From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:22:26 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my childish msg.  I had something 
stuck up my ..  I'm sure I deserve some flames, but that's the way the ball 
bounces.

In article <BzF8y9.CIL@ns1.nodak.edu> csmith@plains.NoDak.edu (Carl Smith) writes:
>>>
>>You say EVERYTIME the phone rings, it is invasion of your privacy.  Let me 
>>guess.  But ONLY if it is someone you don't want to talk to?  Right?  I 
>>figured so.  Let me clue you in on something.  You could 'potenitally reveal 
>>all sorts of info about' yourself when talking to ANYONE on the phone, not 
>>just someone who you don't want to talk to.  
>
>I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND.  Most of the people that I WANT to talk
>to already know more about me than anything they could derive from a phone
>call.  People that I don't know could get info on the phone that I don't
>want them to know, but my friends and relatives already know.  It is 
>obvious that anyone calling has the same potetial for gaining info.  

Ok. ok.  You're ABSOLUTELY right.  For the record, you NEVER said that.  I 
was just guessing what I felt you probably thought.  Also, I should have 
refrained from tacking on, 'Right?  I figured so.'.  

A couple of questions.  You say, 'People that I don't know could get info on 
the phone that I don't want them to know, but my friends and relatives 
already know.  It is obvious that anyone calling has teh same potential for 
gaining info.' [spelling errors MINE]  I thought the standard argument for 
pro-Caller ID was something along the lines of 'If I don't recognize the 
number, it offers me a chance to ignore the call.'  I'm not saying that you 
said this (you may have, but I got into this thread late).  Do you feel that 
way?  If so, then the last statement of my above quote is irrelevant, as you 
wouldn't answer the phone in the first place if you don't recognize the 
number.  

>>If Calling-#-ID is not ruled unconstitutional (which it IS), 
>
>OH, COME ON NOW, UNCONSITUTIONAL?  How?

Well, for one thing, it is marketed as something it is not.  It is a 
misleading product.  It was designed for business use, NOT residential.  If 
you are interested in some of the ramifications, I suggest reading the CPSR 
Testimony regarding PhoneSmart features in Boston.  They lined up quite a 
few points, of which, I cannot remember. (product = service l.2).


>>then there must 
>>be some sort of protocol which will be followed by called parties and 
>>calling parties.  WHY in the HELL would you want to give out your number to 
>>anyone you called?  

>When caller ID is available I will GLADLY give my number out to anyone I
>call, with the idea that they will do the same for me when they call.

If you WANT to give your phone number out to anyone you call, I suggest you 
either subscribe to, or start reading Risks Digest.  It's not in your best 
interest to give your number to any business, OR person you call.  Here's 
something that could happen:  A friend of yours gives you a number to call 
for advice on your next hardware purchase.  You have no idea who the guy is 
when you call.  He could use your number for any number of reasons.  For 
example, he could call you BACK at any time (which could be merely an 
annoyance), or he could dig up any kind of info he wanted on you.  It's not 
hard to find your address, credit history, and other personal information 
MERELY from your phone number.  Granted, all of this info-gathering is 
illegal, but that's why the privacy issue always comes up.  It's an invasion 
of privacy.  Not in all cases, but how are you going to know who has your 
number, especially after you continually allow them to have it?

>>Why don't you Caller ID freaks put yourself on the other 
>>end of the line for a minute.
>
>I am not a caller ID freak.  I think that the people who think that the
>simple act of making someone reveal ther phone number when calling is
>unconstitution are anti-caller-id freaks.

I should have elaborated on the 'protocol' issue I brought up.  I will do so 
now.  If I call a business/person, I should have the right to block my 
number from that business or person.  If the business person does not choose 
to accept my call, fine and dandy.  I can either call back with my 
unprotected number, or I can just go to a payphone.  Either is fine with me.  
This is what I meant by a 'protocol'.  

>Like I said, when I get caller ID I WILL NOT BLOCK MY NUMBER FROM BEING
>SENT OUT.

Again, if you check out and READ Risks Digest for a while, you will change 
your mind on that statement.

>>That doesn't parallel *Calling-#-ID* at all.  When someone calls that you 
>>don't want to talk to, it's merely an inconvenience.  When some freak is at 
>>your door, your life could be at danger.  Please pick your analogies with a 
>>little more realism.
>
>When I said that I guess I should have stated that I was not considering
>threats of physical violence from the person on the other side ofhe door.
>I was just considering the fact that if I didn't want to talk to the perosn
>on the other side of the door I don't have to open it and talk to them. 
>Just like I shouldn't have to talk to people on the other end of the phone
>line when I don't want to.  That's why I used the example of the "Handy
>Dandy Brush Salesman," rather than an example of an axe-wielding murderer.
>I was trying to make a comparason between telemarketers and door to door
>salesman.  I can look though the peephole and of I can determine that the
>person on the other side of the door is a salesman, I don't have to open
>the door and talk to them.  With caller id, if I can determine from the
>number that the person on the other end is a salesman, I can choose to
>not answer the phone.  Without it I HAVE to answer, and at least listen
>to them for a short while to determine who they are.  This parallels
>my above example in that, if I had no peep hole to look through I would
>have to open the door to see that the man on the otherside was a 
>salesman, and then I would have to slam it in his face...

>So, discounting threats of physical violence, my example above is VERY
>REALISTIC.

In light of your new clarification, I can say, yes, the above example is 
quite realistic.  However, what I don't understand is this:  Are you so 
pressed for time that you can't pick up the phone and listen for a few 
seconds to determine that it is an unwanted caller, and simply hang-up on 
them?  Weighing the two sides of Caller ID, I'd say that the preservation of 
privacy ranks much higher than a few seconds saved by not answering the 
phone.

>I think that you need some realism in reading what I said.  I resent how
>you tried to put words in my mouth in your second paragraph above, where
>YOU told ME that I MEANT that it was an invasion of my privacy when my
>phone rings ONLY when I DON'T want to talk to the other person.  Actually,
>I never said anything of the kind.  The thing is that if I had caller ID
>I could choose who I wished to reveal the hypothetical private information
>to.  If it is someone I want to talk to, they already know the information,
>or I am CHOOSING to reveal it to them so that I can talk to them.

I deserve everything here.  

>Without caller id I HAVE NO CHOICE but to reveal the hypothetical private
>information.  If I don't want to miss important calls, I have to answer
>ALL calls.


You have to answer ALL calls if you don't want to miss an important one 
anyway.  If the number on your CNID box is one which you don't recognize, 
how do you know that it's not important?  It could be the hospital calling t 
osay that a loved one has been in a bad accident.  You simply cannot gauge 
the priority (or importance) of a call by the number someone is calling 
from.

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