Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update
Message-ID: <16528@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 08:26:16 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Lines: 22
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 77, Message 16 of 16


I was really sorry to see the Moderator assume a pro-Caller ID stance
in an addendum to a posting on this topic.  It's a controversial and
by no means trivial topic, and one that could have severe
repercussions for the telephone industry.  If this sort of bias
pervades discussions of Caller ID, I will have cause to wonder about
the objectivity of moderation extended to other topics here.


Bob Jacobson


[Moderator's Note: I am very much pro-Caller*ID and make no bones
about it. Is it biased to favor Caller*ID but unbiased to take a
stance against it?  Actually, discussion of Caller*ID -- at least the
politics of it -- is kept to a minimum here because of the amount of
controversy it generates both ways. For continued discussion of the
topic I suggest our companion mailing list which specifically deals
with the several facets of telecommuications privacy. Messages should
be addressed to: telecom-priv@pica.army.mil. To contact Dennis Rears,
the maintainer of the list so that you can be added if you wish to
read what others have written:  telecom-priv-request@pica.army.mil.  PAT]