Knauff, Carol: Prepared statement Kohl, Hon. Herb: Prepared statement of the Yellow Pages Publishers Association, Troy, MI Resolution of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advo- Page 211 213 230 237 252 Prepared statement APPENDIX ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Letter to Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, from Earl F. 255 Attachment: "Caller ID? Full Speed Ahead!". 256 Statements of: Arthur R. Miller, Bruce Bromley Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 260 BellSouth Corporation, August 30, 1990. 269 Attachment I: Current BellSouth TouchStar Features.. 293 294 GTE Telephone Operating Companies' Comments on Proposed Legislation, 295 Exhibit A: Brief, In the Matter of Calling Number Delivery, before the 305 Exhibit B: IILC Position Paper on the Issue of Calling Party Identification Privacy/Anonymity, February 22, 1990.. 324 Appendix A: Calling Party Identification (CPID)—Privacy and Ano- 377 Appendix B: CPID Applications by Industry Segment and Delivery 379 Appendix C: A Sample of Current and Evolving Features Potentially Exhibit C: "Network CNI Control Techniques and Capabilities," docu- 381 384 422 432 CALLER-ID TECHNOLOGY WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1990 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in room OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. Senator LEAHY. Good morning. I am delighted to be here with Senator Kohl who has spent so much time working on this issue. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act became law more than 3 years ago. It updated the Federal wiretap statute to protect the privacy and security of information that is transmitted through new technologies-from the land mobile and cellular telephone communications to satellite transmissions and even video teleconferencing. We accomplished our goal of encouraging innovation and technological development without compromising basic civil liberties. Today we are going to examine another issue, caller-ID. It is a challenging new technology which has to be evaluated within the framework of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Senator Kohl has introduced legislation that would require per-call blocking, and a lot of people have told me of their support for per-call blocking. Representative Kastenmeier has introduced similar legislation in the House, and I understand his subcommittee may hold hearings shortly. Caller-ID, by definition, can screen harassing calls. It can speed the response of police and other emergency services to someone in need of protection or assistance. And hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent by the telephone companies to advertise that fact, to drive it home and make people realize that everybody, whether they have ever received a harassing phone call or not, is subject to harassing calls, unless they buy this new service. But our inquiry has to go further. Do the telephone companies have the right to disseminate our phone numbers to businesses that package, sell, and resell information for commercial use, because, of course, that is one of the things that will come out of this? Does the caller-ID technology jeopardize the safety of desperate people seeking refuge from domestic violence or inhibit the drug (1) addict or suicidal teenager from seeking help, or even discourage a runaway child who may want to call to say, "Look, I would like to talk about coming home. I do not want to tell you right now where I am, but I would like to talk about the idea of coming home." Can psychiatrists or social workers continue to call patients or clients from home without jeopardizing their own privacy or safety? I know that our witnesses are anxious to join this debate, and we want your informed opinions on this new technology. What serves the majority, but also protects those most at risk? Individual safety or liberty cannot be sacrificed just because of a new technology. If there are people who want to pay for this new service, how do we take care of them and allow the companies to make the obvious profits that might come from that, but also take care of those people who do not want to pay for it? So as we begin consideration of caller-ID, I think we have to be wary of setting precedents for this rapid growth industry. A new age of information is taking off. I want it to grow, but I do not want it to threaten privacy. I have spoken many times on these various issues-from interactive television to the ability of television companies or cable companies to keep track of what you watch, what you buy, or anything else you might do, and then to be able to sell that information to others. Let us have the technology available. Let us have it for those who want it, but we Vermonters have an ingrained sense of privacy and I want to be able to protect that privacy. Keeping up with technology is the mission and challenge of this subcommittee. In addition to the caller-ID technology we are exploring today, the subcommittee continues to look at developments in cordless phone technology and improved cellular systems. I might say parenthetically that having had my cellular phone cut off five times in one conversation this morning, we will look toward improvements in that technology. The subcommittee is joined by a distinguished group of experts. I look forward to hearing from all of you, and I appreciate your participation in the hearing. If I might digress a bit to talk about the sense of privacy in Vermont, I remember the New York Times wrote a little article once about somebody driving up the dirt road toward my farm in Vermont. He stopped at the neighboring farm because he was not sure on just which part of this long meandering road to find me. He stopped to ask a farmer who actually watches over our farm when we are not there and whom I have known since I was a child. The reporter asked, "Does Pat Leahy live up this road?" And the man said, “Are you a relative of his?" The person said, "Well, no, I am not." The farmer said, "Are you a friend of his?" He said, "Well, no, not really." The farmer asked, "Is he expecting you?" And the man said "No." And the farmer looked him right in the eye and said, "Never heard of him." [Laughter.] Now that is the sense of privacy we have in Vermont, and I yield to my distinguished colleague from Wisconsin. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:] STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY & THE LAW The Electronic Communications Privacy Act became law more than three years ago. It updated the federal wiretap statute to protect the privacy and security of information transmitted through new technologies, from land mobile and cellular telephone communications to satellite transmissions and video teleconferencing. We accomplished our goal of encouraging innovation and technological development without compromising basic civil liberties. technology that must be evaluated within the framework of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Senator Kohl has introduced legislation that would require per call blocking. Representative Kastenmeier has introduced similar legislation in the House, and his subcommittee may hold hearings shortly. Caller-ID, by definition, can screen harassing calls and speed the response of police and other emergency services to someone in need of protection or assistance. But our inquiry must go further. Do the telephone companies have the right to disseminate our phone numbers to businesses that package, sell and resell information for commercial use? - Does the caller-ID technology jeopardize the safety of desperate people seeking refuge from domestic violence, or inhibit the drug addict or suicidal teenager from seeking help? Can psychiatrists and social workers continue to call patients or clients from home without jeopardizing their own safety? I know that our witnesses are anxious to join this debate. want your informed opinions on this new technology. What serves the majority but also protects those most at risk? Individual safety or liberty cannot be sacrificed to any new technology. - We As we begin consideration of caller-ID, we must be wary of setting precedents for this rapid-growth industry. The new age of information is taking off and we want it to grow, but not to threaten privacy. Keeping up with technology is the mission and challenge of this Subcommittee. In addition to the caller-ID technology that we are exploring today, the Subcommittee continues to look at developments in cordless phone technology and improved cellular systems. The Subcommittee is joined by a distinguished group of experts. I look forward to hearing from all of you and I appreciate your participation in the hearing. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator KOHL. Well, thank you very much, Senator Leahy. I particularly appreciate your preparing and holding this hearing this morning which I believe is very important, and I appreciate it ever so much more in recognition of the fact that you have been very, very busy and successful with the agriculture bill that we debated and passed just a few days ago. I know that took a great deal of time, and so it is very nice of you to have this hearing this morning, and I appreciate it personally. I would just like to frame a couple of issues that I believe are important in this hearing today. In my judgment this hearing is really not a debate over the value of caller-ID. Most everyone agrees that caller-ID is a good service, and I certainly agree with that. Like many other people, I want to see it spread as quickly as possible, but the question is what form should caller-ID spread? Should there be forced caller-ID in which the phone company requires that our phone number be displayed every time we make a call, even if we have an unlisted phone number? Or should we be talking about voluntary caller-ID in which the caller decides whether or not they wish to give out their number? And I think we also need to note that it is easy to get someone's address from their telephone number. So mandatory disclosure can mean revealing where you live and perhaps even what your name is, whether or not you want the other person to know. In my judgment, forced called-ID violates our fundamental right to privacy. I believe we have the right to call a crisis hotline or a Senator's office or the IRS help-line without having to say who we are. And why should the phone company compel us to identify ourselves when we just call a business for information? And there are even times when forced caller-ID can be dangerous. Prosecutors often call witnesses at night from home. Surely they should not be compelled to reveal where they live. Battered women often take refuge with friends and then call home to check on one thing or another. And they should not be compelled to tell their abusing husbands where they are staying. There are many other dangerous situations, but the point is simply that the phone company should not be able to determine when it is safe to reveal our number or our address. There are just too many circumstances and too many variables. The answer in my judgment must be to allow callers to retain the freedom of choice. Let the caller dial three digits on the phone when they want to make private phone calls. With this per-call blocking, callers can display their numbers when calling friends and family, and they can keep their numbers confidential when they wish to do so. The recipients of phone calls will always see the word private flash on the caller-ID box, and then if they wish, they can ignore the phone call, they can screen it, tape it, or simply decide to answer the phone. Some phone companies would like this whole issue to be framed in terms of obscene phone calls. This approach might make for good marketing, but ultimately it is deceptive. There is an ad that telephone companies are now using, and it says protect yourself against threatening and anonymous phone calls, |