From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:59:45 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <1992Dec19.160853.45796@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bryan Kennedy Reed) writes:
>>>Just which amendment is being violated?  I assume you are saying it is
>>>a violation of the right to privacy which is a penubra right derived
>>>from the first and fouth amendments.  Just where does this violation
>> 
>> Partially, yes.
>>
>
>And what other rights are being violated?  You know some people
>believe that the right to privacy does not exist, since it is not
>litteraly in the constitution.

Well, the people that don't believe in a right to privacy should be given a 
severe dose of police control and censorship.  See how they feel about 
privacy then.

>> By this logic, you HAVE to be smart, or you are in violation of the law.
>> The constitution does not care if you are smart or stupid.  This is TOTALLY 
>> irrelevant.
>
>No, you are not breaking the law, but you are giving up your rights.
>If you don't protect your own rights, who will?  

How are you giving up your rights if you do not understand that giving your 
number to thousands of people is BAD for you??  I can understand your 
statement if you are talking about not understanding the law.  If you are 
speaking of the LAW, then it's totally irrelevant, as I said before.  It has 
nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>>>etc.  If you are not forced to reveal your phone number, where is the
>>>violation of the right to privacy?
>> 
>> The people who don't know they have the right to refuse a search (without a 
>> warrant) are ignorant of the law.  That's their own fault.  However, most of 
>> the people who use Caller ID do not realize (and don't have the resources to 
>> LEARN) that giving your number to everyone you call is not only an issue of 
>> privacy, it's an issue of legality.  
>
>In my book it's the same thing.  What's the difference?  And the whole
>issue here is privacy, because it is the law that is under question.  

But it's not the same thing.  The law, itself, requires that you understand 
it.  Does the law require that you know what happens when you make a 
telephone call?  No.  All you have to know to make a telephone call is how 
to push buttons and which buttons to push.

>One more thing, the whole point of the constitution is to protect us
>from the Government.  And, as much as they act like it, the phone
>company is not the government.  Private citizens can also violate your
>rights, but your recourse is through laws that were passed to make
>these provisions apply.  (Like civil rights violations in hate
>crimes.)  But private citizens have a lot more leway than the
>government does. 

The whole point of the constitution is to protect us from the Government?  I 
thought the majority of it was to protect us from other people, and to set 
up our rights of free speech, press, etc.  

>> Those who know what's good for us must rise and save us from ourselves.
>
>Going on a "Witch Hunt" are we?

No, but the people who don't realize that they're in danger, not only from 
telemarketers harassing them (by the way, you can get damages from 
telemarketers now; up to 1500 dollars), but from people who would use their 
phone number to find more information about them, either harmfully, or for 
the 'good' of the company, it doesn't matter.  It's none of their business 
what your number is.

>		
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  Invincibility depends on one's self;	   kucloak@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
>  The enemy's vulnerability on him.	    bkreed@oread.cc.ukans.edu
> 		  --Sun Tzu 		      Bryan Kennedy Reed
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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