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!"