Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:69 comp.org.eff.talk:1860
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!tiger!gcreesor
From: gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca (Glen Reesor)
Subject: Re: Telephone Caller ID's
Message-ID: <1991Apr1.201553.6064@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1991Mar29.154847.16915@engin.umich.edu> <1991Apr1.181048.21377@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1991 20:15:53 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <1991Apr1.181048.21377@odin.corp.sgi.com>, pkr@sgi.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
> In article <27F6FC7F.3E44@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc4.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:
> >...
> >2) The person at the front door is not required to show identification
> >-- you can refuse to answer or tell them to leave if they don't, but
> >you cannot force them to show identification
> 
> 
> Neither does caller ID. After all, since when was a phone number
> identification????????

It becomes identification when paired with a reversed telephone book.
These books are listed by *number*, so the number becomes an index to
your identity.  I'm not sure of the restrictions on obtaining these, but
I browsed one when I was employed by a major insurance company.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Reesor                                      | gcreesor@tiger.uwaterloo.ca
------------------------------------------------------------------------------