Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!vector!telecom-gateway From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question Message-ID: Date: 8 Sep 89 07:28:47 GMT Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 59 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 361, message 8 of 9 In article , mhw@wittsend.lbp.harris. com (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes: > Are you, in your thin defense of your precious privacy while invading > mine, condoning the activities of these perverted individuals. Condoning > it or not, you seem to be supporting their cause quite well! I have been viewing the discussion of caller id (CID) from the sidelines, since it is very doubtful that Pacific Bell will be offering CLASS features in the near future and I'm sure my prefix won't see it in this century (unless they figure out how to make it work in a 1ESS). But, after reading Mr. Warfield's somewhat lengthy article in favor of CID, and specifically having the number itself, not a code or name, show up in the display, I have come to the conclusion that I am against CID in general and Mr. Warfield's proposals in particular. That which knocked me off the fence was the passage quoted above. You bet I want to preserve my precious privacy. All of us have been fighting the erosion of that commodity all of our lives and the battle has been getting tougher and tougher. At this point, I make two assertions. The first is that the problem of crank calls has been overstated and the second is that there are ways of dealing with cranks that do not require the general populace to surrender another chunk of their privacy. I won't take the time here to list all the things one can do to discourage a crank caller, but even in the most extreme case, all one has to do is get a second line and unplug the phone from the first. Then your antagonist can ring it to his heart's content while you use your second, unpublished, line. While you are waiting for its installation, just hang up on your breather. He will get bored quickly. But why should we *all* have to give up our privacy? I don't make crank calls. I have a listed number, but I make all outgoing calls on an unlisted one. No one, and I mean no one, has that number. If it ever rings, I answer it "wrong number, please learn how to dial" and hang up. Why should I surrender that number to everyone that I call? And what good would it do them? If there will be such a thing as a "private" exemption, then what good will CID be in detering crank calls? Any crank caller with an IQ greater than a watermelon will have an unlisted number. And that, to me, is also giving more information than I wish to give. Most people don't know that I have a private line since they have my listed number. When I call them, instead of 723-1395 (calm down, it's in my .signature) showing up in the display, it will say *PRIVATE* or whatever. Cover blown! Whenever someone insists that innocent citizens have to give up something in the name of catching the guilty, the argument's over. If the catching of perpetrators infringes on the rights of non-perpetrators, then another method of catching perpetrators needs to be found. The other (fun) aspects of CID are interesting, and of course I would have it in an instant. But now we're back to academics, since it won't be offered in Perpetually Backward territory in the forseeable future. -- John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !