find is that some people may decide to program their phone so they don't even receive calls from people who block. That is possible to do. Or you might find that people who receive calls from blocked numbers might send those calls to an answering machine so that they don't have to speak directly to the person. Or they may just decide not to answer the phone. But blocking will actually give people a fuller range of choices. The ACLU is not alone in this position. For instance, the White House Office of Consumer Affairs supports blocking as a policy matter, as does the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and a number of law enforcement officials. On the law enforcement point that was raised here earlier, law enforcement in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, have taken the position that Caller ID without blocking poses life-threatening consequences. People will be reluctant to call in as informers, undercover officers lives will be jeopardized if they are not able to block the display of their number. Domestic abuse centers around the country adamantly oppose Caller ID without blocking. Because even if they get a second line, as Mr. Cullen suggests, in the domestic violence center, what if a woman has left her home and gone to stay with a friend or a relative? What if that person doesn t have this second line in his or her home? What if you can't always anticipate way in advance that you may want to block the display of your number from time to time, so you don't have that second number. Those are serious considerations that I think will have life-threatening consequences. When you balance the privacy interests, a simple blocking device would be very important in this area. It is important to point out at this stage that Caller ID is really only the tip of the iceberg. It raises an important privacy issue in the development of telecommunications policy. It points out there are new technologies that are being developed by the telephone company, that new telecommunications issues are arising under ECPA. Not only Caller ID, but the entire use of personal information over the telecommunications network is a big and emerging issue. Caller ID crystallizes the larger issues for the American public. People understand the issue because they use the telephone. It has a very direct impact on them. But I would hope that this committee would continue to look at the larger issues as well, and we would hope to work closely with you on that. Again, we do support passage of the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990. We think, as you said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the patchwork of laws is very damaging. The issue of leaving it up to the States is in someways rather old fashioned. The telecommunications network, the telephone network, is a national system. Most people make calls long distance across State lines. The technology is emerging to the point where leaving it up to the States does not make any sense. We need uniform, national policy in the area of telecommunications, very similar to what we did with ECPA, and that is why your bill appropriately amends that Federal law. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have of me. Mr. Kastenmeier. Thank you, Ms. Goldman. [The prepared statement of Ms. Goldman follows:] Prepared Statement Of Janlori Goldman, Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union WASHINGTON OFFICE SUMMARY OF STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION The ACLU believes that Caller ID, if offered unrestricted, raises significant constitutional privacy issues and may be illegal under the current federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). We support the legislation introduced by Chairman Kastenmeier (D-wi), and co sponsored by Representatives Synar (D-OK) and Edwards (D-CA), that amends the federal law to authorize Caller ID only where callers are provided the capability to block the display of their numbers on the receiving end. If passed, H.R. 4340 will strike a fair balance between the competing privacy interests of makers and receivers of phone calls, providing both parties to a phone call the abilitv to receive and control information. In fact, blocking provides people with an additional piece of information that will act as a safeguard to abusive and harassing phone calls. Federal legislation is needed to resolve ambiguities in the scope of ECPA and to establish uniform, national privacy policy in this area. In the absence of federal legislation, phone companies around the country will continue to market Caller ID in a variety of conflicting ways that will only create inconsistency and chaos in the development of public policy in the area of privacy and telecommunications. Currently, Pacific Telesis, U.S. West, Southwestern Bell, NYNEX and Centel plan to offer Caller ID with blocking. Bell Atlantic, Bell South and Ameritech do not plan to offer the blocking option. In addition to the ACLU, organizations that advocate authorizing Caller ID with blocking include: the National Association of Regulatorv Utility Commissioners, the National Association of State Utilitv Consumer Advocates. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibilitv, and the Direct Marketing Association. In addition, many law enforcement officials. domestic violence coalitions, doctors, social workers, and others oppose unrestricted caller ID as a threat to their physical safety. The limits of current law provide a safeguard for people against policy-making by the private sector that disregards individual privacy. It is in this Congressional forum that the policy implications of new technologies such as Caller ID can be considered and balanced to give both parties to a phone call privacy protection. The ACLU strongly supports H.R. 4340 to authorize Caller ID with blocking. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in support of H.R. 4340, the Telephone Privacy Act of 1990, and on the legal and policy issues surrounding Caller ID. The ACLU is a private, non-profit organization of over 275,000 members dedicated to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties. The ACLU believes that Caller ID, if offered unrestricted, raises significant constitutional privacy issues and may be illegal under the current federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). We support the legislation introduced by Chairman Kastenmeier (D-WI), and co sponsored by Representatives Synar (D-OK) and Edwards (D-CA), that amends the federal law to authorize Caller ID only where callers are provided the capability to block the display of their numbers on the receiving end.1 On introducing the bill, Chairman Kastenmeier noted that "the Congress must consider the importance of a uniform communications policy, the significant privacy concerns [posed by Caller ID], and the implications of a change in the status quo Similar legislation has been introduced by Senator Herb Kohl (D-wi), S. 2030, to bring Caller ID within the purview of federal law. As Senator Kohl stated in introducing S. 2030: "At bottom, we are talking about choice, who decides whether the caller will reveal hie or her number? I think the decision must rest with the caller." A hearing on S. 2030 was held by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology and the Law on August 1, 1990. such as ANI would cause." If passed, H.R. 4340 will strike a fair balance between the competing privacy interests of makers and receivers of phone calls, providing both parties to a phone call the ability to receive and control information. I. INTRODUCTION New telephone technologies promise to enhance privacy and give individuals greater control over their lives, but also threaten to undermine these very same rights. One such device is Caller ID, or Automatic Number Identification (ANI), which displays the telephone number of an incoming call as the phone is ringing. The introduction of Caller ID has sparked an emotional and divisive debate that affects everyone who uses the telephone. Federal legislation is needed to resolve ambiguities in the scope of ECPA and to establish uniform, national privacy policy in this area. In the absence of federal legislation, phone companies around the country will continue to market Caller ID in a variety of conflicting ways that will only create inconsistency and chaos in the development of public policy in the area of privacy and telecommunications.2 West, NYNEX and Centel plan to offer Caller ID with blocking. Pacific Telesis also plans to offer Caller ID with blocking, as required by a state law passed last year. Bell Atlantic plans to continue offering Caller ID without blocking. Bell South and Ameritech also plan to offer Caller ID without blocking. In the current environment, what will happen when a California caller blocks his or her number to a recipient in New Jersey, where blocking is not available? Will the block be honored? Further, what are the implications when, as in Pennsylvania, Caller ID is outlawed under certain state laws. II. PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO CONTROL PERSONAL INFORMATION New communication technologies are changing the ways we deal with each other. Few social and commercial relationships remain unaffected by the introduction of new technologies such as cellular and cordless phones, electronic mail, bulletin boards, and pagers. Traditional barriers of distance, time, and location are disappearing as our society comes to take these advanced forms of communication for granted. As new technologies become available, a tension is often created between existing societal values and expectations, and the commercial opportunities posed by these advances. However, peoples' expectations of privacy should not be measured against what is technically possible. New technologies pose new risks to traditional civil liberties. Today's hearing provides us with the opportunity to examine a technological advance in light of widely shared expectations of privacy to avoid the erosion of essential liberties. People care deeply about their privacy, and cherish the ability to control personal information. Even if they have done nothing wrong, or have nothing to hide, most people are offended if they are denied the ability to keep certain personal information confidential. Crucial to one's sense of self is the right to maintain some decision-making power over what information to divulge, to whom, and for what purpose. The uses of new technologies are always threatening to overtake current law, leaving society without a new set of laws and social mores |