Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pyrdc!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: bnick%aucis.UUCP@mailgw.cc.umich.edu (Bill Nickless) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID:Date: 16 Aug 89 20:35:01 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 46 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 303, message 1 of 12 First, a thanks to Patrick for his time and energy as moderator. I believe the biggest problem with Caller ID is that it is new. If telephones had originally come with this facility there would have been no privacy question. (I realize it was technically infeasible in the early days, but that's beside the point!) In the United States we are used to a certain model of telephone service. Unless specifically blocked, subscriber's telephone numbers are publicly available information. With some exceptions, the government cannot legally snoop on telephone conversations. And the idea of knowing who is calling before you answer is simply new. If Abner Doubleday had decided on a pentagon shape instead of a diamond shape, (and it had caught on!) do you think major league baseball would reshape their playing fields because someone thought it was better to have three bases and a home plate? No. It would require adjustments in expectations from coaches, players, talent coaches, and everyone. Let us not forget that telephone usage is not one of the civil liberties protected by the constitution. Nobody is *forced* to use a telephone, nor to reveal their telephone network "address." However, without Caller ID, people can call others without disclosing this information. This is the way things have been. This is not the way things have to be. In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. And if we can stop these obscene phone calls without getting Big Brother involved, more power to Caller ID. Since it's now technically feasible, let's do it. In 10 years people will wonder how they ever got along without it. Secretaries can get written or digital record of who calls, without getting numbers mixed up. All kinds of other benefits present themselves. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's bad. Aside: As of 1984, a local call in Dillingham, Alaska (907) 842-xxxx costed 10 cents at the local payphones. And that included Aleknagik, which was 25 miles away. This was an independant phone company, the Nushagak Bay Telephone Cooperative (or something like that!) Bill Nickless | bnick%aucis.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu or Andrews University | sharkey!aucis!bnick or uunet!zds-ux!aucis!bnick Computer Science Department |------------------------------------------------ Unix Support Group | "Help! I'm locked up in a .signature factory!"