Caller ID--Nuisance or Convenience

On June 1, California could become the last state in the nation to allow Caller ID, making it possible for those being called to see the originating phone number.

Critics say the feature helps telemarketers build a database of numbers. Supporters say it gives customers more flexibility in answering calls while still allowing numbers to be blocked.

The Federal Communications Commission approved Caller ID with the stipulation that all numbers would be identified unless callers specifically chose to block the numbers. That overruled the California Public Utilities Commission, which wanted to block all unlisted numbers.

Local phone companies have until June 1 to educate at least 70% of the California public about their options in blocking their numbers from Caller ID. In the meantime, the CPUC has appealed the matter of protecting unlisted numbers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Is Caller ID an invasion of privacy or a useful technology?

Betty Fisher, executive director of Havens Hills, a shelter for domestic violence victims:

“We’re very, very concerned because we do see it as an invasion of privacy. It’s just another thing that will make it difficult for a woman trying to get away from an abusive relationship to do so. I’m also concerned about our own phones. This could be just another way to find the shelter.”

My concern is if there is a way to block the number, is there something going to be sold to someone else to unblock the block?”

Carrie Hyun, spokeswoman for GTE:

“GTE offers Caller ID in 24 other states. Our perspective is that our customers like the service. Ultimately callers have the opportunity to block the calls. The question is in understanding how the system works. . . . Caller ID allows people to proactively manage their calls, and allows you to decide whether you want to answer the call.”

Mark Fogelman, attorney representing the California Public Utilities Commission in appealing the FCC decision on Caller ID to the U.S. Supreme Court:

“California is the most privacy-conscious state in the Union. Approximately 50% of our citizens pay the telephone companies each month for nonpublished or unlisted telephone service. . . . The FCC, however, overrode the PUC special protection for nonpublished subscribers who pay the phone company every month. . . . Many nonpublished telephone subscribers, even with the very vigorous education programs which the PUC is requiring of California telephone companies, will not learn that their numbers are going to be going out and how to block transmission.”

Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumer Action Network:

“We know it’s an invasion of privacy. The question is if the loss of privacy is offset by the benefit of the values it brings. There is no doubt it makes it more difficult for the individual to control personal information . . . [and] the benefit it brings is primarily to the companies selling information to the telemarketers.”

David Dickstein, spokesman for Pacific Bell:

“I call it an electronic peephole. Before you answer the door, many people would want to see who it is, and many people would want to answer the phone with that sense of security. . . . It’s so valuable that Pacific Bell forecasts that Caller ID will be the second most popular calling feature (8%), second only to Call Waiting.”