Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Are You a Phreak and/or Cracker? Message-ID: <8870@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 11 Jun 90 10:21:45 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 34 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 427, Message 9 of 12 On Jun 10 at 22:51, TELECOM Moderator writes: > 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 now a little personal situation begs the question for those who have maintained that Caller-ID is unnecessary because other methods are available to catch nuisance callers. I have, for a about a week now, received a call on my main private line at about 3:00 am daily. I answer with a groggy "hello", then the caller hangs up. It happens once per evening (morning). Pac*Bell's suggestion is to change my private number, a course of action I find unacceptable. Since it happens only once per day, they don't feel compelled to exert any effort on the matter (terminating traps, or any of the other medieval methods to catch crank callers) so the onus is on me. They have even offered to change my number for free. Now that's really nice of them, since in real terms it's a lot easier for them to type a new number assignment into RCMAC than it is to trap the line (and then have to deal with the results, if any.) With Caller-ID, however, this entire situation would have been settled on the first day. In the meantime, until I'm ready to change my number I guess I'll just plan on waking up at 3am daily. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !