Article View: comp.privacy
Article #14Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID)
From: Nate Smith
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:51
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:51
93 lines
5691 bytes
5691 bytes
In article <1993Jan27.020954.784@samba.oit.unc.edu> Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes: > >....[misinterpretations of the english language].... hey - you can disagree with an analogy. that's no big deal. :-) >Hey Rip, wake up! This is done regardless of Caller ID. Except that with >Caller ID, one can render such information useless. If you want to be >private, don't call me! ahah - you think that Step 1 of Caller ID has already been accomplished. this means you are a clone of Glenn Cooley. Step 1 has been done in the areas that already have Caller ID, and the 1-800, 1-900, 1-976 exchanges. if it were TRUE that all origination numbers were being broadcast to all destination numbers, THEN the Caller ID box (Step 2) should be offered FOR FREE. What evidence do you have that Step 1 already has been done, in areas that dont have Caller ID yet? i would like to know, because Step 1, by itself, is the infringement of privacy that all of us, against Caller ID, have been objecting too. We have NO objections to anyone getting Step 2, the Caller ID service delivered to your home. if Step 1 has already been accomplished everywhere, then, yes, i admit to sleeping. but then why is there an issue here, as if we can vote No Caller ID? suppose i get Caller ID. ok, now i have a list of all the numbers that are okay - my mom, my brothers, my work site, my kids' school, etc. i build up this list with my friends and associates over time. i have the Caller ID device keyed into a PC that screens the incoming number against this list. anytime i want i add a new number to the list or delete a number no longer valid. in this way i avoid having to remember maybe over a 100 numbers at once - my PC will do this for me. ok.... now what about the numbers that arent in this list? do i have my PC just hang up on them? what will they be: telemarketing calls..................you bet, hang up on them obscene phone calls..................send to number police, hang up personal harrassment by same jerk....same, you bet, hang up wrong numbers........................sure, hang up old friend in town at some motel.....too bad, gee, wouldve been nice wife with flat tire at payphone......too bad, hmmmm stranger calling about kid injury....too bad new friend that has new number.......too bad friend has UNLISTED number blocked...too bad doctor/lab report with test result...too bad and so on.... what are the percentages of these calls? who knows? i suspect that the telemarketing is the highest, then wrong numbers, then those calls all grouped together that it would have been nice to answer, but we couldnt take that risk because of the second category, the obscene phone calls, which is probably the least frequent of them all, or the 3rd category which can be in isolated cases be very unpleasant. the amount of telemarking calls will undoubtedly go up with Step 1 - regardless of whether you get Step 2, the Caller ID box, or not. if you believe that those first 4 categories outweigh the loss of the "too bad" categories, then you can arrange a system with the phone company right now to have them screen your calls for you. it should cost you about the same as getting a Caller ID box, i would expect. you can also get an unlisted number for a slight additional fee. an answering machine can be of some use, although not as good. there may be a coded prefix or suffix that you give out to "trusted" friends and relatives. if they want to get their call through to you, they must include the secret code. you can get "double-ring" for these people - then, if it goes "ringring...ringring..." instead of "ring... ring..." you know its a trusted individual - this is better than the Caller ID box, because you dont have to get up and check the box to see if its a number you will answer. there are new technologies every day. those are the technologies that you & i should be supporting, because there we have some agreement. however, that does not give you the right to impose Step 1 on everyone else. those that think the "too bad" categories will outweigh the first categories never will get the Caller ID box & PC hangup program. that's okay - they can do what they like. but some of us dont like the notion that when we call a video store to see if they have such-and-such a movie, that later on we get 5 telemarketing calls from mail-order video clubs and junk mail about it. Blockbuster Video already does something like this. Radio Shack tries to get personal info every time you buy something there, then they send out their flyer at a bulk rate that part of your 29 cents subsidizes. Caller ID will never be able to screen junk mail. there is a guy that heats his house with junk mail, though...what a silly world this is. shouldnt that Caller ID box be provided to you for free, if Caller ID is available in your area? isnt that a Right to Privacy? they shouldnt charge you anything for that, right? so why will they charge you for it? - nate
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan27.155108.26036@ll.mit.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!pagesat!a2i!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!ll.mit.edu!natesReferences:
<1993Jan26.004754.29190@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Jan26.151341.2329@ll.mit.edu> <1993Jan27.020954.784@samba.oit.unc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!olivea!pagesat!a2i!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!ll.mit.edu!nates From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith) Newsgroups: comp.privacy,alt.privacy Subject: Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID) Message-ID: <1993Jan27.155108.26036@ll.mit.edu> Date: 27 Jan 93 15:51:08 GMT References: <1993Jan26.004754.29190@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Jan26.151341.2329@ll.mit.edu> <1993Jan27.020954.784@samba.oit.unc.edu> Sender: news@ll.mit.edu Distribution: usa Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lines: 93