Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:67 comp.org.eff.talk:1859 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!parc!lachman From: lachman@parc.xerox.com (Hans Lachman) Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Telephone Caller ID's Keywords: CallerID Message-ID: <1991Apr1.194341.13479@parc.xerox.com> Date: 1 Apr 91 19:43:41 GMT References: <13801@asylum.SF.CA.US> <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> Sender: news@parc.xerox.com Organization: Xerox Lines: 61 [sorry if you've seen this before, I posted this message last week, and it apparently got lost] In article <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> chymes@uri.csmil.umich.edu (Charles Hymes/Charleed Wymerfan) writes: >For privacy reasons I am against this caller ID service... For privacy reasons, I am for Caller ID, depending on how it's offered. Back in the old days, before telephones became ubiquitous, the word "call" meant "to pay a brief visit". Calling by telephone and calling in person are essentially the same thing, except that the telephone transmits only your voice and leaves the rest of you behind. Thus, laws that regulate these two situations should be kept consistent. When someone "comes to call" and knocks on my door, I am free to either ignore them or answer the door. I am free to ask them who they are, and to let them in without asking anything. If I want, I can hire a doorman who will filter out certain visitors, or certain types of visitors. I can put up "No Solicitors" signs, and I can install a peep hole. Also, manufacturers of peep holes are free to sell their product. On the other hand, the visitor can stand where he can't be seen, and refuse to identify himself; he is free to do this, and I am free to either let him in or not. Since the status quo in the case of calling in person seems acceptable to everyone, then calling by telephone should be subject to the same rules (actually, LACK of rules. Who needs more legislation?). Carriers should be allowed to offer Caller ID, and users should be allowed to choose what calls they will answer, what calls should be blocked by the carrier, and, when they make a call, what information the carrier should transmit. This enhances my privacy because I can prevent telemarketers and other undesirables from invading my home and disturbing my peace, especially if the carrier can deliver call classifications like "telemarketer", "private individual", etc. That would be nice. Now, let's look at the case where the callee is a business. Some of you worry that when you call a business, they will capture your personal information, sell it, or do God knows what. Note that when you visit a business, like a grocery store, they do not look at you through a peep hole and demand identification before doing business with you. Those that do would rightly shut down due to lack of customers. Hopefully, natural selection would eliminate businesses who refuse telephone calls from people who withhold their Caller ID info. As a consumer of telephone services, I expect to be able to call businesses and other organizations without providing more information than is needed to transact business. At the same time, when I disturb the home of a private individual, I am prepared to identify myself, if they so require, before (or after) they start speaking to me. Likewise, I expect those who disturb my home to be willing to identify themselves to my satisfaction. I think a minimum (or absence) of regulation of Caller ID will achieve desirable results for the people, as long as the carriers provide users with convenient ways to control how it is used, and don't charge for this control. Hans Lachman lachman@arisia.xerox.com (Disregard return address in the header.) The ideas and opinions expressed here are mine.