HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com (Scott Linn)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: deadlock on Caller ID
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:26:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvca.1992Aug28.172606.4610
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:
: 
: 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.

You are not guaranteed privacy when calling on a phone, period.  Your
statement that it is a "wrong analogy" is incorrect.

"Gee, these people with scanners that can listen in on portable/cellular
phones are violating my right to privacy.  That should be illegal."

Baloney.  Just don't use a portable/cellular phone.  Or, get one that is
digitally encrypted.


Scott Linn
scott@hpcvccl.cv.hp.com
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2843 pnw.general:1973
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:47:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug30.134752.18341
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala) writes:

>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!

No. Continous Redial (a misnomer, for sure!) is for use if you call a
number and it is *busy*. You dial the code, and your exchange sends a
message to *their* exchange asking to be notified when the line is
free. When it becomes free, their exchange sends a message to your
exhange, which then rings your phone in a distinctive pattern. You pick 
it up, and then your exchange tries to call them again.

It does *not* try to make the call until you pick up your phone. This is
in case you got tired of waiting and wandered off without cancelling
the "re-dial". 

This also makes it *very* useless for contest lines. :-) But it's great
for getting a shot at getting through to someone who makes *long* calls.

What you were afraid of is already available to any 13 year-old with
a C64 and an autodial modem... and they *do* it.
-- 
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,seattle.general,uw-cs.bboard
From: bcn@june.cs.washington.edu (Clifford Neuman)
Subject: Apartment For Rent
Organization: University of Washington, Dept of Computer Science
Distribution: seattle
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:58:17

			 Apartment For Rent

Very large two bedroom apartment with two bathrooms, view of
Greenlake, Mt. Ranier, the Olympics and the Cascades.  On North 85th
street, 3+1/2 miles from the University.  Easy biking distance, and
right on bus route to campus.  Appliances include Range/Oven,
Refrigerator, Dishwasher, Microwave, Washer and Dryer.  One of the
bedrooms is furnished.
				   
			Rent $750 per month
				   
	      Contact Hilary at 784-2123 (before 9/5)
		      Cliff at (310) 823-6877
	      or send e-mail to bcn@cs.washington.edu
				   
Newsgroups: seattle.general
From: metzger@ninja.zso.dec.com (john metzger)
Subject: Female soccer players wanted
Reply-To: metzger@ninja.zso.dec.com (john metzger)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 17:31:17 GMT



Female Soccer players wanted...

I play on a co-ed soccer team that is looking for a few women players
because of a rash of pregnancies and newborns to a large number of
women on the team.

We play on Thursday night either at 6:15 or 8:15. We play in the 4th
division of an 8 division league (though we have played competitively
as high as 1st division but are more interested in nights than division)

Most of the players on the team are between 26 and 32 years of age. Most
of the men are pretty skilled players and the skill ranges of the women
go from first time beginners to high school and college experience.

We're more interested in having fun and playing the game than winning
although we usually make the playoffs and have won our division several
times...

Cost is $37 for 10 or 11 games. We have requested Northern (shoreline, Green
Lake) and Eastside (marymoore, Robinswood) fields for this season.

If you are interested send me mail at Metzger@decwet.dec.com

John Metzger
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: briank@ars2.uucp (D. Brian Kimmel)
Subject: Re: CALLER ID
Organization: Automated Retail Systems, Seattle, Wa
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:31:26 GMT

In <1992Aug25.234206.20686@u.washington.edu> monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan) writes:

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

>>it is the privacy of the home that is being invaded and the individual who
>>is being called should have the right to know who is doing the invading.

>If you're listed in the phone book, you're inviting people to call (why
>should an unlisted number cost more?)

Inviting?  My number is in the book to *allow* people who have some
desire or need to contact me to do so.  It is hardly an invitation.

I don't consider a phone call an invasion either.  I consider an invasion
to be a forceful act and I can let the phone ring or let my answering
machine pick up the call.

Do I want caller id?  Yes.

Why?  Because it is there :-).  But more seriously, It will cut my
perception of possible harm arising from the phone call in the
same manner that street lights cut my perception of possible harm
from walking down the street at night.

I will feel marginally safer because it is there.

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).

Brian
-- 
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).
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Subject: Re: Caller ID's fundamental flaw
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Distribution: pnw
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:43:06 GMT

In <MERLYN.92Aug26105759@romulus.reed.edu> merlyn@romulus.reed.edu (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

	In article <1992Aug25.190953.25494@eskimo.celestial.com> delisle@eskimo.celestial.com (Ben Delisle) writes:
		   I have to agree; it is always a good idea to know who is calling
	   just as I have a peephole in my door to see who is knocking on it, I
	   have a need and right to see who is trying to telephone me.
		   If a person wants anominity in their calls then there is a
	   million public pay phones to choose from in their calling adventuers.

	Ugh, I've heard this analogy before, and have seen it shot to pieces.
	It looks like I'll have to be the one to do it here.

	Caller ID is *not* like having a peephole in your door that allows you
	to see the face of the person.

	Caller ID *is* like havina peephole in your door that allows to you see
	*only* the License Plate number of the car that the person drove up in,
	or possibly nothing if they didn't use a car.

	Now, how many people can *you* identify strictly by license plate number?

	This is the fundamental flaw of Caller ID.  You don't get a *person* id,
	just a *channel-of-communication* id.

	And that's not sufficient (I won't argue the side for "is it
	necessary").
...............deleted stuff
	What's the *point* of caller ID, except as a way to get more revenue
	for the phone company, based on the "fear" factor and the "control"
	factor?  But it merely raises a lot of false hopes, and cannot expect
	to deliver what anyone needs from it.

	That's why *I'm* against Caller ID.  As if you couldn't tell.

	Screen your calls with answering machines or voicemail.  That's
	sufficient, really!

I WANT CALLER-ID, not to screen calls, but to have the phone
numbers of the teleslime, hangup-bandits, or other obnoxious
types after I've answered the phone.  The general availability of
caller-id may server as a deterrent to misuse of the phone system
by telemarketers and other obscene phone harassment.

	(This doesn't even bring up my other major point: that it allows
	businesses to collect local phone numbers to sell to telemarketeers,
	but I'll save that for another discussion...)

It's very easy for businesses to collect phone numbers now
without caller-id.  At least with caller-id I will have their
number and have the capability of dealing with unwanted
telemarketing from these companies.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2805 pnw.general:1936
From: jp@fnx.uucp (Jack Pospyhala)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: Caller ID's fundamental flaw
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:18:56 GMT
Distribution: pnw
Organization: I/Ovations

In <1992Aug26.205921.15586@beaver.cs.washington.edu> torerik@cs.washington.edu (Tor Erik Jeremiassen) writes:

>of your 800 number calls). By the way, given the assumption that caller ID 
>was available, I would never accept a call to my private residence which
>Was blocked. Would you open the door to someone that covered the peephole?

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.

-- 
Jack Pospyhala                                    uunet!pilchuck!fnx!jp
There is no gravity, the world sucks...
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2748 pnw.general:1885
From: monaghan@carson.u.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: CALLER ID
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:42:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug25.234206.20686
Distribution: pnw
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug25.182358.24204@eskimo.celestial.com> alpinist@eskimo.celestial.com (David Butler) writes:
>
>     Sorry to find a totally irrelevant topic in your post but this is
>something I would be interested in hearing other peoples opinions on.
>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.

I don't know what the ACLU position is/was, my objection was that the
public was required to pay for this "feature" whether you wanted it. 

>   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
>that you cannot ignore before answering.  In every one of those instances

That's why I have an answering machine.

>it is the privacy of the home that is being invaded and the individual who
>is being called should have the right to know who is doing the invading.

If you're listed in the phone book, you're inviting people to call (why
should an unlisted number cost more?)

>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
>is a protection of privacy since the person calling is doing an 'aggressive'
>act by initiating a phone call and the person calling does know who the
>receiver is, it only makes sense to let the person receiving the call know
>who it is that is invading their privacy.
>

Tracy
+++++
arithmetic-mean, melanin-deficient, gender-advantaged
Xref: sparky seattle.general:2847 pnw.general:1977
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: seattle.general,pnw.general
Subject: Re: New topic (incredible) (was: Re: Seattle Online / polari)
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:30:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug30.143036.19069
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Distribution: pnw
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:

>Where a harassing call, etc came from can be tracked down if the time
>of the call is known, just preserving the info or properly
>cross-referencing it is needed, certainly a trivial addition for caller
>ID.

It's already part of the CLASS package. Caller ID is just one component.
Call Trace records the number of the last call at the phone company. But it
requires either a pattern of harassment or a request from the police to get
anything done with it. If it's something like a teenager "having fun",
then a quick call to their parents is likely to solve things *without*
escalating things needlessly.

>The originating number is ALLREADY available, else the enhanced
>911 service couldn't work.

E911 requires a special setup. The info is *not* available generally.

>In the case of calling to check if one is
>home, caller ID is of no use, since (as I understand it) no ID is passed
>if the call is not completed (the called end doesn't go off-hook).

Incorrect. The Caller ID data is sent between the first and second rings.
It wouldn't be very useful for screening calls if you had to pick up
the line first.

BTw, many Caller ID boxes store the last few IDs received, along with
date/time info. Or you can get a cheap unit that just pipes the data
into the serial port of your computer.

>You
>can BET that in any caller ID system provides for those declard as
>'imporant' folk can disable THEIR caller IDs, this should be available
>to anyone who pays for unlisted and/or unpublished numbers.  Without
>that safeguard, I cannot ever support the idea of caller ID.  There is
>no easy way to determine the destination of a call - a private party or
>some business that would record (and sell to boiler rooms) numbers of
>folks calling for some inquirey on a product or service.  One shouldn't
>have to pay the price of junk phone calls to merely call some business
>to check on prices, availability of some product or service, etc.

In most of the places with Caller ID unlisted numbers get blocking as
part of the charge (though the charge might have increased a trifle). 
If you have unpublished, you are paying for a *considerably* lesser
level of privacy. I'd say that as long as the charge isn't excessive,
folks with unpublished numbers should have to pay for blocking. 

And Per call blocking is prefectly adequate for many people. That's
where you dial a code to block ID transmission for just that call.
People with per line blocking can dial a code to turn *on* ID transmission.
But once again, only for that single call.

-- 
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,pnw.general
From: nealf@mdd.comm.mot.com (Neal Friedman)
Subject: Caller ID
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: pnw
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:55:02 GMT

Caller ID is a lousy idea, that will only be used to make $$$ for the phone
company, and allow business to gather more information on me than I want.
It provides no gain or advantage to me, the individual consumer.  In the two
cases where I have personally received threatening phone calls, I had no
real desire to deal with the calling individual anyway: I'd rather let the
police or phone company do that.  And there is a *MUCH BETTER* way to deal
with such situations (see below).

Besides, it is easy to defeat (by calling from a pay phone), and provides only
the number of the phone, NOT the name & address of the calling party.  Also,
unlisted numbers, or numbers of individuals who have asked to have their
number blocked from caller ID won't show up.  Wanna bet the crooks and 
harrassing salespeople don't block their phone numbers?  If a crook wants to
rob your house, calling from a payphone defeats Caller-ID.

A much better option is available - phone number tracing.  In this case,
if you receive a harrasing call, or some other call that you want to know
the origin of,  immediately hangup and punch a special code on your phone,
like 0*7 (or whatever, I forget what the original proposal used).  The phone
switch marks the call you just received.  Hangup.  Then you call the operator
and ask for the most recent call to be traced.  The phone company, not you,
will follow up, prosecuting the crime, or contacting the offending caller or
whatever.  The phone number itself is NOT compromized, and you don't have
to deal with said nasty individual.  A variation prints a report on your
next monthly bill (but not the actual phone number).

Anyone who is not a "nasty individual" will presumably identify themselves
and willingly provide their phone number to you, if you don't already know it.  
A small fee per trace might be reasonable to allow the phone company to
recover their expenses, and keep the service from being abused. 

This is too cumbersome for businesses to track customers with, but allows
for the odd harrassing or illegal call to be dealt with.  Women's shelters
and unlisted numbers are also safe, since the phone number itself is not
given out.  This service can not be "blocked" by criminals.  And since it
costs the phone company money to deal with many complaints from the same
offender, they (Baby Bell) will want to nab the offender.  Better a big
phone company goes after some telemarketer than 1000 little customers.

The only limitation is you can't pre-screen your incoming calls, but that
is what you have an answering machine for anyway, and *I* don't find this
to be a useful feature.  I know how to hangup, just as easily as I can
close my front door in someone's face (not that I've ever done either).

Flames to me via Email.  Rational comments to the net.
From: rpj7264@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Martin C. Emde)
Newsgroups: seattle.test
Subject: test
Keywords: test
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:22:27 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Lazy B Dude Ranch

test
From: wendor@eisley.wa.com (Chuck Gladu)
Newsgroups: seattle.test
Subject: test
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:30:34 PDT
Organization: Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS

test

-
wendor@eisley.wa.com
...!nwnexus!eisley!wendor
...!seanews!eisley!wendor
                +++ Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS   Seattle, WA +++
From: wendor@eisley.wa.com (Chuck Gladu)
Newsgroups: seattle.test
Subject: Test #2
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 16:36:23 PDT
Organization: Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS

Just another test

-
wendor@eisley.wa.com
...!nwnexus!eisley!wendor
...!seanews!eisley!wendor
                +++ Mos Eisley Spaceport BBS   Seattle, WA +++
From: rpj7264@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Ron Jobmann)
Newsgroups: seattle.test
Subject: test
Keywords: test
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:16:08 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Lazy B Dude Ranch

test
Newsgroups: seattle.test
From: news@seattleu.edu (Usenet News)
Subject: TEST
Organization: Seattle University
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:36:51 GMT

Test of outgoing postings with c-news
TEST222
From: jgarner@sumax.seattleu.edu (Jeff Garner )
Newsgroups: seattle.test
Subject: Questions about Unix/News
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:16:49 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

I've got some questions about UNIX and News, and don't know if 
I should post them on a larger group or what...  but here 
they are:

1) Where should I post questions about Unix and Internet.

2) When the read-news says "Skipping article", does that mean the article
isn't in a format read-news can deal with?  i.e. is the article a binary
or something sitting in a directory of the read-news?            

3) How do I permanently set my stty.  

4) I'm having some term interface probs with Pine 3.x.   I don't have
such probs on my U.W. account... just here.   Any ideas?  (Pine usually
is off by a line or two... at the bottom..gets really screwed up... 
can't type past the first screen, either... I AM using VT102, and the
rest of the screen looks ok, usually.  

That's about it, for now...  Thanks!

Jeff Garner
Shoestring Software


Newsgroups: seattle.test
From: news@seattleu.edu (Usenet News)
Subject: TEST444
Organization: Seattle University
Distribution: seattle
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:19:46 GMT

TEST444
TEST444

Newsgroups: seattle.test
From: mzenier@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: test
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix (206) 328-4944
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:56:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.085024.70@shamu> jk2828@shamu (Jeff Krautkremer) writes:
>more testing, fun, fun, fun...

Your From: header line is faulty.  It doesn't specify what domain
your machine is in.  Email replys will never get there.

Mark Zenier  markz@ssc.wa.com  mzenier@polari.online.com

Newsgroups: seattle.admin
From: kelsey@mdd.comm.mot.com (Joe Kelsey)
Subject: Re: Feed Capacity Available
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:40:32 GMT

In <1992Sep3.181138.3689@stephsf.com> wengland@stephsf.com (Bill England) writes:

>   With the Demise of Polari as a news  distributer (Bruce switched 
>   to PSI who, I believe, does not allow Usenet to their customers to 
>   be redistributed.)

Note that PSI physically cannot place such a restriction on any site.  What
PSI attempts to do through contract restrictions involves preventing a site
that pays for leaf-node service from forwarding posts from downstream sites.
You can easily get around this restriction by simply forwarding your
downstream posts through an alternate site -- something easy to arrange since
the post volume generally amounts to a trickle compared to the receive
volume...

Also, the site I help maintain (MsElectron.com) receives a feed from polari
and I haven't noticed a problem with volume.  So, no problem with polari here
-- I really don't know what Bill's (imagined) problem might concern.  

/Joe
Newsgroups: seattle.admin
From: fyl@ssc.wa.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: mail from uunet to polari
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
Distribution: seattle
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:20:10 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Here is an update based on a few more facts from others.
  * polari no longer talks to uunet but apparently now talks to psi
  * the maps indicate a direct link from psi to polari but uunet is
    sending stuff through nwnexus to ssc which then shows a demand
    connection to mcgp1 who connects (according to the maps) to polari
  * mcgp1 is dead (as that name and connection configuration) and should
    be removed from the maps
  * uunet has now been asked to re-route polari traffic to psi
  * I now have 273 files queued for mcgp1 (and most then to polari) --
    a problem that I am about to correct
  * Some other local people have noted messages that have addresses that
    go through about six local machines and have polari in the path twice
    -- real cute :-)

For those of you on polari who are looking for your mail, sorry.  I will
attempt to find a way to get the stuff we have here forwarded.  I suggest
you ask Bruce or whoever what mail paths work this week.
-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
     uunet!nwnexus!ssc!fyl or fyl@ssc.wa.com            (206)527-3385

Newsgroups: seattle.admin