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 am, in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman of the subcommittee presiding. Also present: Senator Kohl. 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, cailer-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. Today, we examine caller-ID another challenging new 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 Individual but also protects those most at risk? 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. CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. PROPOSED LEGISLATION ...................... S. 2030, a bill to protect the privacy of telephone users by amending title 18, CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Statement of Dr. Bonnie Guiton, special adviser to the president for consumer Panel consisting of James G. Cullen, president and CEO, New Jersey Bell; Panel consisting of Richard Barton, senior vice president, Direct Marketing |