Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 06:31:10 GMT
Message-ID: <1991Apr21.063110.28942@looking.on.ca>
References: <13822.280D449D@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>

In article <13822.280D449D@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) writes:
>some people don't want you & I to be able to make private and/or anonymous phone calls. 
> 

Tom, there are indeed some people like that.  However, many of the people
defending caller ID are also defending free blocking, ie. the write to
make anonymous calls.

They also defend the right of people to refuse anonymous calls -- something
we don't have the power to do right now.

If you run a BBS (:-) then it is your decision as to whether callers can
be anonymous or must be identified.  Would you want somebody taking that
decision away from you -- either not allowing you to demand ID before
"answering"  (logging on in the BBS sense, answering in the phone sense)
which is what no-ID means, or forcing everybody to give ID even if you 
don't want it, which is what ID without blocking is.

ID with blocking is just more information, provided optionally at one
end, used optionally at the other.  As such, it is not evil.  Forcing
either way is bad.
what 
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473