tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (tom jennings) (04/11/91)
Isn't all this talk of "intent" off the mark?
Any talk of "intent" is way off the mark. If the telco simply
provides the tools whereby I can block ID in any or most of the various
methosd mentioned in here, what's the problem?
The problem seems to be getting hung up over "intent" -- I *might*
do some terrible thing. Then someone comes up with counterargument,
ad nauseum.
INFINITE LOOP DETECTION -- you can always come up with any number of
"obvious" examples. Stop trying.
If I use Caller ID/anonymity/privacy to commit a crime, there are already enough (I'd argue *more* than enough) ways to prosecute me.
What *I* see here is the law'n'order mentality in it's intellectual
disguise -- the someone-might-do-something-bad assumtion, with its
well-of-course-we-need-safeguards and all that.
It is *none of anyones business* whether I "might" do something
illegal -- or wrong. Until I do it.
98% of the arguments -- pro or con -- seem to me to be thought-police
in one form or another. And now ...
--
tom jennings - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!111!tom.jennings
INTERNET: tom.jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG