From: robin@pencom.com (Robin D. Wilson)
Newsgroups: austin.general
Subject: Re: PUC: Caller ID illegal
Date: 20 Nov 92 15:09:49 GMT
Reply-To: robin@pencom.com
Distribution: austin
Organization: Pencom Software

In article <1992Nov17.235214.815@oakhill.sps.mot.com> brucel@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Bruce  
A. Loyer-Highend Comm) writes:

> Currently, you can control who makes calls to your number.  Only those people
> whom you give your number to can call you.  I agree that the computerized 
> calling machines violate this but in general all calls to your number 
> started with you giving out your number.

Yeah right!  The other night I received 4 phone calls.  1 was from a friend of 
mine.  The other 3 were from businesses soliciting me.  Even people who have 
un-listed numbers get victimized often.  So this is a major fallacy in your 
argument.
 
> With caller id, you do not control giving out the number.  You are able to
> stop giving out the number on a call by call basis if you dial several extra
> numbers.  Everyone using a phone is trying to maximize their time or else they
> would talk in person.  Therefore, the default will be that you give out your
> number.  Businesses will then compile lists of phone numbers and sell this 
> information.  Other businesses (or the original business) will then call you
> to sell you more stuff (or ask for contributions, etc.)  You have lost control
> over your phone.  Your privacy has been invaded.

First, YOU are in complete control with caller ID.  If you don't call someone, 
YOU didn't give out your number.  What's the difference between that and the 
phone book anyway?  Besides, how many 'legitimate' business would be calling 
you based on your caller ID, if they knew it just 'pissed you off'?  Certainly
businesses could figure out pretty quickly that pissing off their customers 
would not be a good use of their time/advertising dollars.

The simple solution to this problem is make CallerID a residential service ONLY.
Don't let businesses use it.  In fact, you could make "business use of caller ID  
information a crime..."
 
> I believe that the making of these phone list is the major reason behind 
> caller id.  Because of the invasion of privacy, I am against caller id.
> I am willing to compromise if Southwestern Bell will block calls on a per
> line basis.  This means that you would have to tell Southwestern Bell once to
> block your line and then not worry about it.  This is the same thing that is
> done with 1-900 numbers.  You can now block all 1-900 calls.

Allowing people to block their lines sort of defeats the whole purpose of this
in the first place... I can see it now: all the harrassing phone callers in the
world just dial these extra 2 (or ten) numbers, and go on about your business.

> I do not know why Southwestern Bell is against this compromise.  

Because it defeats the whole purpose of caller ID in the first place? 

> Bruce A. Loyer

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|They didn't even know I could talk, much less have opinions  (yeah right!) |
|USNail:   701 Canyon Bend Dr.                 Internet:   robin@pencom.com |
|          Pflugerville, TX  78660                                          |
|          Home: (512)251-1737                 Work: (512)343-1111          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+