Interesting People mailing list archives
How we got it wrong on Calling-Number ID [RISKS] Risks Digest 24.05
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 10:58:19 -0400
Something I havebeen saying for years finally gets recognized djf Begin forwarded message: Date: 25 Sep 2005 23:37:03 -0700 From: Geoff Kuenning <geoff () cs hmc edu> Subject: Mea culpa: How we got it wrong on Calling-Number IDBack in the early 90's, U.S. phone companies began rolling out the service known as "Caller ID" (really Calling Number ID, or CNID). Early adopters were very pleased with the feature; it helped them to avoid telemarketers
and occasionally to dodge inconvenient friends. Then a few privacy advocates noticed that there was a dark side: if you called a local business, it could capture your number with CNID and add you to a telemarketing list. Suddenly CNID changed from a beneficial service to a nefarious plot. An anti-CNID campaign ensued, culminating in California's decision torequire telephone companies to offer free CNID blocking as a condition of rolling out the service. At the same time, privacy advocates (including me
and many other RISKS subscribers) publicized the downsides of CNID:unintentionally revealing your (possibly unlisted) phone number, confusing the concept of calling number with the identity of the calling person, etc. The campaign was successful: when CNID was rolled out, something like 50% of
Californians chose to block their number by default. Fast forward approximately a decade. I recently switched local phone providers (finally freeing myself from the clutches of Verizon, neƩ GTE, after a 25-year quest) and got rid of my CNID blocking in the process.Rather than advocating against CNID, I've now changed my tune and am trying
to convince my blocked friends to unblock. What happened? The answer is simply that I was wrong about the evils ofCNID, and wrong about the (perceived lack of) benefits. That error arose primarily from an inability to correctly predict the future. In particular,
the following forces have reduced the evils and increased the benefits: 1. The predicted data collection by small businesses never happened. Itwasn't worth the effort. Businesses didn't get much benefit from knowing that somebody at 555-1234 had called to inquire about mattress prices; their telemarketing money was better spent on buying phone lists that
included names and demographic data. 2. Larger businesses had 800 numbers that included Automatic NumberIdentification (ANI), which wasn't bothered by caller ID blocking anyway, so the people with lots of funds were never stopped from telemarketing.
3. The unforeseen Federal Do-Not-Call List has become an effective defense against telemarketing, so revealing your telephone number isn't much of a
problem anyway. 4. The rise of cellphones means that we are starting to see a true one-to-one association between phone numbers and people, so CNID is becoming the caller ID it was once billed as being.5. Most cellphone plans include CNID as part of the package, and some local plans are also offering it as a no-cost option, increasing the number of
people who depend on CNID working.6. A new generation of CNID signaling allows short text information to be
transmitted along with the calling number, so that the recipient can identify the caller even if they have never seen the number before.In addition, in 20-20 hindsight many of our criticisms seem overstated. For
example, we argued that since CNID doesn't identify the individual, younever really knew who was calling. That's true enough, but do my family and
friends care whether it is I or my wife calling to arrange a visit? Weargued that a stranded teenager calling from a pay phone might have his call
rejected, but would a parent with a teen out on a date really turn down calls from an unknown number? I think the lesson here is that we need to remember to be humble, and toavoid crying wolf about the RISKS we perceive. Overall, CNID's benefits far outweigh its drawbacks, and we have done society a disservice by encouraging people to block it. We were right to point out the potential weaknesses and incorrect marketing claims, but we erred in encouraging so many people to unnecessarily block their phone numbers, inconveniencing their friends and
family while gaining almost no real benefit. Geoff Kuenning geoff () cs hmc edu http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~geoff/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- How we got it wrong on Calling-Number ID [RISKS] Risks Digest 24.05 David Farber (Oct 02)