Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!swatt
From: swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Transmission of caller"s phone number to called phone
Message-ID: <1004@ittvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Sep-83 11:52:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.1004
Posted: Thu Sep  8 11:52:59 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Sep-83 17:47:27 EDT
References: ritcv.516
Lines: 45

Funny, I would support exactly this feature for the same reason you
oppose it:  the identity of the caller could no longer be anonymous.

Think of all the problems we have now because the caller cannot be
known.  Obscene and threatening phone calls, computer vandalism, etc.
All this would either stop or be greatly curtailed if the originating
phone number were always available.  Take the UUCP situation, for
example.  I give another site a logon ID and password.  How do I stop
that person from in turn giving that information to others?  Right now
I can set a flag that forces my system to call the other one back, but
what if that other system is similarly paranoid?

If the originating phone number were available, you could always
verify that it was one of the list of numbers from which you are
prepared to take calls.

How much would we be hearing about "computer break-ins" if you could
get a log every month of every phone number which dialed into your
computer?

The problem of accidentally giving away your unlisted phone number
could be solved in a more general way by providing support to "screen"
incoming calls and only accept those from people you which to speak
to.  You should be able to program your phone to only accept one of a
list of numbers, and bounce the rest.  This of course requires your
relatives to be at home when they call you.  Another solution is to
make your unlisted number a receive only circuit (it is done today; we
have some here).

My point is the current phone system is way out of balance in terms of
relative control by the calling and called parties.  Essentially, the
caller is in control of the phone; he "aims" it at the intended party,
and "fires" off a number.  He might "hit", or he might "miss", but in
either case the called party is just a target.  This is simply wrong.
The only redress in recent years is the phone answering machines.  But
for every new advantage given to the callee, two more are given to the
caller.  You can now get all kinds of automatic re-dial options for your
phone, including one that will keep re-dialing a busy or non-answering
number as many times as you want.  Try ignoring the phone during dinner
when someone uses one of those on you!

I can put a little peep-lens on my door and see who is knocking before
I open it; I should have the same right with the phone.

	- Alan S. Watt