HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:32:54 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: I/Ovations

In <1992Aug26.182524.2974@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.061025.11388@fnx.uucp> jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala) writes:

>>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
		...
>>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.

>   This seems to be one of the main arguments against caller ID.  The fact
>that you might get your name on a phone list.  (horrors)  Lets see ... if
>you pay for anything by credit card, if you order a magazine, if you buy
>anything through the mail, if you donate to charity, if you enter a 

If I actually purchase a product through the mail, I have an interest in
that product, and receiving advertisements for that type of product is
only marginally junk mail.  If I'm just curious enough to call, I
do not, NOT, *NOT* want to be on their mailing list.

As far as paying by credit card, not all credit card companies sell your
name.  Even if they *do*, that is only one source of your name on a
mailing list.  If every vendor you call gets your #, the number of
potential mailing lists you are on becomes staggering.

>sweepstakes, if your address is on your checks - you get put on mailing
>lists every time you do any of those things.  You really have to live a
>restrictive lifestyle if avoiding being put on a list is that important
>to you.  Then it gets down to how often do you call a business that you
>have never bought anything from by check, credit card, or mail order?  I
>bet for most of us it is seldom or never.

When I am shopping for any significantly priced item, I am sure to call
at least two or three businesses.  Often more.  And as someone else
pointed out, the potential for abuse by the government is far more
insidious.  Would anybody really call an aids hotline, or drug abuse
hotline, or pretty much any kind of hotline if they knew that they
would be identified by the mere act of calling?  Or the excellent
example of the IRS keying the calls for assistance to their audit selection
process.  The thought is chilling.

>   So far the benefits of caller ID greatly seem to outweight any possible
>disadvantages.

FOR YOU, MAYBE!  ALLOW ME TO WEIGH MY OWN ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES!

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
Newsgroups: uw.general,seattle.general,uw.announce
From: danc@milton.u.washington.edu (Dan Comden)
Subject: Backing off on Caller Line ID...
Reply-To: danc@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: pnw
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:13:02 GMT

...well, a little, anyway.

I've thought about this issue quite a bit, and there have been thoughtful
and (fairly) flame-free postings on the subject.

If CLID is implemented with the per line and per call blocking features, I can
see how some phone service subscribers may put it to use.  Some benefits
mentioned, like allowing certain numbers to ring through and excluding
other numbers, would be nice features and definitely are an advantage over
using an answering machine.  But the equipment for this isn't readily
available, as far as I can tell.

In my mind, answering machines offer a different mode of call screening,
and in conjuction with CLID will provide the highest level of privacy for
those people RECEIVING calls.

As for calling others, I imagine that I would always block when calling
businesses and never when calling friends or family.  If a business
insists on an unblocked call, they've lost my money.  I've spent the last
year using threats and nastiness to get off of teleslime phone lists; I'm
not about to relinquish the peace I've gained.  Hmmm...that's all the
calls I make, except those via modem.  What to do about those? 

When receiving calls, I would NOT answer *blocked* calls and let the
answering machine pick up unidentified or out-of-area calls.  Calls from
numbers I recognize (a limited list) would be picked up immediately.  

Now then, apart from the issue of the monthly fee for this service, does
anyone have some current prices on the equipment that uses this service? 
I would imagine that I'd need at least two phones to make the service
worthwhile, but I can hear the answering machine from nearly every room in
the house. 

Can someone come up with a reason why we should be charged for this
service?  If the hardware and software is in place now, why should we be
charged for it?

To sum up my feelings about CLID, I think that it's not as bad as it's
opponents make it out to be, and that it won't do as much as it's
adherents claim.  But by using the best of the available technology,
coupled with the right software, we'll be seeing some amazing advances in
this area of privacy.  As long as the phone companies don't screw it up.

I, for one, will not rush out and sign up for it when/if it appears.  I'll
take a "wait and see" attitude on this one.

-*- Dan
(danc@u.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle)
Subject: Duplex for rent
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:26:42 GMT

	Duplex for rent, lower unit, 2 1/2 bedroom
washer/dryer, deck, view of Lake Sammamish,
In Bellevue, on West Lk. Sammamish Pky SE near Northup Way.
$800.00 / month
call 206.644.8086 or 510.549.0959


Xref: sparky seattle.general:2844 pnw.general:1974
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:02:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug30.140207.18646
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>> It is my understanding that the equipment and software is already in
>> place and being used to switch, route and bill phone calls.  All that
>> is required is the equipment on my end to display the caller id.
>> There I have a choice; do I want to pay for caller id or not.  The
>> choice is mine (and thats the way I like it).

>Whoops! for caller id to work, it has to be on more than just YOUR
>phone, so I guess that renders your assertion pretty much wrong. So,
>if you get a choice, then that means that someone else doesn't.

Caller-ID has to be on the switch of the phone receiving the call.
And there has to be SS7 connectivity between the switches (which
the FCC *requires* to exist for essentially all phones fairly
soon). It's not at all clear that Caller-ID software has to be
installed on the *originating* switch. 

So once the FCC order is complied with and SS7 is essentially universal,
even out of area code calls can have Caller_ID. And if the software
*isn't* required on the originating switch, then all your *out of
state* calls to state with Caller-ID will be giving your number.

BTW, I think I have a *potential* solution to your problem with
your job with the court requiring you to call people, but you (quite
reasonably) wanting to keep your number private. The Caller-ID
signal sends *ASCII*, and has a fair bit of room (30-40 characters?).
And there *are* provisions for special signals. So maybe we need
a couple of new messages besides "Blocked" and "Not Available".

I'd suggest "Official" (Ie you don't *have* to answer, but it might
be a *real* good idea!) and "Emergency" (this would be like the bit
with asking an operator to cut in because it's an emergency).

Both could have restrictions about appropriate use. And they are pretty similar to features that *have* been tested. Such as delivering the "name" that
is associated with the number. If wonder if they'd answer a call
that ID'ed as "Superior Court"? :-)

-- 
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)
From: saddler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ray Saddler [BCS] Unix Warlord)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Visualization  (Was: Re: Hurricane)
Keywords: hurrican andrew help twinkies starving little bread sticks
Date: 31 Aug 92 01:55:30 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Northwest Operations

craig@cs.washington.edu (Craig Anderson) writes:
 coylh@eskimo.celestial.com (Ray E) writes:
  
                        WE NEED YOUR HELP!!!!!!!
   
 
 We now return you to the Caller ID Flame fest.
 
 Craig Anderson
 craig@cs.washington.edu                              Visualize World Spam
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have a (home made) bumper sticker which says:       Visualize Whirled Peas


-- 
Ray E. Saddler III               ___ ___ ___ ___     ___      _O_
P.O. Box 24346 M/S 47-10        /__//  //__  /  /\ //  _       |<
Seattle, WA  98124-0346 USA    /__//__//__ _/_ /  //__/    Suspended
saddler@bcstec.ca.boeing.com      Computer Services        in Gaffa.
Newsgroups: uw.general,seattle.general,uw-cs.bboard
From: skahan@cs.washington.edu (Simon Kahan)
Subject: Used Washer/Dryer for Sale
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 01:40:23 GMT

Heavy-Duty Pumpkin (aka Harvest Gold) colored Kenmore washer/dryer pair.
Purchased used three years ago; have replaced heater element in dryer,
timers in both.  Gets your laundry clean & dry.

$120/obo, buyer must transport.  (206) 322 3799

Xref: sparky seattle.general:2803 pnw.general:1934
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:04:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnx.1992Aug27.220417.19575
Distribution: pnw
Organization: I/Ovations

In <1992Aug26.203213.1130@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:

>In article <1992Aug26.061025.11388@fnx.uucp> jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala) writes:
>>In <1992Aug25.182358.24204@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:

>    With caller id as a common feature in phones it won't be long before
>smart answering machines take advantage of it.  You could have some numbers
>that automatically ring through, some numbers that aren't accepted and 
>unknown numbers that are screened through the answering message.  Now,
>some answering machines give special messages to friends and family or
>even individuals if you give them a special secret code or if they go 
>through a maze of menues on their touch tone phone.  With caller id you
>could have individual messages for people that are automatically brought
>up when they call.

If *you* want to spend this kind of money for an insignificant and nearly
meaningless feeling of increased security, that is your business.  *I*
don't want it, and don't want to pay for it.  The problem with caller id
is that as individuals we don't have a choice.

>   Even if you just have a dumb answering machine you can still let any calls
>you don't recognize be routed through your machine for screening.  That way
>friends calling from unknown phones and emergency calls can still get through.

What if I *don't* have an answering machine?  What if I have a large house
and the answering machine is in another room?

>   Bottom line:  There are many advantages to having caller id for personal
>protection of privacy and control over incoming calls.  So far I have seen
>NOT ONE legitamate reason against it.

Or you just shut your eyes and ignore the ones that you don't agree with.

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2804 pnw.general:1935
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:08:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnx.1992Aug27.220846.20025
Distribution: pnw
Organization: I/Ovations

In <1992Aug26.231809.19945@beaver.cs.washington.edu> dbj@cs.washington.edu (Dave Johnson) writes:
>The version of caller-ID currently being requested by US WEST
		....
>Continuous Redial, and Last Call Return.

Uh, you mean if I choose not to answer the phone, some idiot can put the
number on "Continuous Redial" until I either lose my mind or rip the phone
out of the wall?  What a great idea!  What wonderful added security and
service that will bring me as a telephone consumer!


*NOT*

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: bruceki@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: Anger about SOL. (was: Re: Seattle Online / polari)
Keywords: Bruceki problari poor service feed
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Distribution: pnw
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 11:13:58 GMT

In article <klg.714699444@statsci> klg@statsci.com (Kevin L. Gross) writes:


  Kevin, did you bother to read the stuff that you included?  In particular
the passages that follow are pertinent to your posting:  

>>    Look, if you don't like the way that a business is run, you're right not
>>  to patronize that business.  If you don't like someone, you're free to 
>>  not interact with them.  If you feel like saying something constructive
>>  I'm open to dialog.  If you feel like you have to 
>>    1)  call me a liar on an open forum
>>    2)  slander or libel my business practices
>>    3)  get rid of some anger from something else
>>    Why don't you do something constructive with that energy?  Get a 
>>  membership in a health club and exercise it out.  Go and donate the
>>  time and energy to the cause of your choice.  
>>   I certainly don't appreciate your contribution and it's unlikely to make
>>  me change in any way that's going to be significant to you -- so why 
>>  offer it?  
>>    Bruce King
>
>I don't claim to speak for Mr. Grant, but my guess is that he and others are
>responding to your past and present attitudes, boasting and bickering about
>your system's greatness and other stuff that most of us just don't give a
>rat's ass about.  You put yourself in the public eye, so live with it.

  In what part of this thread have I done any of the stuff you list?  If 
you're angry about past stuff it's probably best to let it go if you can do
so.  Find some constructive use for the energy.  I'm obviously hopeless
in your opinion -- fine.  Go find an outlet for your spleen that will
benefit from it.  

>
>Now why don't you respond with another self-righteous, threatening,
>whine-filled posting; inviting more opinions about you, your "business",
>and your apparent lack of understanding about Freedom of Speech and other
>items in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.

  What in the world does freedom of speech or the US constitution have
with this conversation or thread?  Please get current on the topic at
hand and stop having flashbacks to the past.  The conversation about
caller ID happend MORE THAN A YEAR AGO now -- are you saying that you've
been harboring anger about that for this entire time?  Wish I could
help you with your problem; it's obviously bothering you a great deal.

  Bruce.  

Xref: sparky seattle.general:2893 pnw.general:2017
From: witters@tc.fluke.COM (John Witters)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:26:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: tc.1992Sep2.192631.21459
Distribution: pnw
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA

In article <1992Sep1.044537.5487@u.washington.edu> allyn@milton.u.washington.edu (Allyn Weaks) writes:
>
>To avoid teledroids, tell them politely not to ever call back.  WA State
>law says that if they do call back within a year, they pay a $100 fine.

Is this really true?  If so, I haven't heard of it.  Could you give me a
citation so I can look it up to find out how to have the fine assessed?  (And
whether I get to keep a part of it?)

I'd really like to try this against the family portrait studios that keep
bugging me around dinner time.


-John
-- 
    *  *  *		John Witters			voice:	(206) 356-5274
  *  \      *		John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.
 *    \      *		P.O.B. 9090 M/S 241F		fax:	(206) 356-5116
*   DRIVING   *		Everett, Washington  98206-9090	     or (206) 356-5174
 *      \    *
  *      \  *		domain:	witters@tc.fluke.COM
    *  *  *		ARPA:	fluke!witters@uw-beaver.ARPA
			uucp:	{uunet,sun,microsoft,uw-beaver}!fluke!witters
Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: schulman@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jan Schulman)
Subject: Looking for a piano teacher for my 8 yr. old.
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:25:23 GMT

Can anyone refer me a good piano teacher in Eastside for my 8 yr. old
daughter? 
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 13:06:43 GMT

neil@cadreor.cadre.com (Neil W. Van Dyke) writes:

>Caller-ID will allow any organization I call to cross-reference my phone
>number to a database and bring up a file on me before they even answer the
>phone.

And ANI lets them do it *right now*. And they *do*! 

>It seems to me that there's a great potential for abuse here.

>As another poster mentioned, there are other ways of tracing harrassing calls.
>I can screen my calls with my answering machine.  Call-blocking can be done at
>the phone company.  I can't of any other reasons for Caller-ID which don't
>invade somebody's privacy.

"Caller ID" is part of a *package* of services. And things like the call
blocking you mention above are *part* of that package (yes, they can block
without it, but you'll just about need a court order to get them to do it!)

There is *no* state where the phone company has installed the rest of the
package without Caller-ID. They figure it's not worth the trouble. But there
are *plenty* of state where it has been installed with per line and per
call ID blocking available. 

Getting blocking solves the privacy concerns and is only a marginal
decrease in the usefulness of Caller-ID. And it has *no* effect on the
usefulness of the rest of the features. But blocking shouldn't be free.
(on the other hand, it probably *should* be automatic with unlisted
numbers. Unpublished numbers get to take their chances)


-- 
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: uw.general,uw.forsale,seattle.general,seattle.forsale
From: ginnyb@milton.u.washington.edu (Ginny Bunch)
Subject: 	AIRPLANE TICKETS FOR SALE
Reply-To: ginnyb@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: pnw
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:25:59 GMT


Two one-way airplane tickets Seattle - Boston for sale.
$100 - $200 each, (negotiable) depending on departure day.
Call Sarah @ (206) 528-8093.
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: ceng@mdd.comm.mot.com (Curtis Eng)
Subject: Re: WSP radar?  (was: WSP's `cellular listening center')
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:59:48 GMT

In article <967@seahcx.UUCP>, kenh@seahcx.UUCP (Ken Hughes) writes:
|> 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:
|> >   
|> >That's becuase the WSP is mostly interested in sitting by the side of the 
|> >road, watching their precious radar. I've lost count of the number of times
|>                                ?????
|> Hmmmm....  this brings up a question.  I was told recently that the WSP has
|> moved to laser speed detectors.  Can anyone confirm?  I was told that they
|> can "spot" the laser on a single car in traffic for an undetectable "gotcha".
|>

They`ve already been doing that with k-band radar.  They zap you with the k-band
gun and your radar detector goes off like mad.  Unfortunately at that point, the
cop already has a reading and it's too late to slam on the brakes. 
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2848 pnw.general:1978
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID's fundamental flaw
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:37:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug30.143713.19229
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala) writes:

>Hardly the same thing.  What's the worst that could happen if you opened
>the door to someone that covered the peephole?  Most people would say
>the worst is that they barge into your house, rape and torture you, and
>then kill you.  Comparing that to an anonymous phone call is ludicrous.

True, emotional rape can be a lot *worse* than the physical kind. 

I am *not* trivializing rape. But too many people don't seem to understand
what kind of damage can be done by a sicko with just a few phone calls.

-- 
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)
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2809 pnw.general:1939
From: dlc@gasco.uucp (Darci L. Chapman  x5930)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: WSP radar?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:11:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: gasco.1992Sep4.191110.22113
Organization: Northwest Natural Gas, Portland, OR

In article <967@seahcx.UUCP>, kenh@seahcx.UUCP (Ken Hughes) writes:

> Hmmmm....  this brings up a question.  I was told recently that the WSP has
> moved to laser speed detectors.  Can anyone confirm?  I was told that they
> can "spot" the laser on a single car in traffic for an undetectable "gotcha".

I saw a spot about the laser speed detector on some news/magazine show.
Washington state was mentioned as trying them out. I think this was the
same show that mentioned that cops had a higher rate of testicle cancer
than the rest of the population...

>>-Darci->
(who commutes ~100 mls/day in a BMW and is very thankful for her
radar detector and hopes that the Oregon State Patrol don't start using
lasar anytime soon...)


  Darci L. Chapman    \   Northwest Natural Gas   /   Honor Diversity
   X Window Systems    \    Portland, Oregon     /   Not Bigotry
    Consultant          \    dlc@gasco.com      /   Vote NO on Measure 9
 
"The outside of a horse is good for the inside of a man or a woman."-Will Rogers
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: sds@jazzie.com (Sean Shapira)
Subject: Re: Owner of Last Exit Coffeehouse passes away
Organization: Jazzie Systems, Seattle, Washington, USA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 18:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.205246.18270@eskimo.celestial.com> kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
>The UW is probably planning to tear the building down

I hope this bit is only pessimistic speculation.  Is there no
chance the place could continue more-or-less as is?
-- 
Sean Shapira        seans@microsoft.com        sds@jazzie.com
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: gwynne@milton.u.washington.edu ()
Subject: GARAGE SALE 8/29
Reply-To: gwynne@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:42:14 GMT

Saturday - Wedgewood - 9305 45th NE (off Sandpoint Way) - Good Junk
Newsgroups: seattle.general