Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!vector!telecom-gateway
From: lotus!bobf@uunet.uu.net (BFrankston)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Caller ID Privacy Question
Message-ID: 
Date: 17 Aug 89 15:11:35 GMT
Sender: news@vector.Dallas.TX.US
Lines: 22
Approved: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.dallas.tx.us
X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 309, message 4 of 8

I presume I will be one of many respondants pointing out that just because
something is old it is good.  Remember that rights themselves were not part of
the constitution -- the bill of rights was a last minute patch.

The right to privacy is controversial in that many see it as implied by the
Bill of Rights and others say that any new (since 1800 or so) technique for
invading privacy is good.  When I was in junior high school I was told that
writing to a Socialist (ok, Communist) embassy caused the FBI to start a file
on you (the Joe McCarthy way of doing things for those old enough).

What good is privacy if the mere act of placing a phone call, writing a letter,
or using a credit card is equivalent to publishing your thoughts.  There is no
right of free association if it is closely monitored.

I very much want the caller ID feature, but the caller must be provided with
safeguards.  It is not sufficient to say that prefixing a call with *999
provides privacy -- it must be possible to make that a default on a line and to
provide legal responsibility if the number gets disclosed through the phone
company's negligence.  In the battered shelter case, there can be a cost
associated with disclosing the number.

Bob Frankston