Viewpoints : Telephone Technology vs. Privacy
W ill new phone services invade your privacy? Should they be allowed?
In the next few months, Pacific Bell plans to ask the state Public Utilities Commission for permission to sell in California a set of controversial new services. Already available in eight states, the new products are based on technology that allows telephone customers to track the phone numbers from which incoming calls are made.
The most hotly debated of the new services is called Number ID. It would display the phone number of the person calling on a screen at the home or business where the call is directed. Other services include Call Trace, which notifies police departments of the origin of harassing calls, and Call Block, which allows people to program their phones to not accept calls from certain numbers.
In California, the Legislature has required the phone company to provide per-call blocking, which enables callers to protect their numbers from being displayed by dialing a code before each call.
For a discussion of privacy issues raised by the new products, free-lance journalist Sharon Bernstein interviewed consumer advocate Ken McEldowney of the San Francisco watchdog group, Consumer Action, and Ethan Thorman, Pacific Bell’s product manager for the new products.
* What privacy issues are raised by Number ID?
Thorman: It raises the issue of whose right to privacy is more compelling, the person making the call or the person receiving the call. It’s the person making the call possibly wanting to protect his anonymity versus the person receiving the call wanting to know who is calling.
When Pacific Bell gets about 1 million calls per year from customers complaining about annoyance calls, how do you give those people who have been harassed a remedy to stop it from happening? There’s a compelling need on one side of people saying, “I want to hold the person calling me accountable.”
McEldowney: There are several different levels at which Number ID raises privacy issues. One is that historically the phone company has placed great emphasis on the ability of the consumer to protect his own number. Certainly here in California the availability of unlisted phone numbers and prohibitions on the phone companies selling lists of their customers has been very strong. We believe that allowing Number ID to go forward without safeguards in place will erode the privacy elements that consumers have long taken for granted.
Secondly, telemarketers and direct-mail people are moving from the “Dear Occupant” approach. They want to have very targeted marketing. They want to know as much as possible about somebody. Number ID makes it possible for companies to mesh computer bases, to trade the names of all the people who had called them looking for information.
On a whole other level, it’s going to have impact on battered women’s shelters and teen-age help lines. Even if an agency publicizes that it will not display the phone number, it will raise that suspicion on the part of people who may be seeking help. A battered woman in a safe house could be making a call from a safe house not knowing its number is on display to someone on the other end.
Thorman: There is no perfect solution to this privacy controversy. Who has the greater right to privacy varies on a call-by-call basis. The benefits of per-call privacy are that both the caller and the person receiving the call have a choice. The person making the call can say, “My privacy is important,” and the person receiving the call says, “Am I going to take a call from someone who displays ‘private number’ there?” It’s the same as someone putting their hand over the peephole in your front door.
* What about the other new products?
McEldowney: Call Trace has a lot of privacy implications to it. Part of the problem with it is it makes every person a cop. In Pennsylvania, some very real questions have been raised as to whether it violates that state’s anti-wiretapping law.
Thorman: Call Trace allows you to have the telephone number from the last call traced and stored in a database at Pacific Bell for use in legal action. The information is only released to law enforcement officials. You as a caller have the right to protect your anonymity up to the point where you violate the rights of the person you’re calling.
* Who will benefit most from these services?
Thorman: Residence customers by far. From all the research I’ve done and radio talk shows I’ve been on lately, the majority of customers are truly excited by what this offers. And it’s not just a yuppie thing. This demand is coming from every segment of the population. The services either make the phone more convenient, give you a greater sense of security or just give you a greater control over your telephone. Every group that I talk to, there’s always one feature in there that someone says, “Gee, I could use this at home.”
McEldowney: The residential market is not going to be as strong as the phone company thinks. First, look at the cost. This is not going to be purchased by low- and moderate-income consumers. It will probably attract some middle- and upper-middle class people who maybe want to be more selective of the calls they answer.
In a world of speed dialing, the actual phone numbers that a person would recognize are very limited. And it’s based on a whole premise that the person calling you is only going to be making calls from a recognized number. We’re a real small nonprofit, but we have six lines. I could make calls from any one of those six lines, from a pay phone, from a friend’s house, from a business, from a meeting room. There is no way the person on the other end would have those numbers.
Most people who would want that service would have an answering machine and would be screening their calls that way. With an answering machine, you don’t have to recognize a person’s number; you can hear the person’s voice.
The people who are going to sign up for it are shady-type retailers. A shady telemarketer would run a TV ad or send out a direct-mail piece that would say, “No obligation, call for more details.” People will call not knowing that their phone number is being displayed, either for generation of calls or for a sucker list.
* How would the products be used by businesses?
Thorman: I have two examples. You call a pizza place like Domino’s Pizza. They have reported they have an enormous amount of orders placed by crank callers. Using Number ID (in the states where it already is available) has helped them to reduce fraud by identifying the number of the person who is calling.
Or businesses could program the numbers of frequent customers into their computers. Travel agents could just bring up accounts, ask where you’re going, find your frequent flyer number and, boom, you’re off.
* How should these products be regulated?
McEldowney: One of the real concerns I have, and I see a lot of parallels of this with 976 and 900 services, is that it is a product you don’t sign up for and you can still be negatively impacted by. Given the whole range of things I’ve already talked about, you should have per-line and not per-call blocking, for free. (Per-line blocking would allow customers to prevent their numbers from ever being displayed, without having to dial a code before each call.)
Thorman: I’m not sure that I recommend any new regulation. We believe that per-call privacy adequately protects the privacy of all customers. The safety and accountability provisions for this product will be the same as they are with all of our products. We are regulated by the PUC, and they represent ratepayers. They determine if consumers rights are being protected adequately.
