country, official permission to live in certain areas, and lots of nice vague ``crimes'' suitable for arresting just about anyone. Efficient, certainly. But I don't think I'd like to live there. My point is not that Caller ID is or is not a good thing for emergency services. My point is that the issue is not that clear-cut. Factual premise 1: A number of big cities, and the federal DEA, have prosecuted numerous police officers for narcotics-related corruption. Factual premise 2: Many drug dealers have shown no hesitation in ordering the murder of community activists who have tried to shut down their activities. Question 1: if 911 calls have Caller-ID recorded (and all such calls are recorded in most cities, I might note), what are the odds on such a drug dealer bribing a cop to find out who made a particular call? Question 2: how many lives might that cost? Please note carefully what I did and did not say above. I did not say there are no benefits to Caller ID for the police. I did not say anything at all about Caller ID for other purposes. And I said nothing at all about the desirability, or the lack thereof, of current drug laws and policies. All I said is that the issue is very far from clear-cut, and that we should not blindly accept official pronouncements on the subject. --Steve Bellovin smb@ulysses.att.com