Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <1990Dec07.022834.6596@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 7 Dec 90 02:28:34 GMT References: <5010@rsiatl.UUCP> <86447@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <5022@rsiatl.UUCP> <1990Dec01.050052.25160@ddsw1.MC Reply-To: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Lines: 21 In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1990Dec01.050052.25160@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes: >> Yet Caller-ID isn't. What would happen to anonymous tips? > >Per-call blocking. > >With per-call and per-line blocking, and anonymous call blocking, everyone's >rights are protected. In fact even without anonymous call blocking (where you >can say "I don't want to recieve calls for which CID has been blocked") I'd >rather allow CID blocking... it actually makes CID more useful. As it is you >can't tell if the CID is not displayed because the person is blocking (by >calling via the operator, for example) or out of range. In Illinois CID Blocking is not available. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM