Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!mtxinu!unisoft!hoptoad!fidogate!f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG!tom.jennings
From: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Caller ID, or so I thought.
Message-ID: <13700.2804F8A3@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 11 Apr 91 00:55:48 GMT
Sender: ufgate@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/111 - Fido Software, San Francisco CA
Lines: 30

Isn't all this talk of "intent" off the mark? 
 
Any talk of "intent" is way off the mark. If the telco simply
provides the tools whereby I can block ID in any or most of the various
methosd mentioned in here, what's the problem?
 
The problem seems to be getting hung up over "intent" -- I *might* 
do some terrible thing. Then someone comes up with counterargument,
ad nauseum.
 
INFINITE LOOP DETECTION -- you can always come up with any number of 
"obvious" examples. Stop trying. 
 
If I use Caller ID/anonymity/privacy to commit a crime, there are already enough (I'd argue *more* than enough) ways to prosecute me.
 
What *I* see here is the law'n'order mentality in it's intellectual
disguise -- the someone-might-do-something-bad assumtion, with its
well-of-course-we-need-safeguards and all that.
 
It is *none of anyones business* whether I "might" do something
illegal -- or wrong. Until I do it.
 
98% of the arguments -- pro or con -- seem to me to be thought-police
in one form or another. And now ...


--  
tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
    UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings
INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG