NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/comp/privacy/23

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.privacy:23 alt.privacy:3084
Newsgroups: comp.privacy,alt.privacy
Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!reed!batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!xn.ll.mit.edu!ll.mit.edu!nates
From: [e-mail] ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: Anti-privacy is Anti-Caller ID)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:13:41 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry Parks) writes:
>>I think we need to clarify some terminology here.  Terry seems to be
>>using "privacy" to refer to his right not to be interrupted in his
>>home.
>
>Caller ID doesn't provide this. What it does uniquely is to at long last give
>people the ability to control who has and doesn't have access to their homes.
>Just like the peephole in my front door provides.

do you let your daughter peep through the hole first?  maybe its a flasher.
the peephole is more like picking up the receiver and listening for heavy
breathing.  the knock on the door is like the ring on the phone...Caller ID
would sort of be like a fingerprint analysis of the knocker, presented as
some kind of Integer.  you see the Integer and decide whether or not to
peep through the hole.
>
>>Most of the other people who read this group are using "privacy" to
>>refer to their right to keep to themselves any and all information
>>which they consider to be nobody else's business.
>
>You have this right regardless of Caller ID. If you wish to remain private,
>simply choose not to call me, period!

Who cares about calling YOU??  its the influx of new businesses that then
can tap into our personal information - and this happens whether or not
we get Caller ID because when they put in the service, our number goes out
to these businesses anyway - unless they also provide blocking.  so if some
of us wish to remain private, EITHER the service cant be turned on in our
area OR they have to provide blocking.  way back, they said they'd provide
blocking for a fee.  no good.  so then they offered per-call-blocking via
some code you dial first.  no good.  what they SHOULD give you is LINE
blocking for free AND BY DEFAULT.  you say people have the right to keep
their info to themselves regardless of Caller ID.  however that right
would be taken away just by the implementation of Caller ID.

note though, that if they did give line blocking by default, the whole
money-making scheme that this "feature" is based on would melt away.  that
is why phone companies are against line-blocking.  they want you to have
to remember, because they figure you wont enough times to make list-building
a profitable business.
>
>>Terry, attempting to label the latter people "anti-privacy" is not
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>only inaccurate, but a sure way to earn enemies while ensuring that
>>your arguments are ignored.
>
>Contacting other people, especially strangers as in the scenarios presented
>by you anti-privacy types is not a way to remain private. If you wish to
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  cant you read?
>remain private, don't contact me!
>

Terry Parks is sounding like the reincarnation of Glenn Cooley.  a long
time ago we had a big argument about this.  John Gilbert came up with a
fine solution that would satisfy all parties involved, but Glenn Cooley
wouldnt hear anything of it.  As presented today, Caller ID doesnt even
give Terry Parks or Glenn Cooley the kind of obscene phone call screening
they really need.

there's hope for you yet, Terry...dont dispair....  :-)

- nate