NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/dcom/modems/20157

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:20157 alt.security:5407
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,alt.security
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!The-Star.honeywell.com!umn.edu!umnstat.stat.umn.edu!rjg
From: [e-mail] (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: Caller ID products?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: itasca.stat.umn.edu
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:08:53 GMT
Lines: 82

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William Unruh) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
|>
|> >Do I have a right to know your telephone number?  As much as you have
|> >the right not to tell me.  If you object to your number being displayed
|> >on the equipment, then make use of the no-cost option to block your
|> >number.  If your phone company doesn't offer this, or charges for it,
|> >scream loudly at them.  I'll even help you scream loudly at them as a
|> >Caller*ID supporter.
|> Sorry mine does not allow blocking unless you call the operator to make
|> the call and they charge $1.00 each time for the priviledge. If they let

Which I fully believe should be eliminated.  You should have the option of
permanently or selectively blocking your information at no charge to you.

|> me block for free I would have no objection. You have the choice always
|> of not answering. What if they offered a new service- call you r number

No, I do not.

Perhaps if all you get at home is personal phone calls, then yes, you are
correct.  However, when you schedule aircraft, maintain a building, take
phone calls from military offices, deal with security companies, work as an
independent contractor and do a zillion different things from your home, you
do NOT have the option of not answering.  The difference between answering
and not (by choice) could result in expense, loss of service or other forms
of "damage".  Yes, this can occur as easily if I am simply not there.
However, when I am there, I will not allow these things to happen by "choosing"
to ignore.

|> and they will tell me if you are home or not (listening for voices
|> movement etc)- think of how useful this would be for parents who left
|> their kids home alone, or for checking if a burglar has gotten into your
|> house. No longer do you have to disturb someone while they are in the
|> shower because you can tell before you ring from the sounds in the
|> home-etc.

You can't compare apples and oranges.  The argument doesn't hold water.
While that information may be useful to you, to determine whether to call
or not, it doesn't compare equally with my need to know where a call is
originating from.

As far as "how useful this would be for parents", it's already done
routinely.  It's called an answering machine.  I have one.  Have had one
for years.  You enter your code, press a key and like magic, the microphone
is activated and I can listen to the ambient sounds - completely useful for
someone wanting to check up on the kids, burglar, whatever.

|> Of course there ae benign or even useful uses of CallerID. But there are
|> also gross misuses of it that noone will address except to wring their
|> hands when they occur. (Kid phones the 900 number- are you home alone?
|> Bye Bye Kid.I think there are a lot of crooks out there who see this as
|> a wonderful invention, and no I don't know all of the inventive schemes
|> they will come up with to use the extra info.

As a consumer, I want the tools to effectively use the service.  Caller*ID
solves at least as many problems as it creates.  However, the lack of said
utility also creates many problems.  Those problems affect me and this
service solves them.  Therefore, I _will_ purchase it when available.  I'll
even make it clear to all that I have it (though most everyone knows I'll
be the first on the block with it).  Therefore, if you object to the service,
don't call me.  It's your right NOT to call (just as it's my right not to
answer).

As I've discussed with others, my interest is knowing the source.  If
Caller*ID presented a text origin of the call (Say "First Bank Systems"
or "The Nelson Residence") rather than a phone number, I would be equally
as interested (and perhaps even more, since a single source name could
cover hundreds, if not thousands, of phone numbers belonging to a single
entity ... But the product did not evolve that way, and probably never
will - unfortunately.  Until it does, however, I'll take the less perfect
solution.)

Therefore, either demand free blocking from your telephone service
provider or don't call me.  (And if you write via U.S. Mail, don't forget
to not include your return address and drive out of your way to drop it
into a mailbox that is outside of your zipcode... Nearly ALL communication
solutions have much more "privacy invasion" problems than Caller*ID.)

--
\\ Robert J. Granvin                                 User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota            [e-mail]