Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: russ@alliant.com (Russell McFatter) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Question Message-ID: <2171@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 13 Dec 89 18:56:18 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Russell McFatter Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA Lines: 100 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 574, message 6 of 7 I distinctly remember that the first time I saw Caller ID mentioned in the press, New Jersey Bell was working on it. The description of the service was very complete (for an article that came out at least five years before the product itself): it even showed a picture of a telephone set with a tiny 10-digit LED (this is before LCD displays hit it big!) display where the number card usually goes. The text of the article explained what would happen with unlisted numbers: If you were called by a person whose number was unlisted, the display would show a numbered code (such as "A51033") which the telephone company, under court order or for their own investigations, could translate into the actual number. Years later, after the big breakup, New Jersey Bell actually does introduce the service, and this time the story is different. The company has decided that the right to know who is calling supersedes the right to keep your number secret. (I'll agree with that, particularly in the context that if I pay for Caller-ID service, I want just that. Peephole analogy and all.) I want to change the topic: I think that while Caller ID is an improvement over no identification at all, it doesn't really resolve the ACTUAL issue at hand: knowing who is at the other end of the phone. No matter how much effort we put into identifying the PHONE that a particular call comes from, we will never be able to solve certain problems: 1: If you are blocking/ignoring "unknown" caller ID's, you may not be able to get an emergency call from a person you know if they are using an "unknown" phone. 2: If you specifically block a particular number, you can't be sure that the next call from that phone isn't one that you want. If you block a pay phone because some creep is making prank phone calls, your daughter might decide to use that phone (which was at a highway rest stop) to tell you that she was just in an accident and needs help. 3: If you block specific numbers, like the creep calling from the pay phone, nothing stops the creep from moving to the next phone and trying again. The same goes for telemarketers with dozens of outgoing lines. In order to stop them, you'd have to block ALL calls from unknown numbers, which brings us back to problem #1. 4: Even if you DO happen to recognize the caller ID that flashes on your display, you have no idea WHO is calling you. An apparent (oh so obvious) fix to all these problems is to identify the CALLER, not the phone being used to make the call. In the UNIX world, we don't identify people by the TTY they're using, do we? We have usernames and passwords. Why not eventually implement this idea for the dial network as well? This would solve a host of problems... 1: Fixes 1-4 above. We can allow our example daughter to call us from any phone anywhere, even if we are blocking "unknown" calls. 2: A tremendous fix to the privacy problem. When placing a call, the use of a personal ID is OPTIONAL... If I don't want to voluntarily give away my identity, I don't dial a PID. I then take the risk that the number I am calling may not be accepting "anonymous" calls, of course. 3: Replaces calling cards; I can request that any call I place using my PID is billed to me regardless of where I call from. 4: Personal defaults: Your default long-distance company, for example, can apply to you even away from home if you use your PID. 5: Makes dozens of features that we've always wished for possible.