Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: djb@wjh12.harvard.edu (David J. Birnbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Update (Pennsylva
Message-ID: <9927@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 19 Jul 90 12:39:08 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: "David J. Birnbaum" <wjh12!djb@wjh12.harvard.edu>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 27
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 499, Message 9 of 14


In article <9883@accuvax.nwu.edu> lee@chsun1.uchicago.edu (dwight lee)
writes:

>Apparently Caller-ID has been deemed illegal in PA since it violates a
>state law against wiretap devices (unless court-ordered).  It was also
>deemed an invasion of privacy.  The telco argued that Caller-ID lets
>the called party protect privacy, but the court (state supreme, if I
>recall correctly) rules that the caller's right to privacy (ie,
>unlisted telephone numbers, etc) must be taken into consideration as
>well.

>I wonder if this will set a precedent for other states.  

According to an article in Pittsburgh Magazine last year (about sales
of "spy" equipment for home use), Pennsylvania is unusual in its laws
about recording telephone conversations.  Apparently many states allow
you to record telephone conversations with the consent of one of the
parties, but Pennsylvania requires the consent of both.  Thus, it is
illegal to tap your own phone to record your own conversations.

FWIW, is there really any technical problem with protecting unlisted
numbers from caller ID?


David J. Birnbaum         djb@wjh12.harvard.edu [Internet]
                          djb@harvunxw.bitnet   [Bitnet]