From: chelf@lunatix.uucp (Chad Helfenberger)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Caller ID block?
Date: 18 Dec 92 20:47:26 GMT
Organization: Lexington Public Access Unix. -KY- (606) 255-9121

In article <17DEC199223031718@acad3.alaska.edu> psrjd@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>my number (if/when I call them).  Why must everyone know who is calling them 
>>before they pick up thet phone?  If you don't like who is calling you, just 
>>scream obscenties to them and hang up.  Big deal.
>
>It's a matter of time, for one thing.  I've got better things to do than play
>human answering machine.  (Hello, the Sum A. Shole from Time/Life records, and
>we'd like to sell you something...)

It's, of course, your right to not answer a non-IDed call.  However, the 
point I'm trying to make is that it is in your best interest to answer EVERY 
call that comes through your line.  Why?  Because a little number on an LED 
readout is not a measurement of importance.

>>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.
>
>Sure, no problem.  When I use my phone, it's to usualy to manage my time.  If I
>call someone, I've no beef with x-mitting my phone number, because what I plan
>on doing will be legitimate.  Examples?
>
>A)  Conducting business over the phone.  If I want to order something from a 
>    catalog, hey, no sweat, chances are I'll be giving out my CC number,
>    address, and other information anyway, what is the loss?
>
>B)  Call a freind.  No sweat.  If I've got a persons phone number, I make it
>    a habit to make sure they have mine, there's no problem here.

You left out C) Calling someone you DON'T KNOW.

>>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.
>
>Ever get some asshole calling YOU at two in the morning?  Sure, he's not going

Yep.  Quite annoying isn't it?  That's about ALL it is, though, is annoying.

>door down (yet, he's still on the phone, but if he's got your name, and phone
>number, how long do you think it's going to take to get that, eh?)  At any

Exactly.  How long will it take someone I call to find out my address from 
my unblocked phone number.  Not long, if they are so inclined.

[some stuff deleted]

>As far as this being constitutional?  Why not?  Unless you're trying to
>paralell it to the 1st Amendment.  If so, you're out of it.  As I recall,
>you're freedom of speech is garuanteed, as long as it doesn't interfere with my
>rights to: A) ignore you; and B) endanger my life.

It's unconstitutional because the phone system defaults to giving out your 
number, not the other way around.  If it defaulted to blocking your number, 
then it would not even be up for discussion.  See, the great majority of 
American people don't realize the information people can get on them just 
from their telephone number.

[European caller topic deleted]

>I won't argue your right to have CID blocked.  That could actually be
>justified.  Just keep in mind that it's my right to not take your call, be it
>business, personal, or prank.

Actually be justified?  It is to be justified at all costs.  I do keep in 
mind that it's your right to not take any call you want.  However, as I said 
before, you cannot make an informed decision on whether to accept the call 
UNTIL you start the conversation.  Caller ID does not change that.

As I said in another (recent) posting, Caller ID was designed for business 
use, not residential.



-- 
Chad Helfenberger
(chelf@lunatix.uucp)