Don't Call Me, I'll Call You

A cell phone directory is in the works, along with legislation to keep it private. Is this a good thing?

Anush Yegyazarian, PC World

Got a question or comment? Write to Anush Yegyazarian.

Not too long ago, I was trying to meet up with friends at an outdoor concert in the park. We had chosen a really good, well-marked meeting place--which dozens of other people and their closest friends were also using to rendezvous because it was a good, well-marked place. Wanting to avoid another 20 minutes of wandering through crowds of people taller than me, I whipped out my handy cell phone. Problem solved, right? Wrong. My friend didn't have her phone with her because she was with her significant other, who brought his. And I don't have his number programmed in my cell.

About 25 minutes later, I finally found them the old fashioned way--we bumped into each other. But it would have been really nice to be able to call 411, get his number, and save the time and hassle.

Six of the major wireless carriers (Alltel, Cingular, AT&T Wireless, Nextel, Sprint, and T-Mobile) have collaborated on a plan for a cell phone directory set to go live in 2005. It's an opt-in plan in which your number won't be listed, they promise, unless you give them permission. (Verizon is the notable holdout, claiming that no way no how will it compromise its customers' privacy in this way, as a Verizon executive explained in a speech at The Yankee Group's Wireless Leadership Summit.)

Congress, thinking ahead for once, plans to make the carriers' opt-in promise law and give you some privacy protections from the get-go--via the Wireless 411 Privacy Act (S. 1963). As of this writing, the bill has just gotten out of committee and should come before the Senate for a vote in the near future (as should the SPYBLOCK bill, which I discussed in a recent column). The corresponding House bill, still in committee, is H.R. 3558.

But is legislation necessary? My answer is yes--and no.

What Listing, Please?

The directory plan, as set out by proponents in the September hearing on the Senate bill, includes some good privacy safeguards.

First and foremost, it's strictly an opt-in plan, requiring your permission for your cell number to be included in the database. There's no cost to you to opt in initially or to opt out later. Second, the database will exist only within Qsent, the company that will compile the data and make it available to the 411 services on an as-needed basis--meaning only when someone calls 411 and specifically asks for a person's number. The 411 operators will never store or maintain a list of the numbers in the database. Third, no printed or electronic directory will be created, aside from Qsent's database. Your cell number isn't going to appear online, available to any kook with an Internet connection.

Not bad.

There's already legal protection from telemarketers: 1991's Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Title 47, U. S. Code Section 227) prohibits autodialed calls to cell phones. And let's not forget the popular Do Not Call Registry, which you can use to protect your cell number as easily as you can safeguard your landline (over 62 million telephone numbers are already permanently set on "do not call").

So what do we need more cumbersome laws for?

Promises, Promises

It's not that we don't trust you--but we don't trust you. That's the consumer perspective on the plan as it stands today. While it sounds pretty good, there's nothing stopping any of the carriers, or Qsent, from changing their minds later on and leaving us up the cellular creek without a privacy paddle.

The carriers claim they won't betray their customers' trust: In the ultra-competitive cell phone service market, that's reason enough to lose customers and ultimately, sink the business. That's true, but we've been burned before--other companies have changed their minds about privacy policies in both dire circumstances (dot-com fire sales, anyone?) and not-so-dire ones. I'm not about to say no to a little legal guarantee that must-opt-in won't suddenly change to must-opt-out via Byzantine and expensive methods.

Moreover, I'm paying for incoming call minutes on my cell, so I want legal safeguards in place to make sure my money and my time won't be wasted.

The Wireless 411 Privacy Act helps with some of that, but not with all of it.

A for Effort, C+ for Execution

In his testimony before the committee, Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, made some significant and spot-on critiques of the proposed bill.

First, it's opt-in for existing subscribers, which is good. But new subscribers need to opt out, which is bad--especially since new subs include customers who switch from one service to another, and who presumably had already set a preference and may now be stuck with the wrong default.

Second, though the bill prohibits the creation of a published directory, it says nothing about selling data to third parties. Selling data should definitely be a no-no, spelled out in the bill.

Finally, the bill seems to allow sharing of even more information than the carriers' plan does because it defines "wireless telephone number information" to mean not only a name and cell number, but also an e-mail address, physical address, and "any other identifying information by which a calling party may reach a subscriber." Just because I let someone call my cell phone does not mean I want them to know my address, too; one should not automatically go along with the other.

Rotenberg also argues there should be explicit recourse if you're included in the directory but did not want to be. He adds that the bill should clearly be a floor--a minimum level of protection--and not a ceiling, so that if states want to add even more privacy protections, they can.

I have some additional concerns that Rotenberg did not mention. At this point I'm not convinced that a hard and fast ban on the creation of a published directory is appropriate. For now it may be best, but the situation may change as more people abandon traditional land lines in favor of cell phone service. Eventually, it may be desirable to at least give people the option of having--and being included in--a published listing of cell numbers.

To Forward or not to Forward?

Another issue I'd like to see the bill address: Ideally, I, as the recipient of a potentially unwanted call, should not be charged for it. At the very least, I should be charged less for it than for a standard incoming call. The challenge for carriers is figuring out which calls are unwanted. People I haven't given my number to are likely to use directory assistance to reach me, and many of these calls may be unwanted. So if directory assistance could be limited to forwarding calls instead of giving out cell phone numbers, carriers could track and discount that usage from consumers' bills.

This isn't the most elegant of solutions, I grant you; but it is the one with minimal hassle and hit-to-the-wallet to the person called, at least with current technology.

The Senate bill does address forwarding calls and masking the recipient's number, but doesn't address service fees.

The forwarding clause in the bill is controversial for other reasons. It tries to set up a service so that you know the identity of a caller before you accept the call, much as you now do with a collect call. Both Epic.org and proponents of the directory feel that the wording of the bill constrains potential service offerings (for example, someone may choose to be listed with forwarding only, but not in a general directory). Moreover, Qsent argues the bill aims for the type of positive identification that doesn't exist right now: Callers could lie about who they are, and even caller ID services such as those available for landlines may provide misleading information on calls from unlisted numbers or telephones in public places, such as a conference room or pay phone.

Go Ahead, Call Me

According to a recent Federal Communications Commission study, 161 million people had cellular phone service as of the end of 2003, up from 142 million in 2002. Many of those people use their cell phones as their primary phone, or even their only phone. Real estate agents, contractors, and the like, who spend more time out of the office than in, rely on their cell phones to keep in touch. And many businesses ask employees to list their cell numbers on business cards, or on internal company lists. For a significant number of people, cell phones are no longer just for emergencies or a small circle of family and friends.

If such people are willing to be part of a directory, and we get strong privacy protections to go along with it, I should be able to dial 411 and reach those people, and they, me. But I want a directory that provides cell numbers and names only, with a bit more privacy safeguards than the bill in Congress.