Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: leonard@bucket.uucp (Leonard Erickson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID: Date: 24 Aug 89 04:01:40 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 50 Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 324, message 6 of 9 In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >> In the case of the battered women's shelter, they simply need to know that >> when the call is placed to the alleged batterer, he is being notified of >> where the call is originating. Simple solution: have a public agency such >> as the police place the call. No invasion of privacy, no danger to the >> bettered women. Just a *different* way of looking at things. >Sounds good, but you're asking a battered woman--who has been through an event >of unimaginable trauma--to behave rationally and with logic. This requires her >to ASK the police or ASK the shelter to ask the police to make the call for >her. It's just as likely that in her emotional turmoil, she'll just go and >make the call without thinking about potential consequences. She HAS been >married to (or living with) this jerk for some time, and regardless of how >much she may fear or loathe him, she also has deep within her some positive >feelings for him. If there are children involved, the psychological >entanglements get even messier. Remember-- "when dealing with human beings, >a certain amount of nonsense is inevitable." It just occured to me that this argument about the women's shelter is bogus. For the number to show up, the *shelter* has to be on an office that has the special features available. Just make sure that the "business" phone for the shelter isn't available to the battered wife, and that the other phones don't have an address in the phone book (to insure against the slight chance that the husband has access to a reverse directory). Result? Now the husband has a number *but no address to go with it*! So he can call the number. Big deal... If he gets obnoxius, Call*trace will handle it. So the only danger is that he could convince someone on the *non-business* line to give him the address. I rate that as about as likelty as the wife giving him the address. I keep saying "non-business" to emphasize that this line would be one listed as something innocous. (J. Random User? ) It wouldn't be the line that the shelter gets it's calls on. So it wouldn't be answered "XYZ Women's Shelter, may I help you?" Heck, it could even be an outgoing only line! (They do exist) With a minimal amount of forethought on the part of the people running the shelter, the problem disappears. It's a lot more likely that the wife will *tell* him where she is! After all, I can easily see someone as distraught as everyone is making the wife out to be giving him the phone number if he asks her for it! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short