From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:53:01 GMT

kkt@milton.u.washington.edu (Patrick Scheible) writes:

>Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>>I have been waiting for caller ID service for a long time, and the ACLU's
>>position against it is one reason why I don't support the ACLU.  There has
>>been truly mass hysteria against caller ID, claiming that it will let
>>businesses get your unlisted phone number (the fact is, 800 numbers have had
>>caller ID for a long time...) or that husbands of abused women could get the
>>secret phone number of the battered women's shelter (*WHY* would she be
>>calling him?????).

>She might be calling him to arrange picking up her possessions, kids,
>to arrange a meeting with a lawyer, all sorts of reasons.  He finds
>the number, and from that through the reverse directory the address of
>the shelter.

Where did he get the sort of reverse directory that lists the addresses
of *unlisted* numbers? Because that's how any women's shelter with any
brains has all but the "official" number set up. The official number (the
one in the book) is in the office. The phones in the shelter proper are
going to be unlisted to keep husbands from making harassing calls! Even
now, there are a lot of abusive husbands who would call every single
shelter in the city trying to find their wife. And probably drive over
to check. So if they even have their address in the phone *now* they are
just as open to him finding her. 

As someone informed me in email the other day, *that* sort of reverse
directory is *illegal* in Washington unless you are a cop, the phone
company, or the like. And don't hand me anything about "what if he has
a friend in the phone company?" If he does, or if he works for the
phone company in a position where he could get at one of those 
directories, he could get the calling number *now* from phone company
internal records.

>Do 800 numbers really alredy have caller ID?  Hm.  Still, if locals
>had it too it would just be made worse.  The trouble is, phone numbers
>are sold like mailing lists, eventually bought up by the least
>scrupulous marketing firm.  Only much more harrassing because they
>demand your attention RIGHT THEN.

800 & 900 numbers have ANI (automatic number identification) and it
is *required* to make billing work. It's done in a quite different 
manner.

But what do you mean by "local"? I don't know the phone tariffs where you
live but it is not at *all* unlikely that ANI is available to any local
business that cares to pay for it. It'd likely be the ones with *heavy*
phone business. I suggest that you check with the PUC. You may be in
for a *rude* shock.

>Which leads me to the main reason I'm against it:  It's not very
>useful to individuals.  Say I have caller-ID, the phone rings, and I
>don't recognize the calling number.  I almost certainly answer it
>anyway -- it might be family or a friend in trouble at a pay phone.
>(It should really be called calling-phone ID, not caller-ID.)  I guess
>if there were some specific individual I wanted to avoid, it would
>work, but even then once they caught on they could go to a pay phone.
>(Then there's the trouble lots of people would have of recognizing a
>phone number in the few seconds you have to decide whether or not to
>answer it.)

You are saying that it won't be useful to *everyone*. That is *not*
the same as not being useful to individuals! If it's not of use to
you, don't get it. I have no use for call waiting (and think it's 
a royal pain) but why should that allow me to tell *you* that you
can't have it?

One of the big uses most of us will have for it is for dealing with
idiots that keep redialing the same wrong number, *certain* that we
are lying to them about "Joe" not being there.

It's also useful if you have a lot of friends who *refuse* to deal
with your answering machine. Since I'd be using a setup that recorded
the Caller-ID along with the date & time, I'd be able to identify a lot
more of the "hang ups" on my machine. And I could try to call back
any of them who didn't block their number.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Xref: sparky pnw.general:2016 seattle.general:2891 pnw.forsale:1661