From: bharrell@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Ben Harrell)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Is Caller-ID an Illegal Trap and Trace?
Date: 18 Nov 92 00:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: cmebh01@nt.com (Ben Harrell)
Organization: Computers and Technologies Theme Program-NCSU-NC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 1 of 7

FZC@CU.NIH.GOV writes:

> I would like to point out something that I noticed more than a year
> ago when I was wading through the Electronic Communications Protection
> Act, the law that (it is claimed) makes it illegal to intentionally
> listen to a cellular phone.  I noticed another thing which I noted,
> and no one seemed to dispute.

> According to the ECPA, a "trap and trace device" is a device that is
> used for the purpose of picking up someone's phone number who is
> calling the line the T&T is on, is illegal without a court order.

> If this is a correct interpretation, it means that the decisions in
> various states about Caller-ID are all irrelevant since this Federal
> law has made any caller ID box illegal (except for calls which are not
> "in interstate commerce.").

Trap and trace laws generally (in the great majority of states) and in
the FCC have been interpreted to mean that a device is illegally
"tapped" into a line, usually without the knowledge of the party whose
line is being tapped, for the purpose of "trapping" originating dialed
digits and "tracing" terminating calls to their originating directory
number.

CLASS CLID, ISDN CLID, and 800/900 ANI do not fit this definition
because 1) there is no "tapping" with illegal devices going on (it is
an inherent network capability), and 2) it is always done with the
full knowledge and consent of the telephone company and the
terminating service subscriber in the form of a "payment for service
rendered", and 3) the legality of the ANI delivery by AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint to 800/900 customers (which they have been doing for several
years) on inter-LATA calls has NEVER been questioned.

I do understand that ANI is technically the "billing" number, whereas
CLID is technically the "originating" number, but for most residential
and single line business customers these two numbers are one and the
same.

Also, I would like for someone to explain to me the conceptual
difference between someone calling me and someone knocking on my door.
Unless I know who is on the other side of that door, I'm not likely to
answer it, and if I do I'm going to be very careful about it.  In the
entire history of telephony, I having had that capability.  But now
with CLID, I do.  I understand that battered spouse shelters,
undercover policemen, etc. need protection, but for the average person
or business, why is CLID any different "personal privacy" wise to my
going and knocking on my neighbors door.  Why would I expect him/her
to answer that door, if he doesn't recognize me or my voice?

I know that I don't have to tell him/her were *I* live, but I just
don't see the difference and don't understand what people get so upset
about with CLID.  Maybe I'm just dense.


Ben Harrell                            
cmebh01@nt.com ...........<business>   
bharrell@catt.ncsu.edu ...<personal>