Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!gryphon!vector!telecom-gateway From: decvax!decwrl!apple!zygot!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Just Say No To Caller I.D. Message-ID: Date: 19 Mar 89 06:51:56 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Organization: ATI Wares Team Lines: 154 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 103, message 1 of 4 In article , gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes: > 1) It is illegal in most states to trace a call except under court order. Not true in California. The local telco can trace upon the assent of the subscriber who is being called. > 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? Calls can now easily be traced. If it got out that help organization were indeed using Caller ID, they would lose their callers; hence it would be to their advantage to not use it. BTW, all 911 calls show the caller ID anyway. > 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. If the husband had an IQ of more than 50, he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent that sort of thing? > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to get back at YOU, deleted] If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to them. > 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? Frankly, it makes good sense to put return addresses on mail. Furthermore, any envelope in my mailbox without a return address on it is considered junk mail and is dicarded unopened. Besides, it's a little easier to determine the origin of a piece of mail, even sans return address than to assess the origin of a ringing telephone. > 7) Any user who wants Caller ID can have it by installing an answering > machine. [Low-tech work-around--too silly to comment upon] > 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? Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it was driving you crazy.... > 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. And at the end of the month in Japan, they just deduct the amount from your bank account. It's a great little system. You have no idea why your bill is so high (when you even find out what it was), the phone company makes, nor can they make, any explanations, and you simply pay without question or lose your phone. It has nothing to do with memories of fascism, it's a matter of technology or lack thereof. > 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? Caller ID is a byproduct of equipment that would have been installed anyway. The newer signaling standards, along with digital switches (and adjuncts for older analog switches) will be implemented in an effort to bring DOWN the cost of telephone service. The equipment used to provide these services costs a lot less to operate than the old switching equipment it replaced. Actually, the cost of providing these enhanced services will be well below what will be charged to those that want them. It's like custom calling. Custom calling features are inherent in the current switching technology used by telcos. Enabling one or a group of features on a subscriber line costs the telco nothing, but it provides enhanced service and convenience for the subscriber and extra revenue for the telco and would theoretically keep the general cost of service lower than otherwise. > 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? See above. > 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). Not significant. Unless a call attempt is actually blocking revenue generating calls due to underdesign of the network, there is no cost to the telco. > 3) Businesses will be able to set up codes; a truck driver could call a [discussion of signal calls, similar to bogus person to person and collect calls] It's already being done. If they used Caller ID for this purpose, it would be cheaper than the present methods of involving an operator. > 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. No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short business call. This is really reaching. > 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? Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't care. > 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 has the Fifth Amendment got to do with Caller ID? That constitutional guarantee refers to giving testimony that would tend to incriminate the person giving it. It has nothing to do with evidence that may be used against someone who is accused of committing a crime. If you break in to a store and steal merchandise and happen to leave your wallet behind, the police have every right to use that as evidence against you. If you make harrassment calls in violation of state and federal laws, the appropriate agencies have every right to use any appropriate technology to track you down. Or perhaps you would consider any clues left at the scene of the crime "self-incrimination". There are actually some minor valid reasons to have certain controls on Caller ID, but the voice of reason is sometimes hard to hear through the din of silliness. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john