Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bbs!ddsw1!zane From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: DUI and Privacy Laws - was Re: Lotus Marketplace Message-ID: <1990Dec01.050052.25160@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 1 Dec 90 05:00:52 GMT References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <86447@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <5022@rsiatl.UUCP> Reply-To: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Lines: 22 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >Get Caller*ID and get the telemarketer's own phone number... and return the Ahhh, caller-ID. What an interesting concept. I know that using it for telemarketers won't be feasible for a few more years (they only work within a small region currently) yet what kind of right trampling is this? I DO like the call-back feature of Caller-ID so that pranking adolescents can be called back. I would also like an ability to call the operator and tell them to keep that phone number of the caller, and wait for a warrant to get it. Phone-number blocking is a good idea too. . . Yet Caller-ID isn't. What would happen to anonymous tips? I know that one could use a pay phone, but would someone who is afraid of certain criminals want to be in PUBLIC when telling the police of them? I think not. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM