From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.010226.12447@tc.fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
>
>Oh come on! When you step up to the door of my house and I gaze upon you
>through my little spyglass, your image is NOT constitutionally protected. If
>you choose to call my telephone number, you relinquish your own "right to
>privacy" in favor of mine, since it is YOU who are initiating the
>interchange. You need to get clear about who is invading who's privacy,

What does this have to do with it?  If I don't want you to have my number, I 
should have the right not to give it to you.  Right?  If you think I'm 
wrong, please elaborate on WHY, in fact, you think along this perverted 
lines.

>here! It seems to me that the deault to sending the number is the most
>important way the system attempts to protect MY constitutional right to
>privacy against YOUR invasive phone calls!

Oh, I forgot that the ENTIRE phone system was unconstitutional prior to the 
introduction of the (gasp, bow to it!) CNID service!

>Say I have a FAX set to auto-answer. Before I waste my valuable modem time
>and paper on YOUR fax, shouldn't I have the option of deciding whether
>to do so based on some form of incoming number verification? If you decide
>you are not going to continue faxing when you get a message stating that my
>end is checking things out, so be it; hang up. But if you expect me to pay for
>reams of paper and tie up my modem so you can call me at random, you have a
>few more thinks coming.

Did I ever say that?  No.  You must have me confused with someone else.

>Here's another aspect of the front-door analogy. Say you walk up in a cop
>outfit and say, "Seattle Police. We need to come in ....<for whatever
>reason>". Do I just say, "Oh sure Officer, come on in. Care for a donut?"?
>Of course not.  I require identification.

Of course.  But you have to open the door in the first place to see the 
identification.  Which is analogous to cnid.  When the called party notices 
that the cn is blocked, they can decide if it's worthy.

Really.  You haven't said anything regarding my statements as to why it is 
unconstitutional.

>To me the issue is very clear: 
>
>PRIVATE line should be permitted to have all incoming callers identified,
>preferably by caller's name, but if not, then software can certainly be
>obtained for my home computer that will do a quick look-up.

Of course.  We agree here.

>BUSINESS NUMBERS, though must NEVER be permitted to learn the identity of
>their callers, lest every phone call be logged resulting in even more abuse
>of citizen's right to privacy as lists of calls are bought and sold.

Exactly!  I think you're picking up on my reasoning.  That's why it must 
default to blocking.  Most people don't realize that the huge amount of 
telemarketing calls they must field are because they allow their number to 
be passed on calls such as these.

>What about Police Departments and the FBI??? I say YES to outgoing number
>required, to insure that the Police always identify themselves properly to
>those they call, and NO to incoming ID, to protect the identity of tipsters.

What would prevent them from getting the phone number anyway?  I mean, most 
of them already go one better than Cnid.  They have a deal with the phone 
company where they get a listing of who called, from the phone company 
accounting software.

>How about suicide help lines, halfway houses, women's shelters?
>Organizations operating such lines should be required to state their
>intention in advance of being connected, and should not have EITHER
>capability. No capability to read the ID of incoming calls, and a generic
>outgoing ID reading perhaps, "social agency".

No disagreement here.  Except maybe, I'd do it in a slightly different way, 
if I were God.

[other stuff deleted]

>Gary Benson   -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@sisu.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
>
>Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. 
>Stupidity is not a sin; the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity
>is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no
>appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
>                                                   -Lazarus Long


-- 
Chad Helfenberger
(chelf@lunatix.uucp) 
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk