Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!kudla
From: kudla@rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla)
Subject: Re: Caller ID problems
In-Reply-To: cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu's message of 2 Apr 91 07:38:25 GMT
Message-ID: <bw_gmhc@rpi.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: nuge107.its.rpi.edu
Organization: just say no!
References: <1991Mar29.220816.8305@ima.isc.com>
	<1991Mar30.043415.7314@odin.corp.sgi.com> <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU>
	<1991Apr2.073825.7152@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 3 Apr 91 21:47:42 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <1991Apr2.073825.7152@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

   In article <13945@helios.TAMU.EDU> byron@archone.tamu.edu (Byron Rakitzis) writes:

   >I don't see how anyone can regard Caller ID as an "invasion of
   >privacy". It's like saying that a peephole on your front door
   >constitutes an invasion of any visitor's privacy because their
   >"right" to knock on your door anonymously has been interfered with.

   It's an invasion of your privacy when the person behind the peephole
   reaches out, grabs your neck, and wrings your wallet from your pocket
   long enough to get your name, address, telephone number, and any
   associated data.  Get it?

No, I don't get how simply seeing a person's number displayed is
equivalent to grabbing their wallet and extracting any data you
please.  At present, the evil nasty cross-referenced telephone
directories everyone warns about are not available in machine-readable
format that I know of.  Without such a beast, the operator would have
to have already gotten the info about you - just like if you already
had dealt with the person on the other side of the peephole and knew
its face.

Even *with* the xref directory, the oper would only have your name and
address - or more specifically, the name and address of whomever owns
the phone at your residence.  In my case, this is *not* my name,
though the address may be correct.  And if you have an unlisted
number, which admittedly is pretty pointless with CallerID in effect
(and which I feel should really be abolished), they can't even get
that info from the xref directory.

If the person on the receiving end of the phone call doesn't have
CallerID, it is really analogous to a door without a peephole - the
only way to get *any* info about the caller is to make yourself known
and *ask* for the info.

This is a really complex issue, but I've been using email, which is
harder for the average user to forge (i.e. most non-geeks don't know
how) and which always identifies the sender, for years now and I've
gotten into the habit of letting my machine get my calls rather than
answer them myself when I'm in a don't-want-to-talk mood, and getting
anonymous stuff in the U.S. Mail usually freaks me out a little.  That
is to say, I've been spoiled.

I also have no reason to be anonymous.

Robert Jude Kudla <kudla@rpi.edu>
                                   
No more bars!  No more cages!  Just rollerskating, disco music, and
the occasional light show....

