home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.privacy
- Path: sparky!uunet!rsiatl!jgd
- From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
- Subject: Re: Op-ed piece on telephone Caller ID
- Message-ID: <k2_sn!f@dixie.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 05:56:53 GMT
- Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access. The Mouth of the South.
- Distribution: usa
- References: <9301131346.AA27534@gull.cs.rochester.edu> <1993Jan20.010456.20340@samba.oit.unc.edu> <C14sKI.I8n@cs.uiuc.edu>
- Lines: 33
-
- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes:
-
-
- >I have nothing against Caller ID, but I am sick of the antiprivacy
- >Caller ID people who insist on Caller ID with no blocking.
-
- >They say that blocking ruins Caller ID, but how is this so? If I block
- >my number and call your home, you can just ignore my call. (You can
- >tell it is blocked because *only* blocked calls will show up as "P" on
- >the display.) So, I don't block my calls to your home.
-
- >In other words with Caller ID *and* blocking, the caller and the
- >callee decide for themselves what information will be exchanged. I
- >think this is much better than Caller ID w/ no blocking in where the
- >phone company decides.
-
- The only part missing is giving me the ability to automatically block
- incoming calls originating from caller*ID-blocked lines. Given
- that, we are in full agreement. I currently implement that policy
- administratively by observing the caller*ID box and not answering
- blocked calls. What I really want is for the ringer to never actuate
- if the caller*ID is blocked.
-
- (Before anyone asks, there is a separate Caller*ID code for "blocked"
- as opposed to "out of area".)
-
- John
- --
- John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
- Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
- Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
- jgd@dixie.com | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
- Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
-