Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: "Jerry Leichter (LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again) Message-ID: <2413@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 26 Dec 89 23:13:03 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Yale Computer Science Department, New Haven, Connecticut, USA 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 595, message 1 of 7 Discussion on this topic continues interminably. What's unfortunate about it is how many not-quite-truths make it into the discussions. For example, John Higdon's messages are well argued, but often miss the point. He claims (correctly) that Caller ID could be very useful to him, and to others. Fine, but from that it does not follow that the privacy issues others have raised are of no import. Another interesting claim he makes is that the alleged privacy right here is an artifact of history - had Caller ID always been available, no one would question it. This is a false reading of history. In fact, essentially ALL our notions of privacy are fairly recent, and could be seen as artifacts of history. Doors date back only a few hundred years. Glass windows are even more recent. The degree of "personal monitoring" in the small towns of yesterday would be considered grossly unacceptable by almost anyone raised in today's Western society. (I know to little about other societies to feel secure in saying anything about them. But things do vary - I am told that in Japan, to this day, bank statements are sent out on postcards, and no one is particularly bothered by this.) Expectations of privacy develop through experience in the world; I know of no ab initio arguments for what should and should not be private. Higdon does not expect his phone number to be private. Others disagree. Neither side is "right" or "wrong" here, and I'd say neither side is likely to convince the other - these are gut reactions, learned over many years. The issue is not one of right and wrong, it is one of public policy. Whatever Higdon may want, there will always be cases in which calls he receives will not contain an ID he will find useful - calls from pay phones, for example. He can't base his arguments on an "every call ID'ed" model; anything he does must be useful even if some calls are "anonymous". Technologically, the possibilities are clear - and even supported by the relevant standards: 1. A caller can select to send an ID, or not to send an ID. 2. A caller can set either sending an ID, or not sending an ID, as his default. 3. A callee can select to read the ID sent, or not to. 4. If the callee selects to read the ID sent, he may refuse any call that does not provide an ID. From a strictly logical point of view, allowing (1) provides callers with an additional choice while imposing no constraint on callees that, as I noted, was not there to begin with. Given that (1) is available, there is no logical reason for not allowing (2) - it makes things easier for him and has no effect on anyone else. Given that (1) is available (and especially that (2) is available), there is no logical reason not to give callees the choices in (3) and (4). Now, Higdon will argue that giving callers choices (1) and (2) will decrease the value of his choice (3). Fine - why should the rest of the world's choices be constrained by his convenience? Presumably a "philosophical debate" of sorts will emerge as people "vote with their fingers": If most people agree with Higdon that having their ID sent is no big deal, hardly anyone will exercise choices (1) and (2). On the other hand, if most people DO feel this is a big deal, Higdon may find himself rejecting most calls out of hand. To which all I can say is, too bad - the voice of the majority will have spoken, and it will have said that Higdon was wrong in his estimation of where most people consider their privacy rights with respect to phone numbers to lie. Finally, the real crux of the matter here is money. Who should have to pay for the various choices? The phone companies would obviously argue that EVERYONE pays - those who want to read Caller ID pay, those who want special privacy pay (as they pay now for unlisted numbers). If phone service were a free market, this would, I suppose, be fine. (Well, maybe not. After all, we do have laws against extortion and blackmail, "free enterprise" notwithstanding. At what point we consider a service to become extortion, and beyond the pale, is difficult to determine; "honest men of good will" may differ.) However, phone service is not a fully free market, nor can it be, so questions of fairness come into play. The phone companies have argued that it costs them extra to keep numbers unlisted, so they should be entitled to charge for that peculiar negative service, but the additional costs for providing choices (1) and (2) should be minimal. Further, I'd argue that the entire system is being created for the benefit of subscribers who wish to exercise choices (3) and (4) - if not for them, choices (1) and (2) would be non-issues. Since it is those who exercise choices (3) and (4) who create the need for OTHERS to exercise choices (1) and (2), the fairest approach is to let THEM pay the costs. Frankly, I doubt this will make any significant difference in what Caller ID users are charged (since rates for "custom" telephone services have little or nothing to do with the incremental cost of providing them anyway) - but it will make the system seem much fairer to those who choose not to use the new services. -- Jerry