\documentstyle[11pt]{letter}
\address{290 Massachusetts Ave. \\ Cambridge, MA 02139}
\signature{Andrew Marc Greene}
\addtolength{\topmargin}{-1in}
\addtolength{\textheight}{1in}
\begin{document}
\begin{letter}{The New York Times \\ 229 W. 43rd St. \\ New York, N.Y. 10036 }
\opening{To the editor:}

I would like to contribute some observations to William Safire's
recent column about ``Caller ID.''  I am a student at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which installed an AT\&T 5ESS
switch last year.  One of the features of 5ESS is a window which
displays the number from which an incoming call was dialed.  This is
equivalent to the ``Caller ID'' feature.

The MIT 5ESS system has a privacy code (``67'') that can be dialed
before a call is made which will suppress the ``Caller ID'' feature.
Mr.~Safire's analogy of putting a finger to the electronic peephole is
an apt one.  Since 5ESS displays calls coming from outside MIT simply
as ``Incoming Call'' with no other identification, this raises no
eyebrows.

The student help line advertised that they had disconnected the
displays from their telephones, which preserves the anonymity of
callers who don't know about the privacy code.

To counter fears that a privacy code would prevent the usefulness of
``Caller ID'' in prosecuting harassing phone calls, I suggest that the
central switches be programmed to record the numbers of all calls made
with the privacy code.  Someone receiving a harassing call who files a
complaint would then be able to get a court order to release the
appropriate record to the police.

\closing{Sincerely yours,}
\end{letter}
\end{document}


