Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!masala!olsen
From: olsen@masala.lcs.mit.edu (James Olsen)
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Message-ID: <1991Apr10.155422.26742@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
References: <1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Apr5.212502.22001@eci386.uucp>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 15:54:22 GMT
Lines: 21

jmm@eci386.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes:

>The caller is the one who's privacy has been invaded.  Caller ID
>without convenient blocking corresponds to forcing anyone who knocks
>on any door to wear an ID card in case the person on the other side
>of the door happens to have a peephole.

John's analogy is fatally flawed, since it envisions placing a burden
on the caller to provide his/her identity.

I have a much better analogy.  Suppose that, after extensive research into
Ouija boards and divining rods, I invent a magic box.  When someone knocks
on your door, my magic box will provide you a readout of the caller's
name, address, and phone number.

Some people want to completely outlaw these magic boxes.  Others say
that it's OK to have them, but you must let anyone disable the magic
box (by remote control) if they want.

How do these people have the gall to say what I will or will not do to
identify people who wish to enter my home?