🚀 go-pugleaf

Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote:
>The only reasoned argument I heard in favor of call-blocking was that without
>it some people might hesitate seeking help from certain services (e.g. abused
>woman's shelter, HIV test results, etc.) but all those arguments wash-away
>when one could still block on a call-by-call basis (contrasted with complete,
>global blocking, like so many Californians have chosen).

No, it's basic privacy.  Why do I need to advertise my phone number any
time I call anyone?  Or put it a different way - what value does CID bring
to me to justify that?  Not enough.  And having to use *82 every time
isn't good enough.

>None of my lines are blocked and I'm in the phone book.  I still don't
>understand why so many Californians chose either/both unlisted numbers and/or
>total blocking.  It smacks of paranoia, insecurity, etc. to me since reverse
>phone books (and web services (e.g. www.anywho.com)) still exist and any
>government agency can get access to unlisted numbers when necessary.

If someone really wanted to get a number, yeah, you're probably right.
But most people are lazy.  


-- 
Jason O'Rourke  jor@best.com   www.jor.com
'96 BMW r850R     
last dive:  Lover's Cove, Monterey
July 19th, 22 minutes at 27 ft max.