Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: dgc@math.ucla.edu Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Calling Party ID Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 89 11:22:33 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 47 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 89, message 4 of 8 There are valid reasons why an individual might wish to place a telephone call without revealing the telephone number he or she is using. Similarly there are valid reasons why a person might not wish to receive a telephone call without knowing the telephone number of the caller. There is, of course, a reasonable solution to the problem. When a person calls a telephone which is using the calling id system, he should be (at his option, of course) advised (perhaps, by a special tone) that the called phone is using this system and be given an option to terminate the telephone call BEFORE the called party telephone rings and BEFORE the calling number is presented to the called party. I, for example, if (when?) given the option, will take the "calling party ID" service. If someone wants to call me anonymously, they won't be able to. I'm quite willing to risk the loss of not receiving such calls. HOWEVER, I very much doubt that agencies like the FBI wnat to take such a risk! It is my understading that anonymous "tips" play a major role in their investigations. If this suggestion were adopted, then they will continue to (or at least, in my opinion, should) have numbers without the "calling party ID" service. I do not expect a solution of this nature, which protects both parties, to be acceptable to the telcos. Is it possible to fool the service by using call-forwarding? Or more precisely. Suppose I set telephone line A to forward calls to line B which has this service. Then I dial A from C. Does B receive the number of A or of C? Finally, on a closely related matter. A note to the moderator: It IS POSSIBLE to discuss matters of this nature without ad hominum arguments, such as your statements "A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also . . . " and "Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes . . . ", etc. Your arguments, asking about the rights of people who get "anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night" are quite valid (though the proposal above would answer them) and you weaken your case by your unnecesary and uncalled-for comments. dgc David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc