Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy
Message-ID: <1806@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 5 Dec 89 01:21:09 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Lines: 29
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 551, message 9 of 11


Mr. Rotenberg's basic premise involves the comment that just because
we can do it doesn't mean we should do it. Also, he assumes that there
is some inherent, cast-in-stone right to privacy concerning the use of
the telephone.

I'd like to turn it around. Just because in years past we have *not*
had the technology to reveal callers' phone numbers does not mean that
failing to do so is the natural order of things. I'm sure that if
Caller-ID had been an inherent feature of automatic switching systems
from the beginning, this would be a non-issue. The word "Luddite"
comes to mind: A person who automatically resists change, particularly
technological.

I, for one, barely tolerate the lack of Caller-ID service in
California only because I recognize that Pac*Bell is too backward to
provide it.  This, as bad as it is, is at least a legitimate reason
for its non-existence. However, if Pac*Bell could provide the service,
and it was unavailable simply because some Luddites had decided that
people who call me have the right to know my number but I have no
right to know theirs, I would be pulling out all the protestation
stops.

Yes, Mr. Rotenberg covers his ground very well, but unfortunately you
have to subscribe to his basic assumptions to be able to agree. I, for
one, do not.
 
        John Higdon         |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 723 1395
    john@zygot.ati.com      | San Jose, CA 95150 |       M o o !