telephone privacy

[Tom Trail <ttrail@moscow.com>]

Visionaires:

The right to privacy is greatly valued in our democratic system.   I
recently talked with
the Idaho Attorney General's office about this issue and the AG plans on
introducing
an Anti-Soliciting Phone Bill this next legislative session plus other
legislation to protect
the right to privacy.  We have some protection through the Federal
Communications Act.
I thought you'd be interested in comments made by Sen. Edwards (D-NC)
regarding the
Telephone Call Privacy Act of 1999.

Rep. Tom Trail

>>> S. 1850. A bill to amend section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934
>>> to modify the requirements relating to the use and disclosure of
>>> customer proprietary network information, and for other purposes; to
>>> the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
>>> TELEPHONE CALL PRIVACY ACT OF 1999
>>> Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about privacy and about how
>>> we can regain some control over our personal information. Privacy is
>>> an increasing concern for all Americans. And the public rightly
>>> believes that their control over some of their most personal
>>> information is being slowly but surely eroded.
>>> Today I introduce legislation that would help end that erosion. The
>>> `Telephone Call Privacy Act of 1999,' would prevent telecommunications
>>> companies from using an individual's personal phone call records
>>> without their consent, in order to sell that individual products or
>>> services.
>>>
>>> Most Americans would be stunned to learn that the law does not protect
>>> them from having their phone records sold to third parties. Imagine
>>> getting a call one night--during dinner--and having a telemarketer try
>>> to sell you membership in a travel club because your phone calling
>>> patterns show frequent calls overseas. My legislation would prevent
>>> this from occurring without the individual's permission.
>>>
>>> Mr. President, no one denies that the rapid development of modern
>>> technology has been beneficial. New and improved technologies have
>>> enabled us to obtain information more quickly and easily than ever
>>> before. Students can participate in classes that are being taught in
>>> other states, or even other countries. Current events can be broadcast
>>> around the world as they happen. And companies have streamlined their
>>> processes for providing goods and services.
>>> But these remarkable developments can have a startling downside. They
>>> have made it easier to track personal information such as medical and
>>> financial records, and buying habits. And in turn, our ability to keep
>>> our personal information private is being eroded. I have to say there
>>> are times when it feels like companies know more about me than I know
>>> myself.
>>> The list of ways our privacy is being eroded is growing longer and
>>> longer. And sadly telephone call privacy got added to the list this
>>> August when the 10th Circuit struck down FCC regulations aimed at
>>> protecting privacy and implementing congressional intent.
>>>
>>> The decision was the result of a suit filed by U.S. West against the
>>> FCC arguing that its regulations restrict the ability of carriers to
>>> engage in commercial speech with customers. In August, the Tenth
>>> Circuit issued its decision in the case and agreed with U.S. West. The
>>> court stated that `privacy is not an absolute good because it imposes
>>> real costs on society.'
>>> I believe the court was terribly wrong. Individuals have a reasonable
>>> expectation that their calling habits are not being shared with third
>>> parties without their knowledge or permission. And when I weigh the
>>> right of people to control who has access to their personal
>>> information against the ability of companies to use only one of many
>>> marketing methods, there is no question that the right of people to
>>> privacy is overriding. Surely people have a right to control some of
>>> their most private information. And surely they have the right to
>>> prevent harassing and unwanted solicitations. I for one cannot believe
>>> that expanding the variety of marketing techniques at a company's
>>> disposal is more important than a person's privacy right.
>>>
>>> Mr. President, let me describe how my legislation would address the
>>> problem. Current law defines information about who we call, how often,
>>> and how long we talk to them as `customer proprietary network
>>> information,' or `CPNI.' It is possible for telephone companies to
>>> track an individual's CPNI and use it to market various products and
>>> services to that person.
>>> My legislation requires that consumers be notified about potential
>>> disclosures of their private calling information and allows them to
>>> have some measure of control over how their information can be used.
>>> Specifically, my bill would do two things.
>>> First, if a telecommunications carrier wishes to use CPNI in order to
>>> market its own products or services to them, it must provide each
>>> customer with a clear and conspicuous notice stating the type of
>>> calling information that may be used and the purpose for which it will
>>> be used. The customer may contact the carrier to deny permission to
>>> use their information within 15 days of the notice. If the customer
>>> does not contact the carrier in that time, the carrier can use the
>>> customer's CPNI to market its products and services to that customer.
>>> In other words, customers are provided with a limited opportunity to
>>> `opt-out' of the sharing of their information under these
>>> circumstances.
>>>
>>> The second part of my bill addresses situations where a carrier wishes
>>> to share a customer's CPNI with a third party, such as a telemarketer.
>>> In these situations, in addition to providing the customer with
>>> notice, the carrier must also receive prior written approval from the
>>> customer. My bill clearly spells out that customers must affirmatively
>>> `opt-in' before a carrier can sell calling information to any third
>>> party.
>>>
>>> The `Telephone Call Privacy Act' also allows for some reasonable and
>>> common sense exceptions. If a telecommunications carrier uses a
>>> customer's CPNI to provide the customer with the very services the
>>> carrier used to obtain the calling information, or if law enforcement
>>> or the courts require CPNI for certain reasons, the carrier does not
>>> need to provide the customer with notice and the opportunity to
>>> opt-out or opt-in.
>>>
>>> Mr. President, consumers are very worried about how their personal
>>> information is being used. In 1994, a Harris Survey assessed
>>> Americans' views about privacy. It found that eighty-two percent of
>>> people surveyed are concerned about threats to their personal privacy.
>>> And more specifically, more than half the people surveyed also stated
>>> they would be concerned if an interactive service engaged in
>>> `subscriber profiling' or using an individual's purchasing patterns to
>>> determine what types of goods and services to market to them. The
>>> survey also showed that people are less concerned about subscriber
>>> profiling if they are provided with notice that a profile would be
>>> created and how it would be used, and also if they are given access to
>>> the information in the profile.
>>>
>>> Something must be done to empower consumers to prevent their private
>>> calling information from being used without their consent. The
>>> Telephone Call Privacy Act is an important step towards this goal. I
>>> believe the principles set forth in my legislation are a reasonable
>>> way to protect privacy and do not unduly burden the ability of
>>> businesses to market their products and services.
>>>
>>> As Justice Brandeis said in his famous dissent in Olmstead v. U.S.,
>>> `the right to be let alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights and
>>> the right most valued by civilized men.' The government must not only
>>> refrain from violating this right, but it must also ensure its
>>> preservation. I believe the Telephone Call Privacy Act is a sensible
>>> means to achieving this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
>>> printed in the Record.
>>> There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
>>> Record, as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Dr. Tom Trail
International Trails
1375 Mt. View Rd.
Moscow, Id. 83843
Tel:  (208) 882-6077
Fax:  (208) 882-0896
e mail ttrail@moscow.com