paccnd0.html and index.html Preface and
Table of Contents - this file links to the others:
paccnd0.html
(This file.)
paccnd1.html
(Chapter 1.)
paccnd2.html
(Chapter 2.)
paccnd3.html
(Chapter 3.)
paccnd4.html
(Chapter 4.)
paccnda.html
(Attachments.)
paccndg.html
(Glossary.)
This is a copy of the AUSTEL PAC Calling
Number Display report, which was available on the AUSTEL web site until
the end of
June 1997. Since AUSTEL no longer exists, I am making it available at
http://www.firstpr.com.au/telco/cnd/
See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/1996/
for my Privacy Law and Policy Reporter article on this PAC report.
CALLING NUMBER DISPLAY
THIRD REPORT OF THE AUSTEL PRIVACY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ABOUT THE AUSTEL
PRIVACY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The AUSTEL Privacy Advisory Committee was established by AUSTEL at
the
request of the Minister for Communications and the Arts the Hon Michael
Lee
MP on 15 September 1994. The Committee is established under section 53
of
the Telecommunications Act 1991, and reports to AUSTEL in an
advisory
capacity. In the first instance the Minister requested the Committee
address
the issues of customer personal information, in particular that of
silent
line customers; telemarketing; and Calling Number Display.
The scope of telecommunications privacy issues is both broad and
complex
and this is reflected in the constitution of the Committee's membership
(Attachment
H) - comprising representatives from industry, government and consumer
and
user groups - and in its terms of reference (Attachment I).
CALLING NUMBER DISPLAY
THIRD REPORT OF THE AUSTEL PRIVACY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PREFACE
1. Background
On 15 September 1994 the Minister for Communications and the Arts,
the Hon. Michael Lee, requested that AUSTEL establish a Privacy
Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider telecommunications privacy issues
of particular concern. One of these issues was Calling Number Display
(CND). CND is a service which
delivers to subscribers or 'receivers' of CND the number, and sometimes
other
related information, of the calling party. It is acknowledged that CND
has
significant privacy implications.
The Committee's consideration of the privacy implications of CND was
extensive
and this is reflected in the Report. No specific proposals for the
introduction
of CND and associated privacy protection mechanisms were provided by
the
carriers. Thus the PAC proceeded on the basis of known experience with
CND
for up to six years in a range of European countries and North America.
The
PAC also considered the evidence of the Telstra trial in Wauchope
conducted
during 1994.
The Minister's reference of CND to the Committee included his
expectation that any widespread introduction of CND be accompanied by
appropriate industry guidelines to ensure that consumers are able to
exercise informed choice. The PAC's response to the Minister's request
is particularly addressed in
the three important attachments to its Report which set down the
privacy protection
requirements for the introduction of CND. These documents are:
- Principles and Requirements for the Introduction of Calling
Number Display
(CND) in Australia
- Calling Number Display (CND) Public Education Campaign Guidelines
- Guidelines for organisational users of Calling Number Display
(CND) services
Taken together these documents address such significant primary
privacy issues as the level of control CND senders have over the
automatic provision of their number to receivers, the provision of this
information on the basis
of informed choice and the uses to which CND information may be put by
receivers
of that information, particularly organisational and business receivers.
2. The PAC's Report
The privacy protection mechanisms identified in the PAC's Report
derive from its fundamental recommendation that, excepting existing
silent line customers,
CND may be offered in Australia on the basis of opt out. As noted in
the
Report the debate over opt out or opt in is at the heart of balancing
the
privacy interests of senders with the service interests of users of CLI.
The PAC Report acknowledges that opt in provides the premium level
of privacy
protection but that Australians should not unreasonably be denied
access
to the useful functions and enhancements provided by CND services
including
enabling organisational and residential consumers to better manage
their
incoming telephone traffic. The PAC's preference for opt out included
consideration
that:
- research shows high levels of support for the desirability and
usefulness of CND services (80%+) by consumers who have experience with
CND services, and its potential privacy disadvantages, whether they
subscribe to CND services
or not;
- the effective operation of the service requires a large number of
participants in order to reduce the number of unidentified calls to
subscribers. The service
would be unlikely to be able to operate at all with default withholding
of
CND, as it would be difficult to provide senders with sufficient
incentive to voluntarily participate;
- the international precedent is for CND to be provided on an opt
out basis; there appear to be no jurisdictions where this is not the
case.
The PAC is not the first body called to address such a fundamental
issue. David McKendry, Price Waterhouse, consultant to the Canadian
Privacy Commissioner sees CND as highlighting the balancing of
interests inherent in privacy issues.
Certainly it is a current example of a clash between privacy and
technology.
In his Annual Report 1990-1991 the then Privacy Commissioner of Canada
reflects
upon privacy as a value that is relative:
"But if absolute privacy in modern society is neither attainable,
practical
nor even particularly desirable, the struggle must continue to preserve
the
individual's right to decide the degree to which personal privacy is to
be
sacrificed on behalf of other competing rights and claims".
The special arrangements for existing silent line customers was
based largely
upon the consideration that those customers have already made a
positive
statement about avoiding disclosure of their phone number. As the PAC
report
notes, new silent line customers, and existing silent line customers
who
change their service arrangements, will be offered line blocking as a
service
option when ordering their new service. Thus the transitional
arrangements
made for existing silent line customers will, over time, become less
relevant
as silent line customers indicate their choice when ordering new
service
options. Telstra's strong opposition to these special arrangements was
on
the basis that:
- the automatic exclusion of all silent line customers represents a
loss of approximately 15% of potential CND senders. When this figure is
taken into
account with other non delivery of CND (international calls, old
exchanges, payphones and other consumers exercising blocking choices)
the loss of silent
line customers will jeopardise the viability of the product.
3. AUSTEL's Consideration
AUSTEL agrees with the consideration and recommendations of the
PAC's Report.
It particularly welcomes the high levels of privacy and consumer
protection
mechanisms recommended by its Committee in the context of an opt out
CND
environment.
AUSTEL endorses the views of the PAC about the special arrangements
for
existing silent line customers.
AUSTEL also makes mention of the importance of effective public
education campaigns as a key element in the promotion of consumer
awareness in making informed choices concerning the usage and privacy
implications of CND services on an opt out basis. Certainly the major
consumer education task currently lies with Telstra but AUSTEL
emphasises its expectation that all carriers will submit their public
education campaign plans to it prior to launch in
accordance with the Public Education Campaign Guidelines.
In its consideration of the Report AUSTEL also identifies some
related matters:
- AUSTEL notes the discussion of Malicious Call Trace. While not
offering any observations on Telstra's current arrangements for the
tracing of nuisance and harassing calls which are not in question,
AUSTEL notes that CND services may offer the option of an alternative
consumer initiated call trace. AUSTEL encourages carriers with fixed
network service infrastructure to consider offering their directly
connected customers an alternative call trace activation in conjunction
with their CND service offerings.
- The Report indicates that Telstra does not propose that public
payphones will send CLI to the called party. This was also the
arrangement adopted in
the Wauchope CND trial. AUSTEL understands this is preferred by Telstra
to
minimise fraud. AUSTEL notes that CLI provided by public payphones has
the
potential to assist business and service organisations to offer better
customer
service. An obvious example is the motorist calling for roadside
vehicle
assistance where the service bureau can utilise CND to automatically
locate
the caller on a map grid reference. The PAC did not identify any
privacy
concerns with public payphones sending CND information, and AUSTEL
notes
that, in some other countries, payphone CLI is sent. AUSTEL encourages
Telstra
to give further serious consideration to the matter of public payphones
sending
CLI.
Norm O'Doherty
General Manager
Consumer Affairs Branch
December 1995
C O N T E N T S
- GLOSSARY OF TERMS
- CHAPTER I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- 1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
- 1.1 Principles and requirements for the provision of Calling
Number Display
Services (CND) in Australia (Attachment A)
- 1.2 Calling Number Display (CND) Public Education Campaign
Guidelines (Attachment B)
- 1.3 Guidelines for the use of CND information (Attachment C)
- 2. Minister's reference to the AUSTEL Privacy Advisory
COMMITTEE
- 3. The AUSTEL Privacy Advisory Committee's (PAC) consideration
of the issues 8
- CHAPTER II
The consumer experience of CALLING NUMBER DISPLAY
- 1. Overview
- 2. The Telstra Wauchope CND trial
- 2.1 Trial structure and objectives
- 2.2 Satisfaction with CND services
- 2.3 Opt out
- 2.4 Public awareness
- 2.5 CLI blocking
- 2.5.1 Blocking behaviour
- 2.5.2 Knowledge and awareness of blocking options
- 2.5.3 Support for blocking options
- 2.5.4 Silent line customers
- 2.6 Business usage of CND information
- 2.6.1 Business awareness of privacy protections for the
usage of CND information
- 2.6.2 General participant attitudes to business usage of
CND information
- 3. Consumer attitudes to CND after service introduction
- 3.1 Surveying boundaries - Report by the Canadian Public
Interest Advocacy Centre and Fédération nationale des
associations de consommateurs du Québec (September 1995)
(Attachment E)
- 3.1.1 Methodology and objectives
- 3.1.2 Key findings
- 3.1.3 Conclusions
- 3.2 The Manitoba Telephone Systems Study
- 3.2.1 Objectives
- 3.2.2 Methodology and profile of participants
- 3.2.3 Usage of Call Management Services
- 3.2.4 Likes and dislikes of Call Management Services
- 3.2.4.1 Call Display
- 3.2.4.2 Call Display blocking
- 3.2.5 Awareness of Call Display and Call Display blocking
and the implications of using these services
- 3.2.6 Consumer concerns regarding Call Display
- 4. The consumer benefits of CND
- 4.1 Penetration rates of CND services
- 4.2 Business consumer benefits
- 4.3 Residential consumer benefits
- 4.4 Nuisance and harassing calls
- 4.5 CND, Malicious Call Trace and answering machines
- CHAPTER III
The privacy implications of CND and international regulatory
models
- 1. The privacy implications of CND
- 1.1 Called party privacy (CND receivers)
- 1.2 Calling party privacy (CND senders)
- 1.3 Silent line customers
- 1.4 Opt out versus opt in
- 1.5 Informed choice and public awareness
- 1.6 CND and personal information privacy
- 1.7 CND and convergence technology
- 2. Balancing the INTERESTS of senders and receivers
- 2.1 The privacy interests of senders
- 2.2 The interests of receivers
- 2.3 The significance of sender participation
- 2.4 Senders versus receivers?
- 3. INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY MODELS
- 3.1 Overview
- 3.2 Opt out
- 3.3 Public education
- 3.4 Blocking
- 3.5 Silent line customers
- 3.6 Privacy protection for CND information
- CHAPTER IV
Principles for the introduction of CND SERVICES - discussion
- 1. The default sending of CND - Opt out or opt in
- 1.1 The provision of new services
- 1.2 Opt in and senders
- 1.3 Consumer expectations
- 1.3.1 Utility of CND
- 1.3.2 Privacy protections for CLI senders
- 1.3.3 The number of identifiable calls sent to CND services
- 1.4 Opt in and receivers
- 1.5 Opt out and the protection of sender privacy
- 2. Blocking
- 2.1 Blocking and informed choice
- 2.2 Blocking and charging
- 2.3 Line blocking
- 2.4 Per call sending
- 3. Informed choice and public awareness - CND PUBLIC EDUCATION
Campaigns
- 3.1 Informed choice
- 3.2 Public awareness
- 3.3 Industry obligations
- 3.4 Campaign structure
- 3.5 Special communications needs
- 3.6 Campaign information
- 3.7 Awareness levels
- 3.8 Consumer complaints
- 3.9 Reporting and monitoring
- 4. Silent line customers
- 4.1 Silent line customer information
- 4.2 Silent line customer privacy
- 4.3 Informed choice
- 4.4 Existing silent line customer transitional arrangements
- 4.5 New silent line customers
- 4.6 Public awareness
- 5. Privacy protection for CND information
- 5.1 Existing customer privacy protections
- 5.2 Options for privacy protection standards
- 5.3 Guidelines for the use of CND information collected during
the Wauchope
trial
- 5.4 Enforcement of privacy protection standards
- 5.5 Guidelines for organisational users of CND information
- 6. OTHER CND ISSUES
- 6.1 Interconnectivity
- 6.2 Blocking codes
- 6.3 Malicious Call Trace
- 6.4 Customer equipment
- 6.5 Payphones as senders of CLI
- 6.6 Consumer complaints
A T T A C H M E N T S
- ATTACHMENT A
Principles and requirements for the provision of Calling Number
Display (CND) services in Australia
- ATTACHMENT B
Calling Number Display (CND) Public Education Campaign
Guidelines
- ATTACHMENT C
Guidelines for organisational users of CND
- ATTACHMENT D
What is Calling Number Display?
- ATTACHMENT E
Extract from Surveying boundaries - Canadians and their
personal information (September 1995)
- ATTACHMENT F
The regulation of CND in overseas jurisdictions
- ATTACHMENT G
- Telstra dissenting view - silent line customer transitional
arrangements
- Consumer representative comment
- ATTACHMENT H
AUSTEL Privacy Advisory Committee Membership
- ATTACHMENT I
AUSTEL Privacy Advisory Committee Terms of Reference