Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!ames!elroy!gryphon!vector!telecom-gateway From: rec@elf115 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Message-ID: Date: 20 Mar 89 16:08:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 22 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 101, message 3 of 4 The pro's and con's on this issue are both arguing for privacy, one for the privacy of the callee, and one for the privacy of the caller. Telephone subscribers should be able to identify their callers before answering or even permitting a ring, and telephone subscribers should be able to identify themselves to the people they call if the callees require identification, but no one should be forced to identify his/herself against her/his will. The proposed CPID service does not identify the caller, it only provides the telephone number that originates the call. Telephone numbers are not secure identifications - they can be shared, stolen, borrowed, or wrong numbers altogether. The CPID service proposes to sell what little information the phone company already has as if it answered the need for validating identities over the phone. The very name "calling party identification" is fraudulent: as any student of detective movies knows, once you trace the call you have to send some cops down there to try to catch the caller. The phone number by itself cannot identify anyone. -- Roger E. Critchlow, Jr. -- nyit!elf115!rec@philabs.philips.com --