🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan20.034800.2382@athena.mit.edu> sybok@athena.mit.edu (The Rifleman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.010456.20340@samba.oit.unc.edu> 
>Terry.Parks@launchpad.unc.edu (Terry Parks) writes:
>>
>>Anti-privacy folks, those who think they have a right or a need to enter
>>my home anonymously, are always trying to get people to buy into four
>>beliefs:
>>
>>If you don't want Caller ID, don't purchase it. If you want to be private,
>>don't call me. If you're worried about not being able to make obscene
>>phone calls, seek professional help.
>
>I consider myself PRO-PRIVACY and a libertarian.  I oppose caller
>ID because the GOVERNMENT can abuse it to compile lists of 
>undesirables---political dissidents, "perpetrators" of victimless crimes,
>people with unpopular attititudes, etc.
>
>You have no right to force me to identify myself whenever I want
>to use the telephone to communicate with the government.  And don't
>say, "mail a letter"; local networks still have monopolies over 
>telephone service and the telephone is still an important means of
>communication that should be at my disposal without giving
>up my rights.
>
>Going out to use a pay-phone is a hassle too.
>
>I *might* re-consider if free blocking were offered whenever caller-ID
>was in a given region.  Then, if you don't like me not identifying myself,
>DON'T ANSWER IT WHEN YOU SEE THAT IT'S BLOCKED.


problem is...the equipment is being put in place that has these capabilities..
whether they offer to sell caller id or not...the equipment is there and 
people with access to it can abuse it...employees of the phone company...
the government etc.  here at pu i know people in the data processing dept that
look up ballplayer grads to see who will be ineligible to play next semester.
they do this because they can.  and sometimes the local papers magically 
have the 'scoop' on players before the grads officially come out and are
printed and sent.  telephones are no longer secure without scramblers.