Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon.Stanford.EDU!stanton From: stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Caller ID problems Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 91 16:18:57 GMT References: Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 21 In-Reply-To: peter@taronga.hackercorp.com's message of 13 Apr 91 15:07:57 GMT In article peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: 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. I have no problem with CID as long as it is provided with FREE per-line and per-call blocking. As far as I can tell, there is no technical reason we can't offer it this way other than the phone companies' greed. In California at least, they claim it wouldn't be worth it if they had to provide per-line blocking. I don't quite follow the reasoning, but that's the claim. -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)