Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!attctc!vector!telecom-gateway From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Saves A Life! Message-ID: Date: 16 Oct 89 05:34:06 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 64 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 6 of 6 I printed all of the above message not because this is the Social Issues Digest, but because I would not want Mr. Bellovin to think he was being censored. He implies in his first paragraph that one is unlikely to get a fair hearing or a chance to reply to a message since I did not botber to run the 'change name' program here and convert myself to Patrick Townson for the occassion. Everyone who reads this little Digest knows how bad I am about not allowing my critics the time of day or space in the Digest to reply. The item in particular appeared in several newspapers last week, including both the [Chicago Tribune] and the [Chicago Sun Times]. In addition, it was sent to me by the press clip service I use (yes, I take this Digest rather seriously, and I keep up on news relating to telecommunicatons.) I feel as moderator I would be derelict in not printing an item when it had been considered newsworthy by other media. It was a story that I, in my editorial judgment, considered worth repeating here. Mr. Bellovin, and another recent correspondent who forbade me to print his letter or mention his name point out rightfully that Caller ID when offered as a CLASS feature is different than when the same information is afforded the police in a 911 conversation. Yes and no. There are some technical differences, but the end result is the same: The caller is identified to the callee. And there are some remarkable similarities between the two as well. Some of you must surely recall, in your own communities, as I do in Chicago, how bitterly the concept of E-911 was fought by the same people who are fighting caller ID now in the public realm. Just as some organization now is fighting in the courts against Caller ID as a CLASS offering, the *very same organization* (through its Chicago branch) fought in the courts to prevent the police from having the name and number of the calling party back in 1973. So I think we split hairs and pick nits when we say caller ID as a CLASS offering is 'not the same as' caller ID when emergency services get the information. Caller ID is caller ID is caller ID. Either the caller is identified in some way to the callee, or he is not. It may be some folks who otherwise disapprove of caller ID for the public do not object to it when the police have the information, but we are still talking about the same basic thing. In community after community, when Enhanced 911 service has been installed or regular 911 converted to E-911, there have been complaints regarding violations of privacy, just as today the complaints are made. Van Nuys, CA was no exception. There were people there (maybe still are?) who strongly objected to it. I do not make Official Pronouncements here. I quote news, offer my own opinions, and *usually* entertain the views of others. I think I posted that story Sunday morning by prefacing it saying, "this has been in the papers lately'.....so what would Mr. Bellovin have me to do? Print nothing that might express an opinion? His complaint, along with Nameless, who forbade me to identify him should direct their comments about the matter to the authorities in Van Nuys, CA....that is who was in the news. TELECOM Digest is here to provide a forum for *all aspects* of telephones. Technical, social, political, consumer-oriented. The day I metamorphose into God on High and refuse to print alternative viewpoints is the day Mr. Bellovin and Nameless have valid complaints, with me at least. Patrick Townson