Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: A Thesis on Caller ID
Message-ID: <10685@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 7 Aug 90 02:19:00 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Lines: 53
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 557, Message 1 of 9


        Amidst all the <sturm und drang> over Caller ID, a voice that
finally made the kind of sense I needed to hear occurred on a talk
program here a few days ago.

        As soon as I heard it expressed that way, I had to tumble in
favor of Caller ID.  Now, several days later, it still makes the kind
of sense that tells me some of you will appreciate it, too.

        I have lost the source, but it was a professor of Ethics and
Logic from a Pennsylvania college who made it so clear.

        What he said was that the argument in favor of Caller ID is
the long-established principle that a visitor to your home loses all
HIS rights to privacy when he comes to your premises.

        That is to say, you sure have a beef if somebody walks in the
door of your private quarters without first Knocking (or ringing your
bell!).  And you have every right to demand, "Who's there?"

        At that point, you still have every right to decide whether or
not to let them into your private space.

        From this it follows that unidentified telephone callers
should have no more right of free access to your private premises or
to the private space between your ears than does the caller at your
door.

        As certain elements of our society have grown increasingly
abusive in failing to police themselves, our legislators have tried to
offer legal surcease, but the real lack of positive identification of
the abusers hinders any enforcement.  Example: Florida law has for
some time required telemarketers to identify themselves, their
organization, and their purpose within 30 seconds of opening
conversation with you, and then at that point ask you if you wish to
proceed.  

Well, I can honestly say that only a minority of the telemarketing
calls I get have any identity that would let me tell the Consumer
Complaints Division who the heck it was, anyway.  Obviously, the
illegal ones are totally unidentifiable, and with today's low loss,
noise free trunks, they could be calling from Timbuctou, for all I
know.

        And, of course, the really abusive, harassing callers are
always completely unidentified.

        So, taken on balance, I have to agree with the professor's
logic and say I will agree to give up my anonymity to sales offices
when I call, just so I might get a shot at the real abusers. What I
might suffer in return from sales people is trivial in my estimation
to what has gone beyond a joke in telephone barbarism here in Florida.