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: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jayyou ignorant splut! Maynard) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID Message-ID: <10828@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Aug 90 14:41:38 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 32 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 568, Message 1 of 10 In article <10740@accuvax.nwu.edu> leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business >lines, his argument is weak. I have the right to knock on your front >door. You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you >can't stop me from knock- ing. I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign >has any legal weight. (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I >can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without >invitation and choosing to go after others.) My city does give "no solicitors" signs legal weight. Solicitors must be licensed, and they must respect such signs, or else they get fined and lose their license. Your statement above makes the case FOR Caller-ID. Yes, someone can ring my phone - but I don't have to answer it, just as I don't have to open my front door, unless they tell me who they are. If I ever have Caller-ID available, I will follow exactly such a policy - and never answer any calls from a blocked number. Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL jay@splut.conmicro.com [Moderator's Note: It is time once again to close the Caller ID discussion to further Digest input. This is not because your arguments are not interesting, but because we continue to run tight on space and a day behind on postings. We will start this topic again in a couple months. Thanks. PAT]