Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:20 comp.org.eff.talk:1803
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!sgi!shinobu!odin!chaos.asd.sgi.com!steres
From: steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Keywords: Caller ID
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 30 Mar 91 04:34:15 GMT
References: <13801@asylum.SF.CA.US> <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> <1991Mar29.195940.12006@eng.umd.edu> <1991Mar29.220816.8305@ima.isc.com>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres)
Organization: sgi
Lines: 29

Much of the rhetoric advanced as criticism of caller ID seems to hinge on
the privacy of the caller; while ignoring the issues regarding the privacy
of the callee.  To protect MY privacy it seems that I should be allowed
to screen my calls if it is technologically feasible.
I think (opinion time) that the caller's "right" to privacy is somewhat
diminished by the fact that they are engaging in an active attempt to
establish communication; whereas the intended recipient is a mostly passive
entity, and therefore deserves more consideration for their privacy.

There are exceptional cases, of course.  One poster mentioned the case of
an anonymous police tip line; this example, however, requires a dishonest
or corrupt police agent to be dangerous.  I would argue that it is very
difficult to design a system to be proof against such people (i.e. if you
prohibit caller ID such a person will find another way to get you).

If you really need to communicate anonymously there are MANY ways to do so
without using your home or office phone.  A public telephone springs to mind
as the most obvious example.  Mailing a letter is another one.

The argument that call in services can register caller ID's to be sold to
phone solicitors is a non-argument, since with caller ID's I can (hopefully)
screen out solicitors with the right tool.  I make this claim in light of
the recent Supreme Court ruling that the White pages listings are not
copyrightable.

Comments?
--
Chris Steres                                            415 335-7150
							steres@chaos.sgi.com