Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: John Higdon Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Caller-ID Objections Message-ID: <2369@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 22 Dec 89 10:57:03 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 63 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 589, message 1 of 7 In going over the megabytes of discussion on Caller-ID, something suddenly stared me in the face: all objections to Caller-ID are based on the potential for abuse. Line after line, page after page, people rant on about how this could happen or that could happen. Is there no other aspect of telephony that has potential for abuse? What about junk calls in general? What about bunko scams that fleece the unwary? What about crank calls and threats? What about calls to detect whether someone is home by burglers? What about general harrasment? None of these involve Caller-ID. Maybe we shouldn't have telephones at all. Look at all the harm they cause. Silly, you say? Not half as silly as some of the arguments that have come down the line against Caller-ID. The IRS will learn nasty things about you. Credit agencies will do nasty things to your reputation. Husbands will march down to shelters and beat up their wives. Telemarketers will conspire to sell you things you don't want. Your cable company will keep a dossier on you and send you subliminal messages over the cable (no kidding!). All the mean, nasty people I am forced to call will find out my sacred unlisted number, causing my injury or death. I don't notice that in the areas of the country where Caller-ID is available that people are dropping like flies. It's a non-issue. It will eventually be universal (even here). But how many man-hours of discussion and rehash will have to go on first? Let's just get on with it. I routinely ride my bike at 65 on the freeway and survive, contrary to what people thought about going faster than 30 around the turn of the century. The concerns over Caller-ID sort of sound like that. microsoft!alonzo@uunet.uu.net writes: > This is a good plan and should be given real thought. Does anyone > know if there is some hidden agenda behind Caller-ID (conspiracies > everywhere...)? How many times does it have to be said; how loudly does it have to be yelled? Your number as a caller is circulated *all over the bloody network* all the time. People who do conspiracies *already have access to your number*. They don't need Caller-ID--THEY ALREADY HAVE YOUR NUMBER AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Period. When we discuss Caller-ID, we're talking about the info that is sent to you and me as lowly individual telephone subscribers. The big boys can get callers' numbers as much as they please. Caller-ID as a CLASS features offering simply provides a way for the *ordinary* telephone subscriber to have access to information about calls they receive, just as the big corporations, the government, and who knows who else, already have. Is this finally clear? Now, can we discuss the real ramifications of Caller-ID and leave out issues of privacy, conspiracy, marketing, the IRS, credit reporting agencies, and many other irrelavent issues that don't even come to mind? The question is: should I as a telephone subscriber have the right to know what other telephone subscriber is calling me before I pick up the phone? You KNOW what I think. I'm open for legitimate objections. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !