Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Relating Clause: Relating to caller identification. Title: Prohibits public bodies from using methods to block caller identification service. Sponsored by: By Representative WINGARD URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb3000.dir/hb3070.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Pam Berrian CS-ISD 2/7/2011 Pri 1 Oppose Comments: Oppose. I consulted with EPD and Lane County Telephone system mgrs on this bill. This bill is flawed in seeking undefined 'caller information' from public bodies, agencies which deliver services in the public interest when in fact a national problem exists whereby Called ID Spoofing occurs---similar to 'email spoofing' in which email ID's are taken and used in SPAM schemes. The text in this bill is an affront to public agencies who make legitimate calls and where avenues exist if abuses occur. Furthermore, the City's PBX System is managed by the County so LANE COUNTY typically shows up on Caller ID systems....would that meet the intent of this "caller identification" bill? Probably not. Many local governments in Oregon may not even have systems that can ID anything more than a phone number. Other problems: 1. EPD must be able to use legitimate law enforcement protocols and may need to lawful block Caller ID protocol for life-saving, undercover, and investigative reasons. 2. The disaster mgmt reverse phone call messaging system is assigned a City phone number that would show up on Caller ID but if called is always busy because it is assigned to the CENS network. 3. The bill amends a law that relates to a 'Telecom Carrier' which is a term that relates to ILECS, like Qwest, yet uses the term any telephone number’. Public agencies may or may not use Qwest or ILEC telephones systems for local exchange calling. 4. The term ‘telephone number’ would seemingly include all of our cell phones used in the course of City business. I have no idea whether cell phones even have the capability to do what this bill would ask; probably outside the control of a public body. I can suggest no amendments except perhaps redrafting the entire bill to outlaw Caller ID Spoofing, fund the OPUC to enforce it, and create an exemption for law enforcement personnel. I assume opposing a bill that will be touted as ‘promoting transparency’ may not be well received but this is an ill-advised direction. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Jerry Lidz CS-CMO-ATTY 2/8/2011 Pri 1 Oppose Comments: This bill would interfere with necessary and legitimate law enforcement investigation methods. And I don't see any great need for a bill to prevent caller i.d. from working on a specific call. We all managed to use telephones for years without caller i.d. HB 3073 Relating Clause: Relating to facility sales. 5