🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2934509413.4.p00200@psilink.com>,
 "John R Kennedy" <p00200@psilink.com> writes:
> As you may know, the Texas PUC has decided that CallerID is in violation
> of a state wiretap law, and thus has declared the service illegal.  This
Buttheads - another attempt to misinterpret an old law to apply it to new
technology in order to support their own parochial view.

> is not the end of the story, though.  The same thing has happened in many
> other states, with CallerID winning out in most.  So, don't give up (and
> write a letter to the PUC demanding CallerID).
Got an address?  These folks need to hear that there's at least some people
out here that think that's bullcrap.  For some reason, there's a lot of
resistance to CallerID from some groups... however, after hearing several
programs and panel discussions on the subject, I've yet to hear a reason
against CallerID that holds a drop of water.  Most of what I've heard seems to
center around "violation of the calling party's privacy" - most notably when
the ANI (originating number) is unlisted.  Seems to me it wouldn't be so
hard to add a feature that would send a fake but unique ID that could be
mapped back to the ANI in the case of criminal activity.

I'd also like to know how to get better connected into what's happening in
this area... any ideas?
-- 
David G. North, CCP
d_north@ondec.lonestar.org {...!texsun!montagar!ondec!d_north}
onDEC systems                                 "Everyone's crazy but you & me...
P.O.Box 795848, Dallas TX  75379-5848          and come to think about it, I'm
(214)985-1316 ... (214)902-3957                not so sure about you either!"