Source
Automatically imported from: http://commons.somewhere.com:80/rre/1994/Caller.ID.debate.html
Content
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.
Caller ID debate
``` Caller ID (abbreviated CNID) is a technology that enables your telephone to digitally send its phone number to the telephone of anybody you call. Controversy about privacy issues in CNID has swirled for years, and the 10/13/94 New York Times has an article on the subject:
Matthew L. Wald, A privacy debate over Caller ID plan, New York Times, 13 October 1994.
The United States Federal Communications Commission recently proposed rules, due to go into effect in April, to create uniform CNID protocols across state lines. While the FCC plan does protect privacy in some ways, e.g., preventing a business that captures your phone number from selling it to others without your permission, it does not mandate per-line blocking, which is necessary if you never want to send out your phone number, or if you only want to send it out when you enter a special code.
The article states clearly that the real reason for CNID is commercial. Privacy advocates have been saying this for years, and for a long time they have gotten patronizing lectures about how CNID is for residential use in catching harassing phone callers. But CNID is a poor way to catch harassing phone callers. Moreover, that single application wouldn't nearly make CNID profitable. The point is that CNID is a good way to let companies collect marketing information and automate service interactions.
Which is fine. Hardly anybody opposes CNID outright. But in order for CNID to avoid inadvertently giving away the phone number of someone who is being stalked, or who otherwise needs to keep their number a secret, it needs a few simple features:
* per-line blocking -- a simple, no-cost way to declare that this telephone should not send out its number when dialling* per-line unblocking -- a simple, no-cost way to declare that this telephone now should send out its number when dialling* per-call blocking -- a simple, no-cost way to declare that, regardless of whether this line is blocked, this particular call should not include the calling number* per-call unblocking -- a simple, no-cost way to declare that, regardless of whather this line is blocked, this particular call should include the calling number
In order for people to get the benefit of these commands, some further rules are needed:
All four of these commands should be entered with different codes. Most especially, the blocking and unblocking commands should not be implemented with toggle commands (for example, *67 blocks the line and then another 67 unblocks it -- or, wait!, did the first 67 unblock the line so that the next 67 blocked it?). All of these commands (or at least the per-call ones) should take effect instantly, without requiring a pause before dialling a number, so that phone numbers stored in modems can include the codes. All of the commands should be standardized everywhere. All of the commands should be clearly and concisely explained in some convenient place in the phone book. If at all possible, the commands should be listed on a simple cue card that can be attached to the telephone alongside the emergency numbers. (Of course, if a telephone had a real user interface then cue cards would not be necessary.)
Don't all of these rules sound like common sense? Of course they do. They allow everyone complete freedom of choice. If you like CNID then you can turn it on and forget about it. If you want to refuse calls that do not include caller numbers then you're free to do that. If you don't care to call anyone who requires a caller number then you're free to adopt that policy as well. If you never want to send out your number because you're being stalked or are running a shelter then you can do that. Free choice.
So why do proponents of CNID go to extraordinary lengths to defeat these simple, ordinary protections? Because they're afraid that large numbers of people would use per-line blocking, thus making the system less attractive to the businesses who want to capture lots of phone numbers. Like many schemes for using personal information, then, CNID is founded on trickery -- that is, on the gathering and use of information without free choice, full informed consent, and convenient, easily understood mechanisms for opting out.
You might ask, "doesn't per-call blocking alone provide the necessary choice?" No, it doesn't. Per-call blocking is like saying, "every single time you drive your car into a gas station, your car instantly becomes the property of the gas station unless you remember to say abracadabra before you start pumping your gas." In each case, the cards are stacked against your ability to maintain control over something of yours, whether your car or your information.
What can you do? Write a letter to the FCC, with a copy to your state attorney general and public utilities commission and to your local newspaper. Send them the list of CNID commands I provided above. Spell it out for them, and provide answers for the obvious pro-CNID arguments. Your state regulators might even agree with you already, in which case they need your support.
For more information, send a message that looks like this:
To: rre-request@weber.ucsd.edu Subject: archive send cnid
Or contact the organizations that are working on this issue:
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, cpsr@cpsr.org Electronic Privacy Information Center, epic@epic.org* Electronic Frontier Foundation, eff@eff.org
Or start something of your own. The best way to predict the future, after all, is to create it yourself.
Phil Agre, UCSD ```
This web service brought to you by Somewhere.Com, LLC.