-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Caller ID - We've got your number Caller ID is the means by which the recipient of a telephone call can identify the telephone number of a caller, either during or prior to accepting the call, by means of a display device or after termination of the call by calling a special service number. In the UK, customers of British Telecom can purchase a display device (from BT) for œ50 plus a œ4 quarterly charge. The display device can register the last 50 calls, irrespective of whether or not the phone was answered. Alternatively users can dial 1471 to obtain the number of the last caller. The official name for this service in the UK is Calling Line Information service. CLI was introduced in a cloud of controversy. Initially the service was postponed for several months due to the adverse public reaction. It was then introduced with the caller having the means to block their Caller ID, either temporary through prefixing each dialled number or by request to BT having the Caller ID permanently disabled. This option is now under threat. Caller ID was not introduced to protect the vulnerable from malicious calls as is often claimed to be the case by telecommunication companies. That problem can be dealt with through call interception and line tracing. Caller ID was introduced to enable corporations to build a database on all their callers to which can be added any additional information gleaned during the call. How often have you called a telephone help or support line and found that you've had to answer a seemingly endless list of questions before you can get across your problem, more often than not on a premium rate line at your expense. In England, Caller ID was introduced to counter a growing trend for subscribers to go ex-directory. Caller ID will lead to an increase in nuisance calls, not their decrease. Anyone who has any doubts as to why Caller ID was introduced need look no further than British Telecom. BT tried to introduced Caller ID in the summer of 1994. Following adverse comment on a consumer affairs programme and the resultant public outcry BT were forced to put the scheme on hold. BT claimed that Caller ID was being introduced as a result of consumer demand, though they were unavailable to produce any evidence of that demand. It's difficult to imagine the public expressing a demand for a service that they know nothing about or that there would be any demand for a blatant invasion of privacy. BT finally introduced the scheme November 1994, with an added sop to customers that they could prefix each call with a three digit number (141) to block Caller ID or they could request a permanent blocking. The onus was on the consumer to take action to prevent something that they had never requested in the first place. BT wastes vast sums of money on extremely irritating TV commercials to encourage more telephone calls. I've yet to meet anyone who needs any encouragement to use the telephone. Most people try to cut down their usage in a vain attempt to limit their phone bills. BT made no attempt to advertise that Caller ID was being introduced or more importantly that it could be blocked. Inspite of BT's lack of publicity too many people (from BT's perspective) are making use of the blocking facility. To counter customers protecting their own privacy BT plans the introduction of a new scheme - Anonymous Call Rejection. Anyone making a call with Caller ID disabled will find themselves unable to get through. Instead they will be greeted with a recorded message advising them that that their call has been blocked, and unless they re-enable their Caller ID they will not get through. BT plans to introduce Anonymous Call Rejection by the end of 1996. The only option open to customers is to protest to BT and to refuse to deal with companies that use Anonymous Call Rejection, though in the case of the latter they will be unable to get through to lodge their complaint. BT's excuse (personal conversation) is that certain businesses are being abused - Chinese Takeaways were given as an example. People ring up, place a large order then fail to turn up, or have it delivered to the wrong address. This is a pathetic excuse. All the takeaway has to do is to call the customer back to confirm the order. When BT initially installed Caller ID they tried it on by claiming it was to reduce nuisance calls. During the conversation it was admitted that Anonymous Call Rejection was being introduced in response to a demand from business. Currently it is on trial. No information is officially available, it appears that the public are being deliberately excluded from the debate (even though they are the ones directly affected) until the scheme is officially introduced by which time it will be too late. - -- BT's Response -- Further to my conversation with Anona Phillips at BT I have received a written response. She claims that the report in the Daily Telegraph "was not accurate and BT have no immediate plans to launch this facility", she goes on to say that "it is still very much in the development phase". Note that she has not said that it will not be introduced. My concern is still as before, that this is an appalling infringement of personally liberty and that the public are being excluded from the debate. When BT finally introduce the scheme it will be too late to oppose it. I have tried to obtain a policy document, but my request has been refused. If a caller blocks their Caller ID then it is clear that they do not wish to release their Caller ID. BT should respect that wish and not introduce a scheme that prevents the call from getting through. BT are like a lumbering dinosaur, a small brain and a huge body. For far too long they have enjoyed a monopoly hold on the telecomms market, although they now do have competition that competition is small fry and could be squashed with one swish of the dinosaur's tail. Twice recently BT has been criticised by Oftel (phone regulator) for making nuisance calls to the ex-directory customers of its rivals BT has yet to wake up to the new reality. I receive the shareholders report. The last one was full of whinges as to how hard life now was - competition on the one hand, regulation on the other. BT has fought tooth and nail to oppose the regulator's price fixing regime (inflation minus 4% over the next few years). They are currently applying for a judicial review in their attempt to curb the powers of the regulator. This is the same BT that reported an annual profit of œ3 billion, œ100 per second, and has been heavily criticised for the massive pay-outs to its directors whilst at the same time laying off tens of thousands of its employees. - -- Further Information -- The official line Anona Phillips tel 0800 212950 ext Aldershot 5481 PP 3B01 Telecom House Alexandra Road ALDERSHOT Hants GU11 3JA It is also possible to raise this matter by calling the operator on 100, do so from a call box to prevent billing. There was an alternative British Telecom Web site that gave the low-down on BT. It may no longer be in operation as BT were trying to close it down and I've not been able to find it. - -- References -- Andr‚ Bacard, 'The Computer Privacy Handbook', Peachpit Press, 1995 Keith Parkins, 'A National ID Card', 1996 Keith Parkins, 'Privacy in an Electronic Age', to be published Bruce Sterling, 'The Hacker Crackdown', Viking, 1992 Chris George, 'BT tough line on 1471 blockers', Connected, Daily Telegraph, Tuesday 30 July 1996 BT, Anonymous Call Rejection, personal conversation, 31 July 1996 BT, Anonymous Call Rejection, personal communication, August 1996 (c) Keith Parkins August 1996 rev 3 pub 1024/B09CC89D 1996/04/22 Keith Parkins <10 GU14 6QJ England> Key fingerprint 2A 66 6A 8F 91 42 48 C8 48 98 38 AD 2F D3 45 08 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQCVAwUBMg4FlUXTJSWwnMidAQELGgP+LTrbMcgiviUi00mgLYkHKa6QpmA2TVA0 AVUSZZJ/OS6aFDCGVx8vzs6qne9qfX7Euz3zPQpXDZcmrdTTFy9cY3H0sIhAZSsE KEi95v8tjJ+xOGrd5SfZEvcQwQElqhQS8HC8VpJtxY2SAhX4sEeloNKaEUAnUNrH vFs9uy1X0Uo= =7OVp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----