Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!nobody From: r-michael@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling number delivery Message-ID:Date: 18 Sep 88 02:30:34 GMT Sender: chip@vector.UUCP Lines: 66 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 145, message 2 X-Submissions-To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu (Mailing List Coordinator) X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp (USENET Telecom Moderator) From: johnm@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) Message-ID: X-Submissions-To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu (Mailing List Coordinator) >Another recent entry in Risks Digest described how a chain of pizza houses >in Washington state was gathering data (including the calling number) on >orders which were phoned in.......... We have it here at MCI. It's called call detail. It's only with our 800 service, though. > .......Aside from the obvious business reasons, a >justification given was to trap pranksters ordering unwanted pizzas for >innocent people. The system was criticized because the business had the >potential to use such data for follow-up sales calls, or to sell it to >other organizations for similar purposes. Most businesses quoted in "Communcations Week" magazine said that that was their main, and usually only intent for ANI call detail. It is usually policy of the IEC's who offer call detail to deny credit for crank calls, just because of the type of service they are offering. >Aanyone who receives obscene calls, junk calls, etc. would probably agree >that the "callee" is entitled to know the number of the caller's phone, >but this seems to be a case where the caller's privacy needs to be pro- >tected. Perhaps the rules should be different for business lines and for >private residential ones (i.e., residences can get the caller's number, >but businesses can't). I would have agreed with maybe the first part of your message only just on personal views I have, but this is where I will differ from your view. I have always held the point that equal access meant just that, equal access. And I felt equal access should be applied all across the board. There would be other people that would differ from you point of view by saying residential customers should not have ANI available (now that is is becoming a reality coutesy of SS#7/CLASS), and just businesses, since a business customer would be more liable for their actions, and have more to lose than a revengeful residential customer, whose actions COULD be more careless than a business's. I would certainly hate to accidently call a person, who has just had a string of crank calls, and my ANI would pop up on their phone and they (being already pissed) assume that I was another crank call, start calling me with a string of crank calls. I would prefer a business that would (hopefully) handle it in a more professional manner. When I use to work in Trouble Reporting for MCI (I am in a different dept now), we use to get numerous crank calls, some of which were humorus (like the person who use to call up and call HIMself "Madonna", and tell us his life story), and some of which were very disturbing (like teenagers that want to discuss their sexual fantasies, which I found very disturbing). It would be very easy to get their numbers they are calling from, and either write nasty letters, or (worse), pass it on to the "proper authorities". We choose to ignore it, just saying that it's part of the job. (BTW, we dont use call detail on out customer service numbers just because of the sheer amount of calls that come in to those numbers, and the reams of paper/tape that it would generate). I am both looking for to, and dreading the implementation of CLASS. >- John Murray > (My opinions, etc.) The same applies to myself. They definitely do not represent the views of MCI, etc.... Robert Michael Gutierrez