Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!wotan!moxie!sugar!ficc!taronga!peter From: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Caller ID problems Message-ID: Date: 13 Apr 91 15:07:57 GMT References: Organization: A corner of our bedroom Lines: 21 stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: > This is not exactly what CID provides. With CID you get the phone > number and, with a little extra work, the name and location of the > person who leases the line that the caller is using. When calling > from home, this is equivalent info, but it won't always be the same > (e.g. if you call from work or a friend's phone). OK, you want a better analogy. Let's say I have a magic box that will identify the car the person knocking at my door drove up in. Oh, I already have this information? On the license plate? Amazing. And I do have the right to demand identification from people wishing to enter my home. They have the right to refuse it, and not enter. Both of these rights are necessary. Therefore I see both caller-ID and caller-ID blocking as desirable, and have a great deal of trouble understanding why there is even a debate over caller-ID-with-no-blocking versus no-caller-ID. -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`