Caller ID/ANI Thread
Lynn R Grant
devolving into an "is not"/"is too" discussion.
Perhaps we should take a break from this subject, and deal with easier
problems, like which of the worlds religions is the One True Religion.
Lynn Grant
Gr...@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Computer Privacy List Moderator
>devolving into an "is not"/"is too" discussion.
I agree. It's been rehashed to much. See the messsage in this digest.
>
>Perhaps we should take a break from this subject, and deal with easier
>problems, like which of the worlds religions is the One True Religion.
No Way. The Berlin Wall is down, the Soviet Union is no more, DOD
is closing bases, and there is peace in the Middle East. That is child's
play compared to getting people to agree about Caller ID. Next thing I
know you will want the Cubs to win the World Series:-).
dennis
David Lesher
I seem to recall that a Rochecter Tel sub called the 800-stopper ANI #,
and got readback, then "*67"ed, and called again - this time NOT
getting one.
Anyone have a technically - valid explanation?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Hans Lachman
This is directed to those of you who are in favor of consumer
privacy:
As you've probably surmised, there is nothing wrong with having
the ability to block ANI. This ANI issue is really just one
specific sub-issue in the larger debate over consumer privacy.
The debate seems to be between those who want to increase the
consumer's control over his/her own information, and those who
want to defeat any efforts toward that goal, for whatever
reason. People in the latter category will confront you with
questions like, "What harm has ever been caused by ANI
delivery?", or, "Why do you feel threatened?", or, "Why should
the consumer have more control?", or "What do you have to
hide?"
My advice: Don't answer these kinds of questions. They
presume that you need to justify any change in the status quo
that gives the consumer more power. You don't. We have seen
in this newsgroup extensive attempts at justification for
allowing ANI blocking. Then the anti-privacy freaks criticize
those justifications as weak or hypothetical (which some are).
Instead, turn the questioning around, and ask the anti-privacy
freak for proof of any danger resulting from the increase in
consumer power. That puts them in the defensive position. I
asked for this proof in the ANI debate (earlier article), and
got deafening silence from the other side.
In conclusion, I believe that consumers should have maximum
possible control over the collection, dissemination, and use of
information about themselves. Below is an excerpt of a past
article in this newsgroup, indicating that the current
administration is simpathetic to privacy concerns. I hope it
wasn't just campaign rhetoric, and that something will be done
to give consumers more power.
Hans Lachman <lac...@netcom.com>
John Higdon
> OK, this is my last post on this topic (I hope!).
That is too bad, since I have a question or two for you, since you seem
to be the Hard Questionmeister.
> Instead, turn the questioning around, and ask the anti-privacy
> freak for proof of any danger resulting from the increase in
> consumer power. That puts them in the defensive position. I
> asked for this proof in the ANI debate (earlier article), and
> got deafening silence from the other side.
This is very clever (well, not that clever) sophistry. However, I have
a question for you:
What gives you or anyone else the right to call me at my place of
business and dictate how I will use a telephone service that I not only
pay for monthly, but also for the proximate call you are making at the time?
And further, what gives you the right to tell me how my business will
be conducted so as not to use a feature that you dislike? Whether you
call my 800 number is entirely a matter that is under your control. You
make that conscious decision. I do not force you to call my business
and if you are so strongly offended at the loss of your anonymity, I
would strongly advise you to refrain from calling mine or anyone else's
800 number.
Yes, it may cause you some inconvenience to avoid using 800 numbers,
but nowhere is it written that you have any right to call them on your
specific terms. If you want to get legislation (just what we need, more
junk laws) passed that requires statements such as "calling this number
may reveal your telephone number to the callee", that is one thing. But
to take it upon yourself to dictate aspects of a service in which you
do not even participate as a customer or as a supplier (just as a
beneficiary of its mere existence) is display of extreme arrogance.
It is not a God-given or Constitutional right to be able to call 800
numbers anonymously. These numbers are paid for by businesses to
further their own business needs, not to satisfy some intrinsic obligation
to you. If you feel the public is inadequately informed concerning the
technical aspects of 800 service delivery, no one is stopping you from
taking out full-page ads in national publications to remedy that
situation as it is perceived BY YOU. ANI delivery is not some dirty
little secret of which only fabulously informed persons such as yourself
have any knowledge.
> In conclusion, I believe that consumers should have maximum
> possible control over the collection, dissemination, and use of
> information about themselves.
I could not agree with you more. As I pointed out, you can block any
800 number from reading your ANI very easily (don't call). I also
realize that you want your cake and eat it too. You want businesses to
shell out for those 800 numbers which save YOU money, but you also want
to dictate the terms by which they can be used. Sometimes you cannot get
what you want, just the way you want it at other people's real,
monitary expense.
BTW, I will be happy to prove that ANI delivery causes no harm right
after you show me how. Please prove to me that cucumbers do not cause
cancer. Otherwise, I am going to see what I can do to have them
outlawed :-) I did get that right, did I not? You merely have to make a
groundless accusation and it is up to those of us paying the bills on
and participating in the service in question to disprove your charges
with a propondrance of the evidence while you sit back and indignantly
look on. Got it.
--
John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
jo...@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407