Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!umich!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: mk59200@metso.tut.fi (Kolkka Markku Olavi)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI)
Message-ID: <10649@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 8 Aug 90 11:20:59 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi <mk59200@metso.tut.fi>
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Lines: 23
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 554, Message 2 of 9


In article <10575@accuvax.nwu.edu>, kgreer@mcnc.org (Ken Greer) writes:

|>  Privacy ??  I'm confused.  You mean that in France I can
|> "non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his
|> privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called
|> him) ?

The basic idea is to protect _your_ privacy by not showing to someone
else where you have called.  If the nubers are shown on the bill, that
means that they are stored somewhere, and someone can go through them
to see if you have made any 'suspicious' calls.  Don't you consider
this an invasion of your privacy?

|>   Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ?

The area code and time of call are sufficient for this purpose.
Additionally a few digits of the number are shown to remind _you_ of
the final destination of the call.


	Markku Kolkka
	mk59200@tut.fi