Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: kabra437@pallas.athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Message-ID: <10808@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 15:39:52 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Ken Abrams Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Lines: 87 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 566, Message 1 of 8 In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> you write: >Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you >want if you just can choose the question. His argument falls apart on >close exami- nation. I don't usually respond to articles of an argumentative nature but I just can't let this one pass. Your entire prose demonstrates how logic can be reverse engineered just like software. Choose the outcome you wish to substanitate and then work backwards so that the initial circumstances and events appear to lead logically to the desired conclusion. I contend that your argument falls apart even WITHOUT close examination. To wit: >a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own >home" to try to argue for Caller-ID. However, virtually all the >complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential >abuses by BUSINESSES. And I suppose that you would have us believe that the opponents of caller ID are not making an emotional pitch for our sympathy rather than a factual pitch for our support based on FACTS? Bunk, quite the opposite. Note "potential abuses by BUSINESSES" above. The key word is "potential". Aren't we on a witch hunt here and crying wolf to boot? Businesses already have access to a wealth of information about almost all of us, including our phone number if they want that. Every time you pay by check or credit card you have given up your privacy. And just how, pry tell, do you intend to do business with a company by phone without identifying yourself in some manner which reveals a lot more than your phone number? It's going to be pretty tough. It seems to me that what you really want is not to retain your right to pivacy but to create a NEW right to be anonymous. I think there is a BIG difference and the latter just simply doesn't exist in most legal definitions. >All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a >right to receive Caller-ID. For all their talk about protecting >people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you >got it, businesses. That's where the money is. There you go assuming things again. I find this hard to believe since the residence lines in most wire centers outnumber the business lines at least two to one. In some cases it is much higher. In order to completely debunk this argument, I need figures on national totals of residence vs. business lines and I don't have that so I am not on firm ground either on this point. Maybe someone else can provide more solid facts. I contend that the residence market for this feature is MUCH larger than the business market. >I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone >are equal invasions of privacy. In each case, you have the right to >ask for identifica- tion. In each case, I can refuse to provide it - >in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone. That's as >far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself. You had a good start here but got side-tracked again with warping the logic to suit your desired result. The phone ringing is analgous to a knock on the door. Answering the phone is like OPENING the door. I contend that I have a right to know who is outside (either physically or electronically) BEFORE I open the portal, not after. >BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say >that you don't want any telemarketing calls. In the past, you've had >no way to enforce this. The bill just passed by Congress, requiring >that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides >exactly this ability. As an individual, just exactly how do you think you can see to it that this is enforced if there is no fool proof way to identify the caller? Just another well meaning statute that is effectively useless because the worst offenders just won't identify themselves. As you probably already can tell, I support the Caller ID feature (and this is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with my employer). As a matter of fact, as an individual, I really don't care if blocking is offered or not. When fully implemented, I simply will NOT answer any calls where the calling number is not present. Very simple and very effective. I simply will not deal with anyone who wishes to remain anonymous. Ken Abrams uunet!pallas!kabra437 kabra437@athenanet.com Illinois Bell Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965