Xref: utzoo alt.privacy:301 comp.org.eff.talk:2012
Newsgroups: alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!karazm.math.uh.edu!mcbryde
From: mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu (Jack McBryde)
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Message-ID: <1991Apr9.203202.3853@menudo.uh.edu>
Keywords: Caller ID
Sender: usenet@menudo.uh.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: karazm.math.uh.edu
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics
References: <1991Mar29.220816.8305@ima.isc.com> <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1991Apr9.085207.19175@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 20:32:02 GMT

In article <1991Apr9.085207.19175@cs.ucla.edu> gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) writes:
>In article <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> steres@chaos.asd.sgi.com (Chris Steres) writes:
>>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.
>
>Use an answering machine.  It works much better than Caller ID.
>
>>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.
>
>Suppose that you have called a lawyer, a doctor or some other professional
>who should not release the name of his/her clients--it may even be a serious
>ethical breach to do so.  Now, should that person wait until s/he gets to
>the office in morning or would you prefer that s/he call you ASAP and
>block Caller ID?
>
>There are many examples were there is a necessity to block CID.
>
>>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.
>
>I already use public telephones for 800 numbers, but the fact is that I
>pay for my phone and I would like to be able to use it.  If I can't use
>it to make phone calls, perhaps I should just get rid of it.
>
>Under no circumstances can you make a valid claim that the callee has the
>right know *where* the caller is calling from, yet that is what CID does.
>It does not tell who is calling, but where the call is coming from.

If some is calling me and I'm interested in talking to them, they aren't going
to care if I know where they are calling from (or I won't care if they call).
If I'm not interested in talking to them, then I don't have a problem with
there being a penalty associated with having them annoy me.  And if I want
to preserve my privacy when making a call, I'll either not call or call from
a pay phone.

>Anyway, humans deal with faces and names, not numbers.  It is computers that
>deal with numbers--perfect from people who want to maintain databases.
>
>>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.
>
>CID will not help much with telemarketers.  They have many phone lines,
>most are outgoing only (so they don't even have a phone number), many
>are out of state.  Therefore the Supreme Court rulin is not going to
>help you much.
>
>david


--
jack      mcbryde@karazm.math.uh.edu    * All I ask of Thee, Lord
* Christ died for our sins.  Dare we    * Is to be a drinker and fornicator
* make his martyrdom meaningless by     * An unbeliever and a sodomite
* not committing them? - Jules Feiffer  * And then to die. - Claude de Chauvigny