Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: mrotenberg@cdp.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Are You a Phreak and/or Cracker?
Message-ID: <8848@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 90 05:00:07 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 33
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 426, Message 9 of 9


Pat,

It's interesting how important anonymity is for your survey on hacking
and phreaking.  Bob Dobbs aside, doesn't this example have some
bearing on the Caller ID debate?


Marc Rotenberg
CPSR Washington Office


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Rotenberg is the Director of the Washington, DC
office of Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility. His
address to USITA on September 13, 1989 entitled "Telephone Privacy in
the 1990's" was the subject of a special issue of TELECOM Digest on
December 3, 1989 by the same name. His message is available in the
Telecom Archives for interested persons. I disagreed with his
conclusions at that time, and still, I suspect, disagree, unless he
has changed his mind about Caller*ID. While some people feel the
privacy of the caller is supreme, others of us believe the privacy of
the called-party is more important. No one forced the caller to ring
our phone, after all. And as for doctors, lawyers and social-workers
who will no longer be able to call from home at their pleasure, while
hiding behind a third-number answering service when you call them:
isn't that a pity!  :) 

To address Mr. Rotenberg's question above, yes, there certainly is a
relationship between the two. How many crackers or phreaks do you
think would answer honestly if there were not a way to avoid
answering?  And likewise, how many phreaks do you think would continue
to engage in phreaking if Caller*ID was universal?  PT]