Death-blow to privacy on the telephone
01 January 1995
A new service recently introduced by British Telecom has been hailed as a boon for customers. This feature examines overseas evidence to the contrary.
On 21 November 1994 British Telecom (BT) introduced a new service which will have the effect of restricting anonymity on the telephone network. "Caller Display" automatically transmits the number of a calling party to the person being called. The caller's telephone number can then displayed on a liquid crystal screen when the phone starts ringing.
BT says the service will be welcomed by anyone wanting to "screen" their calls. The Caller Display device will allow people to decide whether or not to answer an incoming call, solely on the basis of the number that appears on the Caller Display screen. It is, says BT, the telecommunications equivalent of having a peep hole in your front door.
BT also argues that this facility will virtually eliminate harassing, hoax and obscene calls. If malicious callers know that their number will be displayed at the other end - and the police can then trace the address from the number - they will be less likely to call.
In Canada and the US this facility is known as "Caller ID". Its introduction has become the most contentious privacy issue of the past decade. Far from being a simple screening device, Caller ID is widely seen as a technology which poses fundamental questions about the use of personal information on advanced telephone networks. At the core of the debate is a simple question: "should it be the telephone customer or the telephone company who has the right to control the disclosure of personal telephone numbers?"
Freedom from harassment?
Proponents of the service say that Caller Display will reduce harassing phone calls and suggest that restrictions on the service will diminish their value. Critics of the service say that Caller Display may give out information that needs to be protected, for example, from doctors, lawyers, complainants.
Using the Caller Display facility, the origin of calls to police, tax authorities and government agencies can be routinely monitored. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind the range of other technologies that can be used in conjunction with Caller Display. Reverse directories - CD-ROM disks that give a name and address from a telephone number - will soon be commercially available in the UK. This means a person or organisation receiving a call knows not only the incoming telephone number, but also the address connected with that number and the name of the subscriber. The possibilities go even further. A whole range of information is legally available which can instantly provide a profile of the caller on the basis of a telephone number. With Caller Display, a caller is likely to communicate much more than a mere telephone number.
The response of Oftel, the telecommunications regulatory authority in the UK, has been to insist that callers have a right to block the sending of their number by using the prefix "141". This blocking option, however, will be notified on the call display device with the words: "number blocked". This raises the question of whether the option to protect one's privacy will result in calls not being answered.
The argument that Caller Display will eliminate abusive callers appears to be somewhat deceptive and inaccurate. Obscene and threatening callers only need to either use their blocking facilities or use a public telephone. Police in the US have often merely advised the victim to subscribe to Caller ID.
Commercial interests
The greatest use of the facility is likely to be made by commercial organisations, law enforcement agencies, government departments and direct marketing companies.
Among the problems that have occurred in the US are: 1) people making what they think is an anonymous call to government departments find themselves the subject of an official visit some weeks later; 2) Anonymous inquiries to<