Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!helios!archone!byron
From: byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Message-ID: <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Date: 30 Mar 91 23:43:15 GMT
References: <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Mar30.230852.9730@menudo.uh.edu>
Sender: usenet@helios.TAMU.EDU
Organization: College of Architecture, Texas A&M University.
Lines: 28

In article <1991Mar30.230852.9730@menudo.uh.edu> jet@karazm.math.uh.edu ("J. Eric Townsend") writes:
>In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:
>>I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of privacy". It's
>>like saying that a peephole on your front door constitutes an invasion of any
>>visitor's privacy because their "right" to knock on your door anonymously has
>>been interfered with.
>
>The use of a peephole does not give the user the ability to find out
>my home address, name, phone number and other personal information.  If
>you don't recognize me, don't let me in.  But if you don't let me in,
>I shouldn't have to tell you any more than I want to.
>
>I think per-call blocking and ANI are a nice comprimise.

I don't see how knowing the phone number of the incoming caller enables you
to determine his/her address, name, and "other personal information". The
phone company does not give out such information over 411, and unless you
type in a phone book into a computer, I don't see how you could determine
this information yourself.

Furthermore, how does the peephole analogy extend to phones without caller
ID? I'm forced to pick up the headset, and listen for myself, or not answer
the phone at all. Not a very good analogy, hm?

I don't see how per-call blocking is a nice compromise, either. It rather
defeats the purpose of caller ID, don't you think?

I think the issue of "privacy" here is and continues to be a red herring.