Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1992 15:49:09 EDT From: Dave Banisar 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