Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: "John R. Levine" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller-ID Objections Message-ID: <2505@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 30 Dec 89 20:49:48 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA Lines: 25 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 603, message 3 of 8 In article <2480@accuvax.nwu.edu> John Higdon writes: >I have *many* private numbers and I expect them to remain so. But I am >prepared, in a world of Caller-ID, to take the necessary steps to keep them >private. ... Me, too. It seems to me appropriate steps are to insist that any C-ID implmentation provide per-line and per-call ways to turn C-ID on and off. That can't be hard; a previous message implied that the Bellcore spec for C-ID already has provisions for that. Few of us claim that it's a bad idea ever to provide the caller's number under any situation. But there is a long-standing presumption in practice and in law that my list of callees is private. That's why every state has laws about wiretaps and pen registers. I realize that there are cases now where the number is delivered (and I wish American Express would stop denying it) but we should be looking for coherent privacy policy, not making it by default as the technology changes. John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."