Australian Privacy Foundation

Submission to the AUSTEL Inquiry into Telecommunications Privacy

Dated 27 February 1992

This document is at http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/SubmnAustel9202.html

Summary

• Australian Telecommunications services should be subject to Information Privacy Principles, and should thus remain within the ambit of the Privacy Act;
• The Privacy Foundation believes AUSTEL should develop a series of comprehensive guidelines for the adoption of new telecommunications products and services to ensure that the existing level of privacy is at least maintained;
• The Australian Privacy Foundation believes firmly that privacy concerns should be viewed in terms of cost, but in terms of a natural expectation of the marketplace.

Caller ID

• There exists no demonstrated public interest in favour of the general offer of Caller ID. The predominant benefit of the service flows to business and telemarketing services.
• The introduction of Caller ID represents an important reversal of control of the telephone number, from the customer to the telephone company;
• In the areas where Caller ID is said to offer benefits (such as for the reduction of obscene phone calls), alternative and less intrusive options are available.
• The introduction of Caller ID would create a position where consumers would suffer a loss to their tradition telecommunications privacy.
• The Australian Privacy Foundation believes that Caller ID should be permitted for emergency services through the 000 number only.

In the event that Caller ID is permitted in Australia :

• All silent number customers should automatically have line blocking facilities;
• General blocking should be per line and not per call;
• The facility should be based entirely on an "opt in" model;
• There should be no penalty attached to blocking of caller ID or for failure to opt in to the system;
• Costs of Caller ID provision should be borne by Caller ID subscribers, and not be cross-subsidised;

Other ISDN and CLI services

• Call trace should be provided on a per call basis in place of Caller ID facilities;
• Consumers should have an option to have the final four numbers masked on their telephone bill

Telemarketing

• AUSTEL should develop strict guidelines for the conduct of telemarketers. All pre-emptive machines should be designed to cease transmission upon the called party replacing the receiver.

OVERVIEW OF THE FOUNDATION'S POSITION

1. The Australian Privacy Foundation is deeply concerned that the telecommunications sector may lose its existing level of privacy protection in the new environment. We believe it is simply not acceptable in a developed society that policy changes result in losses to hard won privacy protections. The establishment of voluntary principles for the conduct of carriers is not a supportable approach to an industry which has the potential to form the basis of widespread privacy invasion.
2. The development of ISDN brings with it enormous advantages to telecommunications services, but also significant dangers to the violation of privacy. Caller ID appears to have limited advantage to the individual, and there is no doubt that it has the potential to create a new and far more widespread incidence of harassing and threatening calls. Direct marketers will use the proposed service exclusively for the development of marketing lists, and we believe this directly breaches the commonly held privacy principles.
3. There is limited evidence that Caller ID succeeds in reducing the incidence of harassing calls to a point where the public interest is balanced. The service will not succeed if it displays only a number. A far greater advantage would be found if the service delivered a code name. It certainly is the case that caller ID can achieve a no more effective deterrent than Call trace.
4. The development of a fusion between direct marketing and CLI poses one of the greatest ever threats to the privacy of Australians. AUSTEL, in our view, must exercise broad spectrum control over the activities of direct marketers, to the point where strict guidelines are developed for the use of technology through the lines. Abuses of these guidelines should be subject to penalty. AUSTEL should scrutinise this relationship on an ongoing basis, and assess whether the impact of direct marketing techniques is reducing the quality of life of consumers. The nature, content and duration of campaigns will require guidelines, as will the technical specifications of automatic calling machinery.
5. Whilst the Australian Privacy Foundation agrees that privacy has competing interests, we disagree with the inference in AUSTEL's discussion paper that privacy has certain costs that must be borne by one sector or another. The implication is that these costs are in some way artificial. Privacy protection should be viewed as a necessary component in the management of a telecommunications system, and part of the general philosophy of quality development.

Navigation

Go to the APF Home Page.

Send an email to APF

Created: 7 February 2003

Last Amended: 7 February 2003

Sponsorship

APF thanks its site-sponsor: