peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/01/91)
In article <48611@apple.Apple.COM>, baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) writes: > Would it be reasonable to allow caller-id, but report back not the phone > number, but some 'encrypted' version of it. This is a number that could > be reported to the police, or whatever.... This has the same problem as call-trace, in that it means you can't deal with the problem except by pulling the police into it. Great, let's bring the cops into things, wasting taxpayer's money, and delaying their response to a real emergency when a simple call to a kid's parent at a later time would have solved the problem without fuss or bother. [ this is not appropriate to comp.org.eff.talk, I'm directing followups to alt.dcom.telecom. ] -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`
peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (02/01/91)
In article <10585@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) writes: > What might make everyone happy is to have two options: per-call blocking, > and per-phone-blocked-call-blocking. That's the proposed standard in Europe. > The latter means that a given line > will not ring unless Caller ID information is sent first; Well, not quite. That would block all long-distance calls. You need per-call blocking and block only calls that are identified as blocked. > that way you > can't be harassed by somebody without knowing their number, but services > which want to guarantee anonymity can leave the lines open. So would businesses... they can't afford to lose a customer however prickly. [ Followups directed to alt.dcom.telecom... ] -- (peter@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com) `-_-' 'U`