From: gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert)
Subject: Re: capturing caller id data
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:55:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.215227.7320@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.025516.2543@mdd.comm.mot.com>
>gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes:
>
>>There is no such thing as a "security aspect" to CLID.  CLID is not even
>>close to a security feature.  For one thing, it assumes the line ID of
>>the device used to place the call is somehow associated with the person
>>placing the call.  In any area where CLID is implemented, anybody who
>>wants to do bad things will do it from a phone that has nothing to do
>>with them.
>
>If I want my computer to be usable only be me and two trusted friends,
>then CLID is an excellent way of preventing anybody else from getting
>to it.  My friends will call from their (known) numbers, I sit at the
>keyboard, and anybody else won't get my modem to answer.  And it's
>true that my friends won't be able to access the computer while
>travelling; that's ok, since they don't own portable computers,
>anyway.
>
>Sounds like security to me.

And they all happen to call from an area supporting CLID...

It does sound like security, and I'll concede it can be used in this way
to provide a form of security.  But it is not really completely secure,
and it comes with restrictions limiting it's use.

And, there is still no "security" with respect to the issues of obscene or
malicious calls.

>>CLID is a minor convenience, at best.  Well, for some, it is a HUGE,
>>convenience, but ya gotta be willing to put up with a lot to get any
>>use out of it at all.
>
>At least you're admitting that it's useful.

I never said it is completely without use.  Some people perceive a
use for CLID.

>According to Miss Manners, it is RUDE to use an answering machine to
>screen calls.

Good for her.  Are you just taking here word on it (she gave herself
the name by, by the way)?  She's been wrong before.  Would I suspect
that she feels that call screening, in general, is rude?  What is the
difference (rude-wise) between a polite message, or CLID?  Do we need
to ask Miss Manners?

>      There are many people I will not be rude to; therefore,
>I cannot use an answering machine to screen calls.  I can use CLID to
>screen calls, since other people will never know that I'm using it.
>Hence, CLID is more useful to me for call screening than an answering
>machine is.

Everyone has their own feelings about it, I guess.

I think there are other issues that *should* be considered, but maybe
not in your case.  For instance... the acuracy of an answering machine
is better, and you can get significantly more information about WHO
is calling, and WHY.  In order to use CLID for screening, you will likely
have to put up with an increase in missed calls that you might want.

There are other ways you can do you personal screening, and solve
your computer access problems that do not require CLID.  Some would
probably be cheaper in the long run too...

>I am aware of all the difficulties with CLID, and I agree that it
>isn't perfect, I just think it's better than the nothing that I have
>now.

You could have other things now.  There are personal code boxes that
you could use, as well as other industry standard computer technology for
providing security.  If you don't have them, it's only because, well...
because you don't have them, not because they do not exist.

This is not a real swell reason for plunging ahead with a technology
that will probably be irreversable once the telcos are allowed to turn
it on.

I believe it's usefulness is severly limited, and probably outside
what the average consumer will really want.  I also believe it has
very BAD problems associated with personal privacy of callers that
makes it a bad alternative to almost anything else in the phone
privacy market.

John



-- 
John Gilbert
gilbert@mdd.comm.mot.com
..!uunet!mdisea!gilbert