Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 13 Mar 89 16:26:10 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 22 Approved: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 87, message 7 of 7 >A group calling itself the American 'Civil Liberties' Union has also entered >the controversy, saying that persons engaged in (what are alleged to be) >illegal activities using the telephone would be forced in effect to give >testimony against themselves when their phone number is revealed to their >victim(s). By this logic, you would have to outlaw testimony from handwriting experts in a kidnapping case. Of corse the kidnapper could have used a typewriter. Then again, the caller could go out and use a pay phone. If anyone can see a difference here, I would like to know what it is. Ken Levitt P.S. I have passed along comments on this subject to the FidoNet Law Conference. If I get any good replies, I'll post them here. -- Ken Levitt - via FidoNet node 1:16/390 UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu