peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/14/89)
I hope that this doesn't set too much of a precedent. As much as I like Caller-ID, it should be possible to block it on any call. At that point the recipient can decide not to accept such anonymous calls. Unblockable Caller-ID is, on the balance, a bad development. I wish some of the people out there would campaign to fix it, rather than tear it down. Sigh. `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu [Moderator's Note: But therein lies the rub. As much as you like it, you wish they'd give you an escape hatch, to prevent other people from 'enjoying' it as much as yourself! :) In the few places where it is now installed and a part of life, there seem to be very few or no exceptions to the non-blocking rule. I've come to the conclusion that voluntary blocking along with the ability to send <wilfully> unidentified calls to treatment would be a good compromise. PT]
peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/17/89)
Well, no. I wouldn't anticipate using the anonymity very often. But then I'm not one of those folks who have a fit when a telemarketer calls them. And I'm not into telephone harassment. And like I said, you can always ignore calls with no ID. (though a while ago I was getting harassed by someone, and when I called them back I got their boss, who wanted to know why I was harassing his employees!) `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "vi is bad because it didn't work after I put jelly in my keyboard." -- Jeffrey W Percival (jwp@larry.sal.wisc.edu)
ceb@csli.stanford.edu (Charles Buckley) (11/19/89)
>From: peter%ficc@uunet.uu.net (Peter da Silva) >Date: 13 Nov 89 18:55:21 GMT >Unblockable Caller-ID is, on the balance, a bad development. >I wish some of the people out there would campaign to fix it, rather >than tear it down. Sigh. A really simple solution presents itself, which is to have certain target numbers, available through simple application, which cannot make use of caller id - calls to these numbers will be guaranteed anonymous, and it would be a federal felony to have such a service be available on a line so advertised. The police department anonymous tips line could be one of these, as well as the crisis lines for battered women, and other places where it seemed to the subscribers applying to be a good idea. The existence of these would justify making anonymous-out numbers as difficult to get as they currently are, since normally non-anonymous-out callers could still call those willing to interact with them anonymously as before. Such numbers would carry a small symbol after their listings, and on advertisements, etc. which means that this number is anonymous. It should be something with good icongraphic significance, but typable using typewriters (and computer equipment) that everyone has. I like ][, which looks like a little barrier, or maybe nnn-nnnn@#, where @ is replaced by < overstruck with /, which is harder to type, but more symbolically laden.