Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!vector!telecom-gateway From: brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Calling Party ID Suspension Message-ID: Date: 21 Mar 89 22:40:28 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Reply-To: brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) Organization: CBW, Columbia, MD 21046 Lines: 86 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 104, message 1 of 7 In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >Yes, it was in the [Chicago Tribune] on Sunday. It really makes me >sick to think about the whiners and complainers who feel they are >somehow entitled to invade *my privacy* anytime they please by making >phone calls anonymously; that you or I have no right to know who is >calling us before we answer the phone. I *do* consider it to be an invasion of my privacy for many reasons. Example: You place an ad in the paper. I call about the ad. Do you then have the right to know who I am and where I am calling from. No, I think not. My call to you was a result of a solicitation to invade your privacy. Not for you to invade mine. >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). Learn something about the legal system. They are protecting this right because, while rediculous on it's face, their claim is technically correct. Allowing this seamingly reasonable violation of a fundamental right may constitute pecedent in some later issue, where the violation of a similar right would otherwise seem less reasonable. >Next thing you know, the ACLU and others will want to outlaw peepholes in >the front door of your home on the theory you have no right to know >ahead of time who has come to visit you. What of the rights of computer >system administrators harassed by phreaks? What of the rights of >people who get anonymous, harassing phone calls in the middle of the night? >Well, so what! Phreaks and weirdos get more rights in this country than >the rest of us. No this is childish pantering. The service (mentioned incompletely here) usually includes a feature whereby a user may 'trap' the number of the most recent caller. This information is then available to the local authorities but *not* the user. Thus, the privacy of the calling party is preserved in all but those cases where the authorities become involved. This seems fair to me. If your calls constitute harassment then you will lose this privacy. >What truely makes me gag -- puts me on the verge of the dry heaves -- by Is this *REALLY* necessary? C'om I mean you're supposed to be the moderator, no less. >this stupid court order is that someone managed to convince the judge >-- a know-nothing where telecom is concerned -- that announcing the identity That's ok, what he doesn't know about phones, you more than make up for in your lack of legal knowledge. >of a caller when putting through a connection was tantamount to >'tracing a call'. If the secretary in my office asks who is calling before >she puts through a call to me, are we to now assume she is in >violation of the law? The Call ID equipment is nothing more or less than No, because you, as the caller, have the option to not answer the question. That's all the ACLU is asking for to begin with. >an automated version of a human person asking a caller 'who are you? what >is your call about?' Not if you can't decline. >So much for the privacy rights of the rest of us. Where people get the idea >they should be able to hide behind their phone is beyond me. Protect these rights now. You will need them someday. It is easy to be willing to throw away the rights of others (alleged criminals or not) but when you do so you are throwing away your own rights also. >Naturally, rebuttal messages will be printed. I'll be suprised if this one is. -- Brian D. Cuthie uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian Columbia, MD brian@umbc3.umbc.edu [Moderator's Note: Suprised?? What do you think this is, the {New York Times}?? Unlike my competitor, not only do I print all the news that fits my (fill in the blank); I don't even charge fifty cents to read my daily heresies. Thank you for your input in the discussion. PT]