TELECOM Moderator <telecom@eecs.nwu.edu> (06/23/91)
Acting separately, two congressional sub-committees voted Thursday that where Caller*ID is offered by telephone companies, *per-call* blocking must be made available at no charge. The House Commerce Sub-Committee on Telecommunications and the Senate Judiciary Sub-Committee on Technology and Law both voted on similar items, and differences will be ironed out later on. Both groups rejected *per-line* blocking, but said that option could be available in individual states. According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to make calls anonymously." And Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI) noted, "People should have a right to make phone calls anonymously and not have to say who they are." The final bill will be presented to Congress for a vote later this year. PAT
john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon) (06/23/91)
On Jun 22 at 19:47, TELECOM Moderator writes: > According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of > people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by > unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to > make calls anonymously." What an interesting opinion. It would be laughable coming from anyone who did not have to power to create silly laws to enforce it. So now the right to be secure in your home and enjoy peace and tranquility takes a back seat to the right of someone who wishes to annoy and upset someone with anonymous calls? The reason for the state of our country is becoming clearer and clearer... And what if the ability to make anonymous calls had not been a default aspect of current telephone technology? Would there NOW be laws on the books to make it that way? Somehow I doubt it. It is the usual knee-jerk reaction to new technology. > And Senator Herbert Kohl (D-WI) noted, "People should have a right to > make phone calls anonymously and not have to say who they are." That is an interesting statement from someone who is an elected official in a government that has methodically and steadfastly REMOVED the privacy and anonymity of its citizens with the blatant overuse of the SSN, that employs federal "crime enforcement" that ignores actual Constitutional guarantees (the right to make anonymous calls is NOT Constitutionally protected), and that has otherwise intruded and meddled in the lives of people to the point of giving lie to the greatly touted liberty of US citizens. In essence, Congress should make NO laws concerning things technical. Whatever our elected representatives have knowledge of (damned if I can tell what it is), it certainly has nothing to do with technology. For every law that Congress passes that deals with telecommunications, it later ends up passing four more to attempt to undo the damage caused by the first. John Higdon <john@zygot.ati.com> (hiding out in the desert)
bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu (06/24/91)
Pat, do you have the numbers of the subject bills? I would very much
like to contact my Congress-sharks and give them my opinion on
Caller*ID blocking.
The Senate and House versions should each have different numbers.
Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363
Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171
[Moderartor's Note: Unfortunatly I do not. My brief article was
composed from the AP wire story on Friday which was substantially
longer than I used. There were quotes from ACLU'ers, and other
remarks. I just now went back to review my copy, and the bill numbers
are no where to be found. Maybe someone can supply them. PAT]Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> (06/24/91)
In article <telecom11.480.10@eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Moderator quotes: > According to Representative Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ) "The desire of > people to have privacy in their homes and not be intruded on by > unwanted calls is not as important as the right of people who wish to > make calls anonymously." I sure hope the representative will be consistent. He should propose legislation to ban peepholes in doors. After all we must preserve the rights of anonymous visitors. He should also propose legislation to invalidate all state laws which require that number plates be displayed on automobiles. After all, we must preserve the rights of people who wish to drive anonymously. More seriously, if caller ID had been built into the phone system from day 1 by Alexander Bell, and someone were proposing ID blocking, these same legislators and the ACLU would be up in arms opposing the blocking and quoting the constitution in support of their case. Actually I don't mind the caller ID blocking, on one condition -- that the phone company make it possible for me to never receive any calls where the caller has selected blocking. Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science <rickert@cs.niu.edu> Northern Illinois Univ. DeKalb, IL 60115 +1-815-753-6940