NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/7946

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!bcstec!bcsaic!sundry!sdc!cek
From: [e-mail] (Conrad Kimball)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: CPSR & Caller ID?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:53:29 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <bhayden.724495813@teal> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <bhayden.724689692@teal>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle, WA
Lines: 64
Nntp-Posting-Host: zulu

In article <bhayden.724689692@teal>, [e-mail] (Bruce Hayden) writes:
|> Well, I like my privacy also. This means though that I would like to
|> know who is calling me - often before I answer the phone. Caller-ID
|> would bring some type of accountability to using the phone. If someone
|> is going to call you, you can determine who (or at least where) is
|> calling you. I cannot think of a legitimate reason for someone to call
|> me at my home, and not be willing to give me their telephone number.
|> (after all - they have mine).

So simply don't answer the phone when no caller ID info is presented.
Sort of like not opening your door without ID being shown to you.

Do you demand to know that address of everyone who comes to your door?
"I cannot think of a legitimate reason for someone to knock on my door
and not be willing to give me their home address. (after all - they
have mine)."

In either case an anonymous person can interrupt what you were doing
with an attention-getting signal (phone or doorbell ringing), inviting
you to take part in some interaction.  If you don't want to answer the
door or phone, don't do so.  If you want to negotiate further (ask for
ID, etc.), that's fine too.  In the case of a phone call, you can even
delegate the interruption and/or negotiation process to a machine.

What bothers me is that some people think I shouldn't even be _capable_
of inviting you to talk without ID being established beforehand (e.g.
no caller ID blocking allowed).  Sort of like requiring me to tattoo my
SSN or driver's license info on my forehead before I'm allowed to knock
on your door...

I should be able to initiate calls either with or without ID, at my
discretion.  You, in turn, should be able to accept or reject calls
without ID.  If I insist on making blocked calls, and you insist on
rejecting them, well, I guess we just won't talk.  If one of us really
wants to talk to the other, one of us will change his position, at
least for the duration of that one call.

Now, I grant you that the annoyance factor for unwanted phone calls is
greater than that of unwanted people at the door, due to the relative
ease of making a phone call rather than going in person.  So what's to
be done?  Given that virtually all unwanted phone calls come from
businesses, simply change the regulations that businesses are required
to adhere to, such as requiring _them_ to always call with ID in hand,
or to subscribe to a list of phone numbers that have asked to not
receive unsolicited business calls, etc., and all with suitable
penalties that can be enforced by these new phone technologies (e.g.
call trace) in the consumer's hands.

My objection to caller ID as it is typically proposed (without
universally- and freely-available blocking) is that, while it may
mitigate a problem (unwanted phone calls), it does so at too great a
price in terms of personal liberties, especially considering that there
are alternative remedies (such as above) which can mitigate most of the
problem at a much lower cost in personal liberty.

(I'm much more willing to restrict liberties of businesses rather than
people.  After all, businesses (corporations) are a legal invention, a
figment of our imaginations, if you will, and have no more rights or
liberties than we real people decide to grant them.)

--
Conrad Kimball       | Client Server Tech Services, Boeing Computer Services
[e-mail]   | P.O. Box 24346, MS 7A-35
[phone]       | Seattle, WA  98124-0346