Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006

TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 06, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, spoofing is when a caller masks or changes the caller ID information of their call in a way that disguises the true origination number of the caller. In many instances, a call recipient may be subject to pretexting through spoofing, which can lead to fraud, personal ID theft, harassment or otherwise with the safety of the call recipient in danger. On the other hand, lest we think that spoofing always has nefarious aims, we must recognize that there may be circumstances when a person's safety may be put in danger if the true and accurate call origination information is disclosed as well.

What we seek in caller ID policy is balance, and I believe the legislation before us today, after changes were made in committee consideration, more adequately strikes the historic balance we have sought to achieve for consumer privacy and security.

For instance, Members of Congress often have direct lines in their office, but in order to ensure that such lines do not become generally public and, therefore, remain useful to us, it may be necessary to keep such direct numbers confidential and have the outgoing caller ID information indicate a different number at which our offices can be reached for return calls. That gives the recipient a legitimate phone number to call back, but keeps confidential lines private.

There are many doctors, psychiatrists, lawyers and other professionals who would similarly like to keep direct, confidential lines private in this way who have no direct intention of misleading anyone. In addition, there may be instances, for example, when a woman at a shelter seeks to reach her children, when spoofing is important to safeguard someone's safety. Moreover, informants to law enforcement tip lines or whistleblowers have additional reasons for why their calling information should remain private. We should not outlaw any of these practices, and I think the legislation now incorporates the notion that the intent of the caller is vitally important in gauging whether spoofing unfairly violates privacy and security.

With that, I commend the chairman for the changes he was willing to make in the committee deliberations of the bill, and I congratulate him and I congratulate Mr. Engel from New York for his splendid work on this legislation. Mr. Dingell and I have enjoyed working on this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/