peter@uunet.uu.net (08/31/89)
John R. Covert says: > I've just received mail from someone who disputes my claim that Caller-ID > isn't needed to stop harrassing calls. He feels that, for personal reasons, > he can't go to the phone company or the police with the Call-Trace data. > He'd like to just ignore calls from that number or send them to an answering > machine. Hi. I'm the person referenced in this article. I'd just like to note that none of the options described in it are open to me. In any case the whole argument is irrelevant. Caller*Id, ANI, or whatever stupid TLA or marketing term you want to use for the service, is desirable. It is a facility that I would pay money to have available. I see no need for more justification than that... it's a capability which adds to the value of telephone service. If you want to argue for certain limitations on it to protect privacy, that's fine. I think that's perfectly reasonable, and I've even argued on that side myself. If you want to claim that because it's not necessary it should not be allowed, that's ludicrous. You could make the same claim about anything over POTS. Surely I don't *need* Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, and so on. No, John Covert needs to establish that ANI is fatally flawed and an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Not just that there are individual workarounds for any particular use of it. And I don't think he can do that. --- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' 'U` "How many humans does it take to change a light bulb?"