Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!evax!cs4304ak From: cs4304ak@evax.arl.utexas.edu (David Richardson) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Caller ID problems Message-ID: <1991Apr1.033531.21546@evax.arl.utexas.edu> Date: 1 Apr 91 03:35:31 GMT References: <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Mar30.230852.9730@menudo.uh.edu> <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> Organization: Computer Science Engineering Univ. of Texas at Arlington Lines: 28 In article <13948@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes: >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 As a rule (if not today, then after Caller-ID becomes universal), businesses will have thier computers tied into caller-id equiment. This is a double-edged sword. It helps customer service, but it all but eliminates privacy if/when desired. >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? Yes, it does defeat the purpose of caller-id. That is why it is a nice compromise. It *allows* the phone customer to have privacy at the cost of some companies possibly not doing business with him &/or slower customer service. Without this compromise, the choice would not be there at all. (I can see it now: 1-900-ANON-CAL - we will place your anonymous phone calls - only $0.95 a minute. Kids, ask you parents before you call.) >I think the issue of "privacy" here is and continues to be a red herring. Red herring or not, it is obviously a concern, and can be addressed without too much overhead (I assume) on the telco's part, & still have caller-id for most people. -- David Richardson U. Texas at Arlington +1 817 856 6637 PO Box 192053 Usually hailing from: b645zax@utarlg.uta.edu Arlington, TX 76019 b645zax@utarlg.bitnet, SPAN: UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTARLG::B645ZAX -2053 USA The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.