by Kevin Walker
University of California, Berkeley
December 6, 1990
Introduction
As people embrace more and more new technologies, new problems continually arise. Privacy concerns are among the foremost problems in our society, which guarantees the rights of private citizens. The latest privacy issue concerns "Caller I.D.", which displays a caller's telepone number a screen on or near one's telephone. At issue is the privacy of the caller versus that of the person called, and ultimately, the question arises of who owns an individual's phone number and who has the right to reveal it. The controversy surrounding this issue is indicative of the increasing pace at which technology is creeping into our lives. Eventually, the furor will die down, I believe, because of similar technologies already in place and the controls that are likely to be placed on the service.
Background
In the early days of telephones, callers were often identified to the persons they were calling because they were connected by an operator who announced their presence. But as phone systems became more crowded, operators could not keep track of all their regular customers, and when systems became automated, operators disappeared altogether. In the last decade, a type of personalization has returned as phone companies installed a new, standard, international system called Signalling System 7 (SS7). This sends call setup information, such as the caller's number and the number being called, over a separate path than the voice portion. A memory center in this intelligent network holds this information, which can be retrieved for various reasons: The last number called can be retrieved for automatic redialling; callers can press a special code to trace annoying or obscene calls; and the incoming phone number can be displayed on a device connected to the phone -- this is Caller I.D., and it is only the most popular and most controversial of the available services.
Businesses have used caller identification methods for years, and the public is largely unaware of the intrusions. Customers calling companies to complain or to get information have routinely had their phone numbers recorded for some future use, whether as part of a database or for demographic projections.
New Jersey Bell reasoned that there might be a consumer market for caller information, and began offering Caller I.D. in 1987. The service involves a hook-up fee of $21, a monthly fee of $6-7 ($8.50 for businesses) and a device attatched to the telephone which costs $40-70. The caller's number is transmitted in the lull between the first and second rings. Currently, New Jersey Bell has about 40,000 subscribers to the service. The service has also been instituted in Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland and Tennessee, where there was little or no objection. All seven regional Bells expect to offer the service by 1992.
A few related products have already been developed. At least one manufacturer has released a telephone with a built-in display screen, and other phones and add-on devices can store the numbers of callers. This allows people to call back callers who might have left an unintelligible message on their answering machine, or may not have left a message at all. Department stores such as Sears sell display devices at reasonable rates.
Support For Caller I.D.
The phone companies claim there are many benefits to the service. It could catch criminals and even save lives, they say, by displaying a phone number which might not otherwise be known and which can be used to pinpoint a location. Tracing a call through the current maze of switches requires the caller to be on the line for a fairly long time. For this reason, police and fire departments in New Jersey were among the first to sign up for the service. Fire officials say the service has allowed them to curb false alarms, thereby saving taxpayers money.
Schools and businesses also praise the service. Colleges report a decrease in phoned-in bomb threats, and businesses such as pizza parlors, florists, and taxi services can verify phone numbers, thus reducing false orders and thefts. Business can also use the service to compile lists or databases of callers.
Residential customers like the serivce because it increases their privacy: they can decide whether or not to answer calls, and they can better cope with annoying or obscene calls. A New Jersey survey revealled a decrease in obscence and harassing calls since the service began.
Phone companies are already developing other services along the same lines, regardless of the debate over Caller I.D. One proposed service would allow customers to program their phones to reject calls from all but the numbers they designate. Of course, the natural evolution of caller identification services will lead to ones where callers names are displayed (or announced with a digital voice) along with their phone numbers. Potentially, other information could also be displayed; many businesses already have this capability. And phone companies have already introduced answering services, which are intended to replace answering machines.
Phone companies acknowledge the privacy issues at stake, but as one executive said, "There is no new technology that does not have some side effects."1
Opposition to Telcos in Cable TV
While the privacy of individuals being called is the heart of the argument in favor of Caller I.D., on the other side is the privacy of callers. Opponents say that few callers have obscene or deceitful motives; many callers have good reasons for keeping their numbers secret. For instance, social workers may not want potentially violent clients to know their number, and private detectives who work under cover would not want to reveal where they are calling from. In this way, Caller I.D. is seen not as potentially life-saving but life-threatening. Plus, opponents say, answering machines or services are better ways to screen calls. In cases of criminal harassment, the police can trace calls.
In addition, the service cannot completely curb harassing or obscene calls, since such callers could easily use a pay phone. Also, the service could actually bring more annoying calls to the home, by businesses who use the service for marketing purposes. American Express, for example, once utilized caller information to answer incoming calls with the caller's name, but customers' furor eventually stopped the practice. Lists of names and numbers are already sold to other companies, and Caller I.D. could make it much easier. A "reverse directory," available to anyone from phone companies, lists names, occupations, addresses and other information from phone numbers.
The American Civil Liberties Union opposes the service for several reasons. They say it will have a chilling effect on rape or suicide hotlines, and it might cause people to hesitate when reporting a neighbor for child abuse, for example, or when calling health or government agencies for information. There is also a contractual problem. The ACLU's Edward Martone said, "Folks who pay for a private line are paying extra money for that service," and Caller I.D. displays both listed and unlisted numbers. Martone feels people should be compensated for a breach of contract.2
The service could also used as a discriminatory device, according to the NAACP and other organizations. For instance, someone selling a home or offering an apartment for rent can tell what neighborhood a caller is from (by the first three digits in the caller's number) and discern the caller's income bracket; banks could do the same thing and refuse loans to people calling from certain areas, and there might be no way to detect the discrimination -- the phone simply would go unanswered.
Opponents seem to have found an answer, using the same technology. "Call Blocking", offered by phone companies, allows callers to dial a three-digit code which causes the word "private" to appear on Caller I.D. displays.
Policy Action
When Bell of Pennsylvania proposed introduction of Caller I.D., the state P.U.C. approved the service on the condition that only people with an overt need to conceal their numbers (such as battered women, law enforcement agencies and witnesses in criminal cases) be permitted to use Call Blocking. The ACLU appealed the decision on the grounds that widespread Caller I.D. could violate state wiretap laws, and the state has temporarily blocked the service. In California, a bill passed last year requires phone companies offering the service to provide the call blocking option to anyone, free of charge. Pacific Telesis has agreed to this, but has postponed introducing the service until 1992, when it hopes there will be a consensus in its favor. New Jersey, so far, has not required Call Blocking.
At the national level, the fight against Caller I.D. has been led by Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wisc.). His bill, the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990, would require mandatory, free Call Blocking in any area with Caller I.D. The bill is supported by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, the Consumer Federation of America and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. Most importantly, the Bush administration, known to support privacy rights, has voiced support for the Kohl bill. Bush's special advisor on consumer affairs, Dr. Bonnie Guiton, has said that "if residential customers can be offered a blocking mechanism in conjunction with caller identification, they will be able to take back some of the privacy they have already lost."3
Naturally, the phone companies have opposed Call Blocking. One spokesman said, "If I provide blocking, I have to provide it for everyone and that means I'm providing it for people who are making obscene calls in the midle of the night or people who are terrorizing people in the middle of the night, and provide it for people who are phoning in bomb threats to schools -- frightening children half to death -- and people who phone in false alarms."4 Despite this emotional plea, legislation has required some Bells to provide the service, and they have complied.
Suggested Policy Directions
The three interests intersecting in this issue are: The interests of callers who wish not to divulge their numbers; the interests of persons being called who wish not to be harassed; and the interests of society at preventing infringements on privacy.
Some have suggested that Call Blocking defeats the purpose of Caller I.D. I agree with this, and for this reason I propose to maintain the status quo for the short term. That is, Caller I.D. should be offered with the condition that Call Blocking is also equally available to all callers free of charge. I think the furor will die down and, with both Caller I.D. and Call Blocking, privacy will be no more violated than it is today. Yes, the purpose of Caller I.D. will be defeated, and the only cost will be to the phone companies and those who have paid for the service.
It will require a change in thought about privacy, though, I believe. Callers will have to decide whether or not to block the display of their number depending on whom they are calling. Individuals will be able to avoid callers they want to, and law enforcement and other agencies can still use the service as they wish. I believe that as states continue to test the system, this is the situation that will emerge.
At issue here is more than simply revealing one's phone number, however. Rights of privacy are guaranteed by the Constitution and are increasingly important as technologies encroach upon them. I do not propose stifling technology, but encouraging it. Policy must keep pace with it, and ensure that the rights of all are protected. Currently, telephones are at the heart of the debate, but already, computers are being mentioned. For one thing, they too are often linked to phone lines, and could provide much more information about an individual if s/he is not careful. Fortunately, computer users can easily instruct their machines to type in a privacy code every time a call is made. Computer users are already embroiled in debates about privacy on Bulletin Board Systems, and this controversy is now entering the public domain.
The key is equal access for everyone. When large corporations have technologies that individuals don't (as is the case), information can be used against individuals very easily. As one Bell Atlantic executive said, until Congress and the courts decide how to regulate the technology, "assume people have your number."
1. Kenneth A. Pitt of Bell Atlantic quoted in Sims, Calvin. "Bill Would Curb Disclosure of Caller's Number." New York Times, Jan. 30, 1990, p. D17:6.
2. Quoted in Stover, Dawn. "Look Who's Calling." Popular Science, July 1990, p. 78:2.
3. Quoted in Sims, p. 17:6.
4. Peter J. Ventimiglia of New Jersey Bell quoted in "Caller ID Stirs Debate on Phone Privacy." New York Times, Feb. 11, 1990, Sec. 11, p. 15:1.