Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: PCI@cup.portal.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 89 22:36:20 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 20 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 89, message 5 of 8 Patrick Townson, I could not agree with you more regarding number ID and privacy. My thoughts regarding ACLU and others trying to "force" right of privacy for the worlds misfits belongs in another conference BUT if a customer wants to pay the phone company for the privilage of knowing who called, it should not be stopped by peceived privacy issues. I am in the common carrier business... a strange but very short leap would be that I am NOT legaly allowed to obtain caller ID for billing.. after all that would invade the "privacy" of someone trying to steal my services..and since that is against the law on Guam as well as the rest of the US... and since the caller's nuber is provided upon placing a call for billing.. he would incriminate himself. I really see little difference in an individual, small carrier or AT&T obtaining the caller ID. If this issue is found in favor of privacy, when will the common carriers lose access to this information? Bob Kelley PCI Guam