Caller-ID, privacy and social processes James E. Katz This article analyses Caller-ID, a form of calling number Identification (CNI), which is similar to automatic number identification (ANI), In light of Its priva- cy and social equity Impact, and pre- sents research findings that tend to support the precedence of callees' rights to know who Is using their time and equipment over callers' rights to anonymity. The author examines the argument that Caller-ID will take away privacy rights and disproportion- ately help the wealthy, big businesses and the 'information rich' and con- cludes that Caller-ID accomplishes the opposite because It will have the greatest value to some of the most vulnerable members of society. He re- commends certain safeguards In Imple- mentation and a method to resolve the Issue of blocking. James E. Katz is with the Interpersonal Communications Research Group, Belt- core, 445 South Street, Morristown, NJ 07962-1910, USA (Tel: 201-829 4556; Fax: 201-829 7019). The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily repre- sent the views of Bellcore. He would like to thank Jerry Abercrombie, John Carey, Wil- liam Dutton, Oscar H. Gandy, Jr, Stuart Feldman, Rich Graveman, Irving Louis Horowitz, Robed Kraut, Michael Mahoney. Gary T. Marx, Robert K. Merton, Keenan Peck, Marc Rotenberg, James Rule and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. None of them bears any re- sponsibility for the article's content. Calling number identification (CNI) and automatic number identifica- tion (ANI) can reveal to telephone call receiving parties the number fronl which the call originated. ANI was designed for and used by hmg-distancc telephone carriers for billing purposes, ltowevcr, tclc- marketers and other large customers saw value in having ANI for their incoming calls. Therefore, bcgimfing in 1988, long-distance telephone carriers have sold ANI to their customers (a service which in AT&T's case is km~wn as Info-2). Usually, callers have no idea that their numbers are being so delivered. But at the same time, for most ANI customers, the calling number is not actually displayed to them: instead it is routed to a network computer facility, where it is only used in tabulating charges. Other companies subscribe to ANI with real-time number display, but the cost of the accompanying hardware and software is prohibitive to many users. It is plausible to assume, however, that costs will go down as the technology evolves, making calling number display a possibility for more and more companies. The use and misuse of ANI has raised ethical and legal questions concerning caller privacy and personal data collection, merging and marketing. CNI, on the other hand, was designed specifically for low-volume use by residential and small-business users to sec the calling number, and has recently been offered under tariff in some states. This service, usually referred to as Callcr-ID, is likely to alter aspects of telcphony's social role and traditional patterns of telephone use, a prospect that is raising concerns about its impact. While the distinction between ANI and Callcr-lD is important to bear in mind in light of contemporary practices and policy debates, the ovcrarching argument of this article is directed at a higher level: who should know the caller's number, what for, and what are the consequ- ences of this knowledge. As the technologies for generating, transmit- ting and delivering ANI and Callcr-lD mature, it is possible that they will blend and change in terms of both the amount of data that will be delivered and the ease of access to it. Yet at this point, a few years into its customer availability, the technology for number delivery is still nascent. 372 0308-5961/90/050372-40 ~) 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd