Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:49:09 EDT
From: Dave Banisar <
[email protected]>
Subject: File 6--Penn. Supreme Ct. Bars Call
Penn. Supreme Ct. Bars Caller Id
From: March 23, 1992 Comm. Daily
PA. SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT UNBLOCKED CALLER ID
Pa. state Supreme Court last week upheld lower court rulings that
unblocked Caller ID ser vice would violate state wiretap laws, but
left open significant question whether any form of blocking would
satisfy legal requirements. March 18 decision by Judge Nicholas
Papadakos for 7-member court said service violated state law "because
it is being used for unlimited purposes without the 'consent' of each
of the users of the telephone service." PUC had approved service in
1989 without blocking, and was challenged in court by then-Consumer
Advocate David Barasch. Bell of Pa. had argued that Caller ID was
legal trap-and-trace device operated by telephone company, but Barasch
and others had said that 2 traps were being used -- one by telephone
company, which may be exempt from law, and one by customer's Caller
ID device. Court ruled state wiretapping law requires that "consent
to any form of interception must be obtained from all parties."
Ruling didn't reach questions whether Caller ID was constitutional,
or what forms of blocking would suffice to meet state requirements. In
oral argument, telephone company changed its policy and said it would
offer per-call blocking. Bell of Pa. spokesman Saul Kohler said that
ruling "clears the way for Caller ID to be offered" with per-call
blocking, and that company was pleased service wasn't found to be
unconstitutional. There's no timetable for proposing service, he said.
But Irwin Popowski, who succeeded Barasch as Consumer Advocate, said
it's open question whether per-call blocking is adequate. Popowski
wouldn't say what blocking standard his office would support, but
noted that trend of regulatory decisions around country lately has
been to include per-line blocking in mix of services. There's "real
question" whether per-line blocking should be offered, he said.
PUC Vice Chmn. Joseph Rhodes, who wrote 1978 privacy law while in
legislature, said it's possible that any new Bell proposal could lead
to another 3 years of litigation. He called decision "triumph for
privacy," and said Bell statement claiming victory was "an absurd
attempt to distort what the Supreme Court decided." Rhodes called on
Bell to confer with Caller ID opponents to try to find solution, and
for company to put more emphasis on Call Trace.
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
