Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway From: ficc!peter@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID: Date: 5 Sep 89 19:03:02 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Lines: 25 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 351, message 3 of 5 [ Buster explains (I think) that he intended that a code be given out for unlisted numbers, rather than having a code given out for everyone ] I see, we had a bit of communication mixup then. What I (and apparently everyone else) heard was that you wanted a code for *all* numbers. This is just an enhancement of what seems to be the consensus among pro-Caller*Id folks. > [Moderator's Note: I wonder why no one has yet suggested simply having the > device transmit the *name* of the caller, rather than the phone number, Well, this would be quite a bit more expensive to implement, and it would nuke the folks who use chintzy unlisted service (listing their phone under another name), so you'd still have to enact all the same safeguards. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "Your mother applies makeup with a hot-glue gun. Your sister bites mailmen.'U` Your face looks like it's been washed in acid and dried with a cheese-grater." [Moderator's Note: True, the people who list under bogus names would have to deal with this, but I should think the ordinary non-pubs would be very pleased with the solution. Unless, of course, there are some who say I am not only to be denied their number, but their name as well! PT]