🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan22.010748.16128@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:

> Since I, not the anti-privacy folks, pay for my telephone, can I have my
> Caller ID now.

I think we need to clarify some terminology here.  Terry seems to be
using "privacy" to refer to his right not to be interrupted in his
home.  He views Calling Number ID (which is *not* Caller ID, no matter
how often anyone refers to it by that convenient name) as a route to
achieving this.

Most of the other people who read this group are using "privacy" to
refer to their right to keep to themselves any and all information
which they consider to be nobody else's business.

Terry, attempting to label the latter people "anti-privacy" is not
only inaccurate, but a sure way to earn enemies while ensuring that
your arguments are ignored.

The problem with Calling Number ID is that there is a collision
between the two forms of privacy.  Terry, almost nobody on this forum
has a problem with your desire to have CNID on your home phone (though
I suspect you would find features like "privacy ring" cheaper and
more convenient).  And I hope that you have no problem with my desire
to keep my name off of junk mailing lists.

Now, instead of name-calling and pointless flames, how about some
constructive suggestions that allow Terry to screen calls while not
requiring me to hand out my unlisted phone number to every party I
call?
-- 
	Geoff Kuenning	geoff@maui.cs.ucla.edu	geoff@ITcorp.com