Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Just Say No To Caller I.D. Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 89 09:53:39 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 176 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 92, message 1 of 3 Our dear moderator who is in favor of every new telephone gadget and service (as long as it is sold by a baby bell or AT&T) has recently flamed attempts to stop Caller ID. While there are arguments on both sides of the issue, I feel that Caller ID should not be approved. 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order. Caller ID is in violation of most of these laws. There are reasons for these laws, but even if they were repealed, there are reasons not to allow Caller ID. 2) Certain organizations offer anonymous help or trouble phone numbers. If they used Caller ID, would it not be fraud to say that all calls are anonymous? Even if they do not use Caller ID, will people stop calling them because they fear that their lines would be traced? If you saw a crime, would you be less likely to call the cops if you feared that your phone number would be traced, particularly given the corrupt nature of many police departments? 3) The case has already been made about a battered wife who is trying to call her children from a shelter. Other examples like this exist. 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks recently reported that TWA is keeping a computer database of ``problem'' travelers. The telephone and the computer would allow several types of abuses. If the airline knows that the person did not buy a ticket the last time, it could route that call to the end of the queue. With information about the caller, the airline would be able to tailor make the fare to the person, or even to ``red line'' and say that the flight is sold out. Database software that uses census information about locations might become frequently used with Caller ID. Large companies would probably trade information much the way the now do. (Every notice how if you order something from X, Y starts sending catalogs?) 5) There have recently been allegations in this newsgroup that certain Phone Companies have requested phone numbers and then ordered service. With Caller ID, this type abuse would be much easier. If you call a number, a business can quickly determine your phone number and hence your name. Then it can just say that you ordered some product. (With the current system it is much more difficult for that to happen because you can have anonymity when calling). 6) If users have to identify themselves when calling, should return addresses be required on all mail so that the receiving person can determine who the mail is from before opening it? 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering machine. The message could begin "I screen all of my calls, please tell me your name and phone number and I will decide whether I want to talk to you." If this sounds obnoxious (and it is), it is no more obnoxious than having Caller ID. Now the burden is on the callee instead of everyone. (See below for financial considerations to see why the burden is one for everyone). 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? 9) Finally, I will note that in Europe and Japan where memories of fascism are much stronger, phone numbers are not even saved for outgoing calls. There is just a clicker that increments based on the distance and the time of day. At the end of the month, they send a bill based on the number of clicks. In addition to these legal and ethical questions, there are the economic questions. Who should pay for this service? Everyone, whether it is desired or not, or just the people who use it? The phone companies will implicitly or explicitly force some of the cost on to everyone. 1) Allowing Caller ID has required new hardware and software. Who is going to pay for that? Will the monthly charges really pay for all of the expense? 2) With Caller ID, there will be more unanswered phone calls. Who will pay for these? (We all will with higher prices for completed calls). 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a certain number, for example, and the Caller ID software would display where he is. The same idea could be used to signal that one got home safely. Should callers who want to talk have to subsidize those who want to send codes? 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls instead of one, but pay less than before. 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra buttons to not get a service he does not want? Finally, I think Patrick thinks Caller ID is a good idea because it will allow us to screen out solicitors and crank calls. In reality, it is not likely to help that much. The solicitors could block their identification. The solicitors could get phones under innocuous sounding names--Bill Jones, for example. Since only a few numbers would be recognizably bad, the solicitors will just switch phone numbers. Today they call from 432-1211, tomorrow they call from 432-1212. Finally, these solicitors will be gaining a huge data base of calling patterns from which to tailor-make their calls. The next step will be to have the phone company collect data about an individual and then sell it these companies. (The consumer will probably end up paying higher rates because of the extra cost, too). As far as crank phone calls go, the phone company should have the right to trace those, but only for determining where the crank phone calls are coming from. As long as your crank phone caller dials from different numbers, Caller ID will not help you block the calls. (Unless you happen to be able to allow only a small finite set of numbers. In that case, I hope a relative of yours does not have an emergency from a different phone number than usual). Overall, I believe that Caller Identification offers little to the consumer, but a lot to businesses which want to invade our privacy more. I hope it never goes through, but if it does, I will not subscribe and I will block all my calls (except if I want someone to call me back :-) ). David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast P.S. I will now respond some of Patrick's complaints. I do hope he has gotten over the dry heaves. :-) > illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give > testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their > victim(s). Well, there is the Fifth Amendment which guarantees the right against self-incrimination. Perhaps you would prefer living some place that guarantees the right to self-incrimination. Try 1-900-4STALIN for more information. > What of the rights of computer > system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of > people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night? See above. Sys Admins can always call people back if they choose, etc. > Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than > the rest of us. No, they get the same rights as the rest of us. You know, poor Ollie is now protected by the very same rights against self-incrimination, etc, that he thought were so bad when he was leading the Iran Contra Affair. > What truly makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by > this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge > -- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity > of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to > 'tracing a call'. Why isn't it? What difference do you see? Is it really worth the dry heaves? > If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before > she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in > violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than > an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what > is your call about?' A person has the choice to answer or not. He may say it is a personal matter. Do you want your secretary to know where every call to you comes from? What about your boss? A person may give his name without giving his phone number. If I give my name, it is done voluntarily. I have not necessarily given my phone number. That means that if I am at a friend's, other business, or pay phone, you do not get to find out were I am located and you cannot call back or sell to others that new phone number. If a lawyer calls a client and he is at another client, giving away the phone number and hence name of the other client is a breach of confidentiality. Lawyers and other professionals are not allowed to divulge client relationships in such a manner.