Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!netsys!vector!telecom-gateway From: ofsevit%ultra.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (David Ofsevit) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: re: Caller ID Message-ID: Date: 23 Mar 89 16:14:00 GMT Sender: news@vector.UUCP Lines: 100 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 109, message 1 of 3 In response to some of John Higdon's statements in Telecom 9:103: > If the husband [of a battered wife in a shelter] had an IQ of more than 50, > he would assume that his wife went to a shelter. Besides, is he going to > bust in to do harm to her? Isn't that what shelters are for, to prevent > that sort of thing? He might assume that his wife went to a shelter, but he might not know which shelter. Yes, he just might try to break in and do violence. Even if the shelter provided effective protection, it would not provide protection if the wife wished to leave; knowing where the wife was, the husband could effectively (not necessarily physically, but certainly psychologically) imprison her in the shelter. > > 4) Should a person have the right to call an airline and request fares, > > for example, without disclosing his telephone number? Risks > [a bunch of hypothetical stuff about businesses keeping a database to > get back at YOU, deleted] > > If a business can save money and streamline its operation by more > expeditiously handling different types of customers, more power to > them. More power to them? Is the almighty buck more important than people's rights? RISKS is not hypothetical; almost every day it describes real-world cases of how people can be harmed by mindless dependence on automation. > > 8) There are risks associated with Caller ID as well. What happens if > > you do not answer a call because you do not recognize the phone > > number and it turns out that that call was an emergency call? > > Then you miss the call. Would you like twenty other reasons why you > might miss an emergency call? Starting with phone unplugged 'cause it > was driving you crazy.... I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to begin: "I lost a lot of money on that deal! Why didn't you call me?" "I did call you. I was at a pay phone, and you wouldn't answer." "Oh yeah, sorry..." "SORRY MY $#&%@#$!!! You'll hear from my lawyer!" > > 4) The peak rate calling period will become much shorter for business > > customers with branches on the East and West Coast. If it is cheaper > > to have the phone call completed in the opposite direction, then the > > companies' phone system will automatically refuse the call and then > > call back in the opposite direction. The business will make 2 calls > > instead of one, but pay less than before. > > No business I know of would go to this much trouble for a typical short > business call. This is really reaching. This is not "reaching." This is real-world economics. Companies could program their switchboards to make this happen automatically. > > 5) The phone company will argue that consumers can always pay extra and > > not allow Caller ID or punch extra digits to disable it on a call by > > call basis. Why should a consumer have to pay extra or push extra > > buttons to not get a service he does not want? > > Because, for one thing, he would be trying to stop a person from > getting a service that *was* being paid for, namely Caller ID. In this > society it costs a little extra and takes a little more effort to > preserve one's privacy. We may not like it, but the universe doesn't > care. You can protect everybody's privacy at no cost at all--don't implement Caller ID! ----- And in response to Gary Delong: > I think I can see the moderator's point. It is interesting to note > that the A**U always seems to be more concerned with the rights of > the criminals than those of the victims. I too have often thought > that 'Civil Liberties' didn't seem to fit their actions. > > Of course they do seem to shy away from cases where victims become > the accused. > ... > PS: Is there a "conservative" verison of the ACLU? The ACLU has stood up for such fine liberal types as the Skokie Nazis and Oliver North. The ACLU believes in the Bill of Rights, even for those like Ollie and the Nazis who don't believe in it. The ACLU believes that as you begin to tear down individual rights, you set the stage for knocking over many other rights. ----- David Ofsevit Digital Equipment Corporation (which, I hope, does not know, care, or associate with my opinions)