Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: Rochelle Communications <0004169820@mcimail.com> Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Message-ID: <10786@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 22:29:00 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 75 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 565, Message 1 of 9 In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562) Jerry Leichter argues that the "peephole" analogy often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid. He writes: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close examination.... However, virtually all the complaints about >invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES. This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous salespeople. Several cases have been effectively raised by Caller ID opponents to stress the need for anonymity: a) A psychologist calling patients from her home, b) A woman calling her husband from a special shelter for battered housewives, c) Individuals who may be "scared away" from calling certain hotlines (AIDS, drug abuse, crime tips, etc.). Many have argued that Caller ID would inevitably result in an increase in telephone solicitations as businesses compile more "telephone lists" of potential customers, and share such lists with other businesses. There is some validity to this argument, but one should consider that telemarketers have access to such lists today, and that Caller ID by itself, wouldn't add much information (I have an unlisted number and I do get several solicitations daily). It is important to recognize that this is essentially a telemarketing problem and not a Caller ID problem. Proper regulation of telemarketing practices is the best way to limit the excesses of telemarketing. As Jerry noted, Congress has just passed a law that would prohibit telemarketers from making computer-generated calls to individuals who have listed their telephone numbers in a special database. Jerry goes on to say: >the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses. >That's where the money is. I don't know on what basis this assertion is made. Caller ID is viewed today by telephone companies as a residential service and has been aggressively marketed it as such. Bell Atlantic indicate that 94% of their Caller ID subscribers are residential customers. This is not to say to Caller ID does not appeal to businesses. There are many great applications of this technology in the business community including computer security, caller-specific voice messaging, pizza delivery, and customer service. But telephone companies seem to be focusing on the residential market since it will give them the critical mass to make the service economical to them. Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ... > A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical - >would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for >Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose >to allow my identification to be sent, or not. This would be the >electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be >unable to lie about it... A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. I understand that AT&T and NTI are developing a similar feature at the switch level. Individuals who do not wish to receive anonymous telephone calls would be able to request that when such calls are attempted, that a recording be produced essentially stating that "the party you are calling does not accept anonymous calls. Please dial 1 to have your number transmitted or hang up..." Gilbert Amine Rochelle Communications Austin, Texas voice: +1 512 794 0088