HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: re: Backing off on Caller Line ID...
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:48:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogear.ueT9PB1w165w
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:

>      Unfortunately, whenever a new technology appears there will always
> be irrational technophobes who will oppose it.

Mr. Crispin, your eloquence always seems to lose something. You sound
as though you make a good case, but then never fail to stoop to name
calling.

Given that you do this, I can only believe that your arguments seem
hollow even to you, and thus you need to resort to insult in order
to make your post have substance.

BTW: You're rather incorrect at the outset. I'm not so sure I'd call
users of this computer network 'technophobes.'


--- 
Bob Kirkpatrick <bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us>
Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA 
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: gregory@flood.zso.dec.com (Peter Gregory)
Subject: Futon for Sale (Don't reply here)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:28:25 GMT

Folding Futon, makes loveseat.  Wood frame, folds out into a low bed.

2 mattresses.  Like New.

$150

Call Sherry 885-3267

I'm posting for a friend, so don't send me a reply please.

Peter
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2867 pnw.general:1997
From: briank@ars2.uucp (D. Brian Kimmel)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:11:32 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Automated Retail Systems, Seattle, Wa

In <P517PB3w165w@dogear.spk.wa.us> bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

[discussion deleted]

>> D. Brian Kimmel           /    briank@ars2.UUCP   \   The Emerald City....
>> Director of R & D        \  Voice: (206) 325-8922  / Seattle, Washington.
>> Automated Retail Systems  \  Fax: (206) 325-9127  / Standard disclaimer(s).

>Brian, what exactly is an "Automated Retail System?" You aren't one
>of the very reasons that so many of us don't want caller id are you?
>I get this picture of a computer happily dialing numbers from a list
>which was built from caller-id traps and trying to sell crap to people
>who, if they wanted it, would go buy it.

Automated Retail Systems deals with Point of Sale devices sort of your
basic electronic cash register, but all souped up.  Most of our work is
in supermarket POS (the registers, scanners, scales and the network to
the office controllers).

For more info send some email.
-- 
D. Brian Kimmel           /    briank@ars2.UUCP   \   The Emerald City....
Director of R & D        \  Voice: (206) 325-8922  / Seattle, Washington.
Automated Retail Systems  \  Fax: (206) 325-9127  / Standard disclaimer(s).
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2870 pnw.general:1999
From: bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:46:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: dogear.c9H9PB3w165w
Organization: Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA

noah@cs.washington.edu (Rick Noah Zucker) writes:

> The advantage of CallerID is
> that you can screen the calls without making someone pay for a call.
> I am not saying I am in favor of CallerID, but just pointing out that
> screening calls with answering machines has problems.

Assuming that they call from a number you recognize, of course. Seems
like either way, CID or Machine, problems ensue. 

As to long distance, isn't it the case that CID can't show numbers 
from outside the area?
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Subject: Re: New topic (incredible) (was: Re: Seattle Online / polari)
Organization: I/Ovations
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:10:25 GMT

In <1992Aug25.182358.24204@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:

>callers would want their ID protected for illegitamate purposes.  The people
>wanting anonymity when calling others that are abusing their hiddeness greatly
>outweigh the numbers that have any real need to remain hidden.  By not
>allowing caller ID or by insisting that anyone who wants it can have blocking
>on caller id, we are as good as handing out hoods to the KKK.  When people
>know that whatever they say is anonymous they feel free to let the worst of
>themselves out.
>   People call to check if you are home in order to rob the place, people
>call to harras and intimidate others, solicitors call as an advertisement

The big problem that everyone overlooks when making this argument is that
if someone wants to harass you, and remain anonymous, they need only use
a pay phone to defeat caller-id.  If you take the position that you never
answer calls unless it is from a number you know, you will miss many calls
from friends and relatives that may not be calling from their home, and
even may be an emergency.  Bottom line: you gain nothing.

>I thought the idea of caller ID was the greatest protection of privacy that
>has been thought up since there has been a phone in almost every home.  I
>don't understand how people who are against caller id are claiming that it

I think you have the wrong idea here.  You say you can't think of a
legitimate reason for someone to hide their ID.  Well, if I call a local
business for information, I don't want them to have my phone number and
address just because I called.  That is a violation of my privacy.  With
caller-id you create a situation where someone that wants to harass me
has only to use a pay phone (WHICH THEY PROBABLY DO ANYWAY, IF THEY ARE
SMART), but in order to get information of any type without having my
number entered into a mailing/phone list by the business I call, I now
have to leave my house and go use a pay phone.

Bottom line:  You gain nothing, you lose convenience in using your phone
without getting on mailing lists.  The phone company gains revenue.
The business world gets you on their mailing list because you showed an
interest in their product.

Yup, sounds like a great idea to me...


*NOT*


-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2818 pnw.general:1949
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID (Was Re: New topic (incredible))
Summary: An Anti View
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:19:32 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Aug25.182358.24204@eskimo.celestial.com>, alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
> I support caller ID.  This is one of the few areas I totally disagree
> with the opinions of the ACLU on.  I think the right to privacy of my
> own home is supported by me being able to know who it is that is calling
> me.  When my phone rings it is my privacy in my home that is being entered
> by the caller.

You have the right to know who's calling your home.  If someone does not
want to surrender their right to privacy and blocks caller ID while calling
you, you have the right NOT to accept the call.  The caller's rights are
protected, and so are yours.

Somehow, we've gotten into a Pavlovian mode... a ringing phone MUST be
answered.  Remember, you DO have the option not to answer... whether you
have Caller ID or not.

>   I can think of very few instances in which protecting the callers ID can
> be for legitimate purposes.  

Then you must not believe in unlisted numbers, either... which Caller ID
will nullify.

> I can think of lots of instances in which
> callers would want their ID protected for illegitamate purposes.

Yup... so they use a pay phone instead of their home phone.  "Caller ID" is
a misnomer.  "Incoming Number ID" is more like it.  The process does not
tell you who's calling, just the number of the originating phone.

Your phone rings.  You don't recognize the number.  Do you answer?  Yep, it
might be a solicitor or a crank call.  It could just as easily be your
daughter with car trouble calling from a pay phone, or a hospital where
your husband was just admitted.

In other words, you'd probably answer it anyway.  If it were a crank call,
you'd have the number.  And if it traces to a phone booth outside Moe's
Tavern...?

Yes, there are those undergoing harrassment that could make use of Caller
ID.  And for them, I'll accept it.  I'll even accept a "No call blocking"
provision.

In return, I want the Caller ID capability RESTRICTED to private
residences.

But that's unacceptable to The Phone Company.  They'll tell you, "The
commercial users provide the majority of the customers, making the price
affordable to individual consumers."

Think about that VERY carefully.

Why are the commercial users so hot to get Caller ID?  Are they plagued
with callers inquiring about the captivity status of Price Albert?

Whatever it is, you can bet your personal privacy is not foremost in their
minds....

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2899 pnw.general:2022
From: robs@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert Sipe)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Was: Washington State Patrol's... Now: snitching on DUI's
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:25:06 GMT
Followup-To: seattle.general
Organization: Boeing

In article <1992Sep1.222035.28765@mdd.comm.mot.com> zintel@mdd.comm.mot.com (Mike Zintel) writes:
>relative to cost and that an informed, rational decision weighing social 
>benefits against financial and social cost of recruiting everyone with a 
>cellular phone into vigilante law enforcement effort was made.
>



There was a driver in front of me who was so hammered that he/she could
not stay between the white lines.  Cars would have to swerve to avoid
being clobbered from the side.  It was dark so I copied his license 
number and stopped at a truck stop to call and report the driver.  
The dispatcher answered and was obviously irritated that I was calling 911
and reporting a DUI.  The license number wasn't good enough and I needed
a make, model, and discription of the car.  Appearently the driver made it
off the freeway safely since I did not catch up to an accident.





-- 
For those of you who wish to send a clear message to Time-Warner for
promoting Ice-T's Cop Killer song, write to: Geral M Levin, CEO 
                                             75 Rockefeller Plaza
                                             New York, NY 10019
From: raoul@fangio.wa.com (Jeff Benedict)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Test: New site in Port Townsend
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:15:59 PDT
Organization: J. Benedict Computing, Port Townsend, WA.

This is a test of a new site in Port Townsend.

fangio.wa.com is a small site which currently has e-mail and a few 
newsgroups.

Persons interested in Usenet access in the 379, 732, 385 and 437 telephone 
exchanges should contact raoul@fangio.wa.com.  

Jeff Benedict

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
| Jeffrey E. Benedict | J. Benedict Computing | "When the going gets weird, |
| raoul@fangio.wa.com | Box 277, Chimacum, WA.|  the weird turn pro......." |
| raoul@halcyon.com   |  98325 (206)385-5819  |            -Dr. Raoul Duke  |
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: tunae@microsoft.com (Tuna Ertemalp)
Subject: Re: Washington State Patrol's `cellular listening center'
Date: 03 Sep 92 20:24:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep2.142331.25353@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> paula@koufax.cv.hp.com (Paul Andresen) writes:
>In article <MS-C.715375780.662824084.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>, mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
>   
>> It's also used to snitch on drunk drivers, but in my experience the State
>> Patrol isn't interested in citizen drunk driver reports (unlike the California
>> Highway Patrol which actively solicits them and even sends all cellular users
>> a `Guide for Detecting Drunk Drivers').  Evidentally Washington doesn't take
>> drunken driving very seriously.
>
>That's becuase the WSP is mostly interested in sitting by the side of the 
>road, watching their precious radar. 

I can add to that. Recently I rear-ended somebody, the police came,
took the statements. I was the last one writing the statement in the
backseat of the WSP car. Just when the officer and I were saying
goodbye to eachother, a truck pulled behind us, the driver got out,
knocked on the officer's window, and showed him a passing braun old
Toyota Tercel, and said that the driver had an open can of beer between
his legs, was drinking out of it, and driving dangerously. The officer
thanked, the truck driver left, the officer even didn't radio the
complaint to anybody on the road further south (and the traffic was
jammed, so it would have been easy to catch the Tercel driver), and
after he let me go out of his car, he just drove off.

I can't get away with being 10 miles over the speed limit on an empty
road, but some drivers can get away with drinking and driving in the
middle of hundreds of cars on a highway. Geeeeee...

Tuna Ertemalp

Xref: sparky seattle.general:2907 pnw.general:2028
From: lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.com (Larry Morris)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID's fundamental flaw
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:15:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: mdd.1992Sep4.001550.8293
Distribution: pnw
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA

In <1992Sep3.161829.9689@tc.fluke.COM> tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) writes:

>I guess I'm naive.  I guess I live in a dream world.  Most of you appear
>to be living in aggressive, dog-eat-dog, protect yourself at all costs
>kinds of worlds.  Am I that out of touch?

[...]
>particular person with whom we don't want to speak.  We simply let the
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>answering machine screen the calls.  And hey, we routinely get wrong
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>number calls from people who have misdialed looking for a business - I
>typically inform them of the right number, they're usually embarrassed
>and appreciative.

>I think I'm against caller ID.  I already dislike people who use
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>answering machines to routinely screen their calls (sure, it's their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>right, calling someone is invasive, but almost all communication
>begins with an invasive act and I'm in favor of communication).  

OK, now I see why I have so many problems making logic based arguments 
with anti-CID folks.  Its some genetic thing.  Yeah, thats it.
I mean, do you or do you not screen calls?  Do you or do you not
dislike call screening?  Could you provide a truth table?  I'm so
very confused.  Maybe you use CID to see if you recognise the caller
and only screen if you don't know them.  Hey, thats not a bad idea!


-- 
Internet:    <lmorris@mdd.comm.mot.COM>   |  Larry Morris
 ...uw-beaver!sunup-----\                 |  Motorola/Mobile Data Division
 ...uunet-----------------!mdisea!lmorris |  19807 North Creek Parkway
 ...van-bc!mdivax1------/                 |  Bothell, WA  (206) 487-5810
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Distribution: pnw
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 13:12:03 GMT

noah@cs.washington.edu (Rick Noah Zucker) writes:
>>Call return is also useful with some harassing type calls.

>	If you read comp.risks, there was an interesting story about Call
>Return recently.  It seems someone got a harassing phone call and used
>Call Return.  However, it gave them the wrong number.  The guy who posted
>to comp.risks got the call!  Software problems!

And in comp.dcom.telecom, the consensus is that the person who made the
harassing call had his phone set to *forward* to the person that got
the return call. Caller ID or Call Trace would have had the correct number.

There's a bit of a debate at the moment among the folks who set the
standards for this sort of thing as to what the "correct" thing to do
is if a Call Return is aimed at a number with forwardimg turned on.
It looks like the final decision will be to ignore the forwarding.
-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,seattle.admin
From: fyl@fylz.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Seattle Online / polari
Organization: FYL
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:39:52 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

markt@polari.online.com writes:

: Hmm, well not all of SOL's accounts are paid accounts.. Most are free.
: Most services here are available to anyone for 30 minutes a day.

Ok, this gets me back to a previous question.  If the phone company
screwed up and disconnected the wrong four phone lines and they were
going to be down for days, wouldn't it be reasonable to call some (or
possibly all) of the paid customers and let them know about the other
12 lines they could call and when service was expected to be
restored?  Wouldn't it be in your best interest to call the people you
have uucp connections with to inform them of the problem so that news
and e-mail wouldn't be backing up, both on your system and theirs?

I ask these questions because it matters to me and the community.
I have told lots of people how to get an account on Usenet.  Because
of my work I probably get a request a week.  And recommending a system
that is dead for 5 days without telling its paid customers puts me in
a position where my professional judgement is questioned.  Also, the
fact that you (where I assume "you" means Bruce) would let the phone
company get away with this screwup and not have it fixed immediately
seems irresponsible.  I have worked for "the phone company" and I have
made mistakes that screwed up someone's service.  But not for days and
certainly not for days for commercial service.

I can't say that I am 100% happy with any of the public access systems
in the Seattle area but I can say that those that I have uucp
connections with phone me if there is a problem.  And I phone them if
there is a problem.  As we provide a service for the community the
irresponsibility of any of those service providers reflects on the
other providers as well.

: lets see what wc -l /etc/passwd gives us.
:    3041  /etc/passwd
: 
: Yep, 3041 entries..

Again, it seems reasonable to distinguish between paid users when it
comes to calling people to inform them of a problem.  Also, as 12
lines were supposed to be working, it seems that posting a message
about the problem to seattle.admin would have been order as well.
-- 
Phil Hughes - FYL - 8315 Lk City Wy NE - Suite 207 - Seattle, WA 98115 
Phone: 206-526-2919 x74      Fax: 526-0803
E-mail: fyl@fylz.com or nwnexus!fylz!fyl or cpac.washington.edu!fylz!fyl
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: William Grant <bgrant@halcyon.com>
Subject: Re: Seattle Online / polari
Originator: bbs@halcyon.com
Keywords: Bruceki problari poor service feed
Organization: Seattle Offline
Distribution: pnw
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:54:17 GMT

 
wendor@eisley.wa.com (Chuck Gladu) writes:
 
> markmc@sierra.com (Mark McWiggins) writes:
>
> > I got some e-mail from Bruce King saying he'll be back up by 
Wednesday or
> > so.  He said he went to reduce the number of phone lines he was 
carrying
> > from 16 to 12, and US West unhooked the wrong ones (i.e. the ones 
with the
> > main phone #'s).
> >
> I don't think this explanation will hold water.  I have the list of all
> of polari's phone number's and all 16 of his data lines AND his
> voice line were all disconnected.  Now I know we have all had trouble
> with US West at one time or another, but disconnecting ALL of a
> customer's lines by mistake seems a little unlikely.
>
> Anyhow, it wasn't just his main numbers at the top of the ringdown
> sequence.  ALL of his numbers were disconnected.
>
 
    The true story is that the Phone Company demanded Bruce pay them
a  $1000 deposit because his phone bill was always so late.  Naturally,
Bruce wouldn't stand for that! After all, they cant do that to Bruce 
King!
So he didn't pay.  Then they disconnected all of poor Bruce's phones.
And then he paid.  So, naturally, Bruce decided to lie to everyone so
they wouldn't know how stupid he was.  And, naturally, no one believed
Bruce because he has done all this before.  Many times.
 
   Now Bruce is back online and all the phones are working (except the
ones that aren't) and all the users are smiling (except the one that 
don't).
And all the mail is coming and going (except the mail that isn't) and all
the news is freely flowing (except the news that didn't). So we can all
relax now and listen to Bruce tell us some more of his wonderful stories.
 
  ===================================================================
 
   "If we don't suceed, we run the risk of failure"  Dan Quayle
 
  ==========    ========================================    ==========
 
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2801 pnw.general:1932
From: merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: deadlock on Caller ID
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:10:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: romulus.MERLYN.92Aug27231047
Organization: Reed College

In article <MS-C.714973387.377401575.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
   It's amazing that these often tend to be the same clowns who claim that drugs
   should be legalized on the grounds that the government should have no business
   interfering in what a person can buy.  The hypocrisy of interfering between
   willing buyers (those of us who want Caller ID) and willing sellers (the phone
   companies) doesn't reach them.  Nor will it.

Wrong analogy.  If I want legal drugs, it doesn't take away anything
from *you*.  If you want Caller ID, you are indeed taking away
something from *me*... namely, my privacy.

I don't think that having a phone company sell off my privacy to you
is moral.  Now, if *I'm& doing something wrong, like harrassing you,
*sure*... get the phone company involved and the police involved.  But
short of that, just get an answering machine.

Listen... I'm all *for* having "trace this number for the police" on a
button.  But "here's my phone number to every tom dick and harry I
call" is not fun, nor necessary.  *Nobody* has shown me that it is
necessary, *especially* if we add a "trace this number for the police"
button to every phone.  (Well, OK, an escape sequence, not a single
button. :-)

If the phone company will make money selling you my phone number when
I call, I want a piece of the action!

Just another private fellow, fighting for the rest of us,

--
Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
merlyn@reed.edu (guest account) merlyn@ora.com (better for permanent record)
cute quote: "Welcome to Portland, Oregon -- home of the California Raisins!"
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2763 pnw.general:1902