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
Message-ID: <13701.2804F8A9@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 11 Apr 91 01:02:35 GMT
Sender: ufgate@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:125/111 - Fido Software, San Francisco CA
Lines: 35


 
I like Caller ID, if: (1) I can block it when I dial, and be assured 
that the ID is not actually transmitted, regardless of the recipient, even (or especially) the police etc. Exceptions like "all 911 calls get caller ID" would be OK if it were simply state up front.
 
(2) Caller ID, or anonymity is flagged on all incoming calls.
 
 
If I'm so paranoid thgat I wont pick up the phone unless I know the
number, that's not a Caller ID issue. That function also happens
to be the most useful to me -- I'm busy, but I'll answer if my mother
calls or something.
 
Too much of what I've seen in here is confusion as to responsibilities -- wanting "the system" (you define) to take care of things for you.
 
Remember the Andy Rooney "issue", over his homophobic & cacist remarks 
? Depressingly few people thought over the difference between 
wanting free expression, and wanting PERSONAL REVENGE on someone they
thought was a jerk.
 
I want no law saying Rooney can't say that crap. Personally, I'd love
it if he lost his job. THE TWO ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
 
The analogy holds with much -- most -- discussion over Caller ID here.
The "what if" stuff will lead you *anywhere* you choose to go, and
hence is not useful in determining whether/how to do Caller ID.
 
Except for law'n'order types who want another way to poke into
peoples lives.


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