Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:47 comp.org.eff.talk:1841
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!milton!cyberoid
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Keywords: Caller ID
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.065346.21310@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 91 06:53:46 GMT
References: <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> <1991Mar29.220816.8305@ima.isc.com> <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 60

In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes:
>Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on
>the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy
>of the callee.  To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed
>to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible.
>I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat
>diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to
>establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive
>entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy.
>
>There are exceptional cases, of course.  One poster mentioned the case of
>an anonymous police tip line; this example, however, requires a dishonest
>or corrupt police agent to be dangerous.  I would argue that it is very
>difficult to design a system to be proof against such people (i.e. if you
>prohibit caller ID such a person will find another way to get you).
>
>If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so
>without using your home or office phone.  A public telephone springs to mind
>as the most obvious example.  Mailing a letter is another one.
>
>The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to
>phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully)
>screen out solicitors with the right tool.  I make this claim in light of
>the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not
>copyrightable.
>
>Comments?
>--
>Chris Steres                                            415 335-7150
>							steres@chaos.sgi.com


All of this is interesting, but does it make good sense?

In fact, Caller ID (CID) does not offer a user-friendly interface for
screening calls, unless you have the memory of an elephant and can
recall, bubble-memory like, all of the phone numbers that have given
you offense in the past.  So you see the number, 123-4567, displayed
on your telephone.  What's it tell you?  If it's a telemarketer 
calling to bother you -- and that's the biggest bother, according to
all polls of consumers -- that number tells you next to nothing.  You
still have to pick up the phone and say you're not interested.  And
if it's an obscene phone call, what proof do you have that it is so,
for the prosecutor's use?  Your word against the caller's is not
going to get anyone very far.  Just as effective is telephone trace,
a related service that doesn't require people to surrender their
personal identity just because they call.
 
My biggest concern is not that there is some moral violation in the
perpetration of CID, but that in practical terms it turns the use of
the telephone on its head -- from using the telephone to find out
things, as we currently do, to using the telephone to give away
information.  I predict this will backfire on the telephone companies
and, ultimately, all of us wishing for the faster emergence of the
information age, when consumers (after a couple years of dossier
compilation) begin to realize what the new service has taken away and
how little it gives back.

Bob Jacobson
--