Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:27 comp.org.eff.talk:1809
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdahl!netcom!edg
From: edg@netcom.COM (Ed Greenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Keywords: Caller ID
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.194145.4202@netcom.COM>
Date: 30 Mar 91 19:41:45 GMT
References: <13801@asylum.SF.CA.US> <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 70

In article <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> ziegast@eng.umd.edu (Eric W. Ziegast) writes:
>local company here, provides operator assisted number blocking on a
>call by call basis for a fee ($.45?).  If you were unlisted, how would
Ghastly.  *67 is a much better alternative.  Too bad the PUC droids
nuckled under.

>
>1. Your number is a commodity which can be used by direct marketers.
>
>   Joe Doe calls the 800 number shown during the commercial for those
>   neat triple-edge car wipers he saw on TV.  A week later, he gets a
>   phone call...
>
You know, 800 numbers get automatic number ID now.  They have for
several years.  American Express (I'm told) tried an experiment with
answering calls with the customer's name, but gave it up due to bad
feedback.  Every time I called Amex from a phone other than my own
though, they'd ask me to verify my phone number. 

Nonetheless, people who call 800 numbers do not seem to be bothered with
this type of solicitation.

>
>   Joe called several computer dealerships in the region to see which was
>   the best place to buy a PC for his kids.  The next day, a sales-person
>   from one of those companies (one he really didn't like) calls him and
>   tries another pitch for his product.  Joe refuses.  The salesperson then
>   asks (subtly demands) to know why you didn't choose to buy from him.
>   Joe never thought he'd have to explain himself.

I can see this one happening.  It's pretty tempting to the
reseller, isn't it.

>
>3. Advertisement
>
>   One of Joe's kids recently called a 900 sex line.  Joe is surprised one
>   day to get a call from some lusty woman saying...
>
>	"Ohhhhh baby, call me again.  I'm waiting for you.  1-900-GOOD-SEX"
>

I doubt that "Ohhh baby" is obscene, and the same comments that apply to
800 numbers apply to 900 numbers.  They already get ANI.  Consider
though, that all these companies are sensitive to the private nature of
the calls and callers.  That's why "stuff" is offered in plain brown
wrappers, and why calls to 900-OOO-BABY are advertised as being billed
as something innocuous.  The last thing they want to do is get the guy's
wife on the phone.
>
>4. Who knows who gets your phone number?
>
>   Joe's also an alcoholic.  (What a coincidence!)  Now that he has seen
>   how people can trace his call back, he thinks twice about calling the
>   anonymous help line.  He fears that somehow the police will find out
>   about his call.
>
>   How about a police anonymous tip line?  Joe reports that he's seen a

These too are legit problems.  California phone books come with a privacy notice
relating to ANI on 911 calls, and state that individuals wanting privacy
should call the seven-digit number for the agency. So much for that. 

>6. The Caller ID compatable answering machine

I want one of these :-)
-- 
Ed Greenberg 		| Home: +1 408 283 0184 | edg@netcom.com
P. O. Box 28618		| Work: +1 408 764 5305 | CIS: 76703,1070
San Jose, CA  95159	| Fax:  +1 408 764 5003 | WB2GOH @ N6LDL.CA.USA