Caller identification technology, which enables the number of the caller to appear on a strip display on the phone of the recipient, so that the latter can decide whether the call is welcome, has highlighted one of the basic issues that has existed since the beginning of telephony: who has the greater right to privacy, the caller or the party called? On the one hand, proponents of caller ID assert that by calling someone, the caller is potentially making an unwelcome claim on the recipient’s time, and so the choice should be in the hands of the latter: accordingly, they argue that the technology, which is already available in the American states served by Bell Atlantic Corp, can prevent annoying and time-wasting conversations with telephone canvassers, and, if caller ID became widespread, it could virtually eliminate abusive phone calls; and, on a more general level, it simply means that you do not need to speak to anybody you don’t want to. On the other hand, various civil rights groups are worried that caller ID takes away the anonymity of the caller, so that, for example, firms that use caller ID could record the numbers of those calling in with casual enquiries, and later use that number to swamp them with a deluge of sales talk.
The modern man’s fetish
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the issue, up until now the technology has been on the side of the caller ID supporters, so one development that will please the anti-caller ID lobby is two 900 numbers now available from Los Angeles firm Private Lines Inc, which, reports the New York Times, block the transmission of the caller’s numbers to telephones using the caller ID service: when used by the caller, a subscriber to the caller ID service will see only a string of zeros on the display screen. Callers that wish to remain anonymous dial one of the 900 numbers – one for domestic calls, the other for international – and receive a second dialling tone after which they dial the number required; the callers billing record only shows the call to the 900 number, and no record is kept of the outbound call destination. Tariffs are high – for the domestic service, $2 a minute, and $5 for the international service – so it is probable that the service will be used only when there is a risk of litigation or if there is some illicit motive although US law enforcement authorities are not too worried that it could help the criminal avoid detection – in the words of Marvin Rudnick, ex-assistant attorney and now chairman of Private Lines, crooks still want the protection of the payphone. Meanwhile, it seems that the anti-caller ID groups are still not happy with the situation, saying that now callers will have to pay for a privilege – that of anonymity – that once was theirs for free. And so the caller ID debate still rages on in the US, where, as Raymond Chandler once said, the telephone is the modern man’s fetish, and with British Telecom in the undoubtedly lengthy process of reviewing whether to offer such a service, the issue is likely to hit the UK at some point. But, whether it does or not, perhaps ex-assistant attorney Rudnick’s point is the key to the whole issue: criminal or not, if you want to retain your anonymity, use a payphone – or, even better, don’t make that call. And for subscribers to caller ID that don’t want to be bothered by irritating or disturbing phone calls, any time they see a string of zeros on their telephone display, they can just ignore the call. – Mark John
