🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.111713.16965@montagar.com> davidc@montagar.com (David L. Cathey) writes:
>[lots deleted]
>	Is there *anyone* out there that has had to deal with some
>unknown guy prank/obscene/harrassing calls, went to the police, and
>they found the guy at home making the calls?

Yes.  Actually, we went to SwB, and they went to the DA; worked great,
but that's not what I want to write about.

>[more deleted]
>	Basically, CLID does not provide me with any real benefit
>for stopping prank calls, or preventing telemarketing people.
>It does allow my name, address, and phone number to be put
>onto more specific mailing/phone lists to be provided to
>other marketing agencies.

We need *67 like they have in Washington, to allow anonymous calls;

(well, anonymous meaning no telephone number--
>CLID only identifies the phone, not the person on the handset,
>and there are thousands of handsets out there.
--anumerous? :-)

Having the anonymous option is crucial--without it, marketing databases
will overflow, as David points out--and it shouldn't take a special
dispensation from the phone company to have it.

I agree that CLID won't stop people from making prank calls or
soliciting via telephone; however, it will make it easy for me
not to answer those calls.
For now, everyone has to talk to my answering machine.

P.S. The Washington ruling posted recently seems to make a lot of sense.
-- 
"Do not play this piece fast.  It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin