Xref: utzoo comp.org.eff.talk:1336 alt.dcom.telecom:110 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!moxie!sugar!ficc!taronga!peter From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Caller ID: a modest proposal Message-ID: Date: 1 Feb 91 01:34:10 GMT References: <15377@milton.u.washington.edu> <48611@apple.Apple.COM> Followup-To: alt.dcom.telecom Organization: A corner of our bedroom Lines: 18 In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM>, baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) writes: > Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone > number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could > be reported to the police, or whatever.... This has the same problem as call-trace, in that it means you can't deal with the problem except by pulling the police into it. Great, let's bring the cops into things, wasting taxpayer's money, and delaying their response to a real emergency when a simple call to a kid's parent at a later time would have solved the problem without fuss or bother. [ this is not appropriate to comp.org.eff.talk, I'm directing followups to alt.dcom.telecom. ] -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`