From: chris@engineer.mrg.uswest.com (Chris Fedde)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Date: 17 Dec 92 05:14:47 GMT
Organization: USWEST Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: engineer.mrg.uswest.com

The Caller ID service is one of my interestes so I will post a followup to 
Bruce Hayden's question.  Even though I don't presume to answer for Joe
Francis.

In article <bhayden.724495813@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec10.181556.8815@netcom.com>
>>strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes:
>
>>> A typical example is CPSR's position on caller ID, which has
>>> the effect of defending the right of others to block their lines
>>> from being IDed when they call you and thus invade YOUR privacy
>>> as the initial overt act. It doesn't occur to CPSR that a pure
>>> libertarian position would say that if someone didn't want to
>>> be IDed he simply need not call.
>
>>There is nothing "libertarian" about your position.  And if ringing
>>your phone is an invasion of your privacy, I would think that ringing
>>your phone and supplying a # would also be an invasion of your privacy.
>> 
>
>>I simply don't accept your premise(s).  
>
>I seem to have missed something. Are you arguing for or against
>Caller Id? Are you arguing that the caller has a higher expectation
>of privacy than the recipient?
>
>Bruce E. Hayden
>(303) 7588400
>bhayden@csn.org
>

Mr Francis' point is well taken; my phone ringing is an invason of
MY privacy.  The question is "who's privacy is invaded by providing the
caller id to the called party?"  There are three interested agencies
(parties) involved in a telephone call; the caller, the called and the
network.

The network's interests are simple.  Provide accurate, high quality
service to the caller.  The network is not interested in the called
party since they don't pay the bill.   That's not to say that the called
can't be a caller at some other time, but for this transaction the
caller foots the bill.  It is apparent that the network's privacy is not
invaded by providing the caller ID. 

The argument has been made that the caller's privacy is being invaded by
allowing the network to provid the callers station ID to the called.
Obviously the network knows the caller's station ID.  The called will
know the caller's real ID soon after the call is accepted, assuming the
caller is not telling lies.  So the network is providing the called with
(maybe truthfull) information just a little earlier.  So it is my
opinion that the caller's privacy is not being invaded.

As a consumer of telephone service I want to have the caller ID
available to me.  Services like cellular and PCN  (personal
communications network) require that the recipiant of the service pay
for both originated and recieved calls.  So before I recieve a call that
I am going to pay for I want to know who it is that is calling me.
I also want to be able to negotiate on other call setup facilities.  for
example I may not want to accept reverse billing calls.  Or I may want
to accept the call but inform the caller that their  call is being
answered by an agent like an answering machine or an auto atendant
I may also want authentication or privacy negotiation before voice
call acceptance.

There is another issue.  I almost hesitate to bring it up in this
message.  It's part of the culture that surrounds telephone
communication.  In our office we have had ISDN for almost two years now.
The caller ID is recieved and linked to a database so that you can see
the name of another intraoffice caller on your phone set.  I realy hate
it when someone picks up the phone and says "Hi Jim; How are you?"  when
it's realy me and I just happen to be calling from Jim's cube because
it's convieniant.  It's my newest pet peeve.

BTW.  I do not represent USWEST, or any company of USWEST.  All the
opinions expressed in this article are mine.
 
Chris Fedde, USWEST MRG, chris@mrg.uswest.com, voice +13037842823
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk