Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: kaufman@polya.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 89 16:34:33 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: "Marc T. Kaufman" Organization: Stanford University Lines: 31 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 98, message 4 of 6 In article Amanda Walker writes: >In article , > paul@unhtel.uucp (Paul S. Sawyer) writes: >> As the New Hampsha fahma (New Hampshire farmer) told his dinner >> guest, as he ignored the many rings of the newly installed telephone, "I >> paid good money to have that thing put in for MY convenience, not theirs." >This is basically my opinion; I don't have a phone as a service to anyone >who feels they want to call me; I installed it for my own convenience. >I pay for it, after all. I should be able to decide how and when I use it. and as Walter Mathau said in the movie (title escapes me... about a female justice of the Supreme Court): "the telephone has no constitutional right to be answered." When I first heard of caller-ID, I suggested to a large E-mail company that they provide end-to-end ID over their net so that BBS operators could verify users... and tag uploaded messages with the originator... so that SYSOPS could pass the responsibility for content back to the source. If you go to another country, you will discover that there is no 'right' to even HAVE a phone, much less make anonymous calls with one. As for using mechanical counters for toll purposes... I suspect that is due more to ease of implementation (in relay days) than to any real privacy related issue. If you don't want to disclose who you are, send your questions via mail in an envelope with no return address. :-) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@polya.stanford.edu)