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