Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!shadooby!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Speech on Telephone Privacy (Really Caller-ID Once Again)
Message-ID: <2207@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 89 16:39:34 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 33
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 9, Issue 577, message 1 of 5


Unfortunately I cannot remember exactly who made this arguement and I
must admit it was very persuasive for a while, but I just realized why
it is not cogent.

The arguement is that a telephone number is not private because the
telephone company, not the individual controls it.  I suggest that the
individual does not have significant control over much private
information.

Most people would agree that a Social Security Number is private, yet
the individual has no control over it.  The government assigns it; if
they wished they could change it.  Since some SSN's have been given
out more than once, I suggest that the government has excercised that
right.

Most people would agree that a person's salary is private, yet most
individual's cannot unilaterally change their salary.

The list could go on, but I suggest that privacy does not only concern
information the individual has complete control over.


David Gast
gast@cs.ucla.edu
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast


[Moderator's Note: Well David, you would be happy with phone service
here in Chicago, then. Illinois Bell today announced that while many
CLASS features are being implemented during the last half of 1990
here, including my own CO, Caller-ID will *not* be available in the
IBT LATA in the forseeable future. Bah, humbug!  PT]