From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:04:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <BD.92Dec18070843@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger) writes:
>
>>If Calling-#-ID is not ruled unconstitutional (which it IS), 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?  Why don't you Caller ID freaks put yourself on the other 
>>end of the line for a minute.
>
>First, you assert that Caller ID is unconstitutional.  Do
>you have the Supreme Court decision which says so?  On what
>grounds do you make this assertion?

No, because the Supreme Court hasn't had the chance to rule it 
unconstitutional yet.  I believe I stated my reasons *WHY* I think it's 
unconstitutional in other messages, which I'm sure you'll read before this 
one, so I'll leave that out, unless you have more questions, that is.

>Second, no-one said PLM (people like me) were going to give
>out our phone numbers to *everyone* we call.

That's what it sounds like to me.  I could just be interpreting things 
wrongly, though.

>When I make personal calls to friends, I'll give out my number
>(why not - they already have it).

Agreed.  Me too.

>When I make a call to a business like the electric company, or
>a bank, then I will give my ID (why not, the first thing I say
>in such a conversation is something like "Good Morning, my name
>is Brice Dowaliby and I'm a customer of yours".  In order to
>deal with any problems with my account they have to know who I am
>anyway, so I won't bother to block calls to them).

Agreed.  Me too.

>When I make calls to the local book store, video store, grocery
>store etc. then I will block caller ID.  They have no reason
>to know who I am.  As a business, I don't think they will block
>calls without Caller ID.  If they do, then they will lose my
>business.

Again, me too.  However, here you must insert the following.. and also 
people you don't know (since residential customers are allowed to purchase 
the CNID service).  They may have ulterior motives.

Basically, it's up to the caller when to block and when not to block.  
However, the unconstitutionality emerges when you consider that 99.99% of 
Americans don't understand all this flib-flab technology and they consider 
it safe to not bother blocking their number, even to undesirables they may 
call or businesses which keep records, which the caller may not want.

It seems that the reason most people here fail to see this is because they 
DO understand all this technological flib-flab.  They are 'cyberpunks'.  
They realize WHEN to block their numbers and when there is no need to.

>Chad, why are you so insistent that you have the right to get
>me on the telephone without identifying yourself?  Are you
>a pollster or something?

Funny.  If I KNOW you and/or hear that you are a reputable guy, then I will 
allow you to have access to my number.  If someone just gave me your number 
and said to call you for advice on a particular matter, I will block my 
number.  It's none of your business what my number is.

Does that clear up my insistance?
-- 
Chad Helfenberger
(chelf@lunatix.uucp) 
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:6586 sci.electronics:20653