Results 31 to 45 of 54
- 02-17-2004, 03:23 PM #31Bob SmithGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bob Smith wrote:
> > It's a catch 22 situation John. Yes, there might be an occasion I don't
want
> > to send my caller ID, even though I don't know what that is. The point
is
> > that we are paying for those minutes and it would be very nice to have
the
> > capacity to answer all the calls, if we recognize the number.
>
> "It would be nice" is not a basis on which to construct public policy.
> It is your *choice* to have a wireless phone, and the extra costs that
entails,
> and hopefully you give its number out only to people who have a need to
> call you on that phone.
See ... that's the thing though John. Save for some friends (maybe 10 folks
or so), I don't give out my cell phone number, because I call forward my
home office number to the cell phone. In either calling my home or cell
phone numbers, my home office's caller ID would not show up, unless they
called my 800 number.
>
> > Two occasions this past month, I was expecting return calls from two
banks
> > in reference to certificates requested on my customers. Both of those
also
> > had caller ID blocked. They called in the morning and I did not answer
the
> > calls. I would have taken them immediately if they had transmitted
caller ID
> > in the first place. They both left VMs for me, and I called them back,
but I
> > would have rather taken the calls in the first place to expedite the
> > requests.
>
> That's a good example of why most people shouldn't block incoming calls
> lacking CID. If you happen to be a privacy fanatic, though, you'll take
> your lumps and let the pieces fall where they may. :-)
I'm not blocking any calls. I look at the display first to see who's
calling. If it's unknown, I don't answer it. That said, my daughter called
me last night from her girlfriend's dorm phone, which has caller ID blocked.
I didn't answer it, as it came in as unknown.
Despite what you say, if we are paying for incoming calls, and we are, just
like for my 800 service, we ought to be able to get the caller ID of the
caller.
Bob
Bob
> --
> John Richards
>
>
› See More: Incomming calls on phone bill
- 02-17-2004, 04:22 PM #32Chris Taylor JrGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
When it costs me nothing I almost agree with you (and I do not)
When it costs me (and my cell phone costs me a LOT)
I pay $20 a month for my home phone $68 a month for my sprint phone.
I want to see the numbers of ALL incoming calls. period. hell or high water
as you say. I do not need to see them on my phone but I damned well want to
see them on my bill.
how the hell else do I know if the "charge" is legitimate. ???
the caller makes the sacrifice of privacy except under very special
conditions.
when a private caller calls another private caller they should not have a
say in the matter. I should see their info.
when a private caller calls a NON private caller (buisness or government or
public service or emergency service (rape counseling etc.. etc..) they
should be able to hide their info.
When a non private caller (buisness government etc..) calls a private caller
they should NEVER be permitted to hide who they are.
period.
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/
> > And neither of the people in those examples would be calling me, and the
> > whistleblower is protected by statute anyway. In both cases, there are
> > other perfectly acceptable forms of communication that could be utilized
to
> > maintain anonymity. As far as determining whether or not a person
"feels
> > comfortable revealing their identity", that is a line of crap. They
make
> > the move to contact me- if they are so concerned about their own
privacy,
> > don't call. They make the conscious decision to identify themselves by
> > making the call.
>
> Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish
viewpoint.
> Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on someone's
> personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
> community as a whole.
>
> In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
> come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such a
> policy might have on someone else.
>
> --
> John Richards
>
>
- 02-17-2004, 04:46 PM #33Steven J SobolGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:
> "It would be nice" is not a basis on which to construct public policy.
I'm not of the opinion that we need to change public policy here. Changing
the policies of the carriers I patronize would be good enough for me.
> That's a good example of why most people shouldn't block incoming calls
> lacking CID
But we should ignore them instead? You're playing both sides of the argument.
--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
- 02-17-2004, 06:21 PM #34Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
>
> > The narrow viewpoint would be that anyone can invade my privacy and
invoke
> > their own expectation of privacy as being more important - there is no
basis
> > for this in law or logic. The caller relinquishes any expectation of
> > privacy when they choose to invade the privacy of others. And there is
no
> > 'right' to privacy- only a reasonable expectation- and it is that
REASONABLE
> > expectation that is upheld by the courts.
>
> But your privacy is NOT being invaded. You are free to configure your
> line to reject blocked-CID calls so they don't even ring your phone.
> Once you have decided to accept such calls, privacy is no longer
> an issue, it's a mutually acceptable social interaction.
>
Wait a minute- I'm sitting on my couch, minding my own business and the
phone rings. My privacy has just been invaded. The person on the other end
of the phone has decided to initiate a conversation with me. They CAN NOT
push their expectation of privacy on me- that's not the way it works. If
they are so concerned about their privacy, DON'T MAKE THE CALL. I have no
obligation to take any measures to protect the privacy of anyone else, and
anybody calling me, or any other private citizen, has no expectation of
privacy, unless the other party agrees. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
And once again, I point out that I have no problem with a caller ID block-
that is NOT the topic of this thread. We are talking about billing days and
weeks after the fact for a service that is paid for by the number of minutes
used.
- 02-17-2004, 06:41 PM #35Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish
viewpoint.
> Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on someone's
> personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
> community as a whole.
It is not selfish- the burden of your privacy does not fall on me. And case
law will back me up on that. These are not personal desires- these are
basic tenets of societal life. I am not responsible for a thing you do, and
I am not responsible for protecting your privacy. When you make a call to a
common citizen, there is no expectation of privacy- another matter of case
law. And it is awfully Pollyannish to believe that anybody else is
responsible for your privacy.
>
> In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
> come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such a
> policy might have on someone else.
>
You know, you don't read real well. I have stated at least twice in this
thread that I have absolutely no problem with a caller ID block being used
on a phone call. What I do object to is your assertion that it is my burden
to protect someone else's privacy. If people are stupid enough to put
themselves at risk, I have no control over that, and I am not responsible
for that. As I've mentioned before, them choosing the convenience of a
phone call over some other method of communication that can be much more
'anonymous' in nature is not my problem.
- 02-17-2004, 06:42 PM #36Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When it costs me nothing I almost agree with you (and I do not)
>
> When it costs me (and my cell phone costs me a LOT)
>
> I pay $20 a month for my home phone $68 a month for my sprint phone.
>
> I want to see the numbers of ALL incoming calls. period. hell or high
water
> as you say. I do not need to see them on my phone but I damned well want
to
> see them on my bill.
>
> how the hell else do I know if the "charge" is legitimate. ???
>
> the caller makes the sacrifice of privacy except under very special
> conditions.
>
> when a private caller calls another private caller they should not have a
> say in the matter. I should see their info.
>
> when a private caller calls a NON private caller (buisness or government
or
> public service or emergency service (rape counseling etc.. etc..) they
> should be able to hide their info.
>
> When a non private caller (buisness government etc..) calls a private
caller
> they should NEVER be permitted to hide who they are.
>
> period.
>
Well put, Chris.
- 02-17-2004, 06:55 PM #37Steven J SobolGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
Scott Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish
> viewpoint.
>> Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on someone's
>> personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
>> community as a whole.
>
> It is not selfish- the burden of your privacy does not fall on me.
Y'know, I have a similar argument in the spam newsgroups and mailing lists.
People think rights are absolute. Even rights detailed in the Bill of Rights
aren't absolute. Your right to free speech ends at my door. Your right to
dance around with your arms flailing in the air ends when you (intentionally
or accidentally) punch me in the face.
Examples of limitation of free speech rights: You can't yell FIRE in a
crowded movie theater. And if you blare your message over a bullhorn at 9pm
at night, don't be surprised if someone presses charges of some sort - they
are perfectly within their rights to do so.
It is forgotten often that the privileges and rights laid down in our law
books are extended to us as long as our use of said privileges and rights
doesn't infringe upon others' rights and privileges...
But I'm getting way off topic here, so I'll shut up...
--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, Apple Valley, CA
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
PGP: C57E 8B25 F994 D6D0 5F6B B961 EA08 9410 E3AE 35ED
- 02-17-2004, 07:43 PM #38Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"Steven J Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Again, you are looking at the situation strictly from your selfish
> > viewpoint.
> >> Case law, or general telecommunications rules can't be built on
someone's
> >> personal desires, they have to take into account the good of the entire
> >> community as a whole.
> >
> > It is not selfish- the burden of your privacy does not fall on me.
>
> Y'know, I have a similar argument in the spam newsgroups and mailing
lists.
> People think rights are absolute. Even rights detailed in the Bill of
Rights
> aren't absolute. Your right to free speech ends at my door. Your right to
> dance around with your arms flailing in the air ends when you
(intentionally
> or accidentally) punch me in the face.
>
> Examples of limitation of free speech rights: You can't yell FIRE in a
> crowded movie theater. And if you blare your message over a bullhorn at
9pm
> at night, don't be surprised if someone presses charges of some sort -
they
> are perfectly within their rights to do so.
>
> It is forgotten often that the privileges and rights laid down in our law
> books are extended to us as long as our use of said privileges and rights
> doesn't infringe upon others' rights and privileges...
>
> But I'm getting way off topic here, so I'll shut up...
>
> --
Don't shut up- you and Chris have voiced a more restrained version of the
point I was trying to make, and you have both done a great job. Your last
paragraph sums it up perfectly- a person's right, priveleges and
expectations can not infringe on the rights and priveleges of others.
- 02-17-2004, 09:41 PM #39John RichardsGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
Chris Taylor Jr wrote:
> when a private caller calls another private caller they should not have a
> say in the matter. I should see their info.
>
> when a private caller calls a NON private caller (buisness or government or
> public service or emergency service (rape counseling etc.. etc..) they
> should be able to hide their info.
Too many gray areas here. Some rape counselors have private numbers
instead of a business number. How in the world would you implement such
a rule?
> When a non private caller (buisness government etc..) calls a private caller
> they should NEVER be permitted to hide who they are.
What about the example I gave previously: when an abused spouse needs to
make a call to the abusing spouse from a semi-secret shelter facility, which of
the above categories does that fall under? Let's face it, there are too many
exceptions to your rules, which is why the FCC has not required mandatory
CID.
--
John Richards
- 02-17-2004, 09:45 PM #40John RichardsGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
Steven J Sobol wrote:
> John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's a good example of why most people shouldn't block incoming calls
>> lacking CID
>
> But we should ignore them instead? You're playing both sides of the argument.
I'm saying if the issue bothers you, then configure your phone to not ring
on blocked CID calls. But don't whine or complain if there are some
other consequences from that. Nothing in life is without side effects.
--
John Richards
- 02-17-2004, 10:06 PM #41John RichardsGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
Scott Stephenson wrote:
> Wait a minute- I'm sitting on my couch, minding my own business and the
> phone rings. My privacy has just been invaded.
But if you have your phone turned on, that's like sitting on your front porch
and complaining about noise from passing cars. If you don't want your
phone to ring while you're relaxing, turn the damn thing off!
--
John Richards
- 02-17-2004, 10:11 PM #42Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chris Taylor Jr wrote:
> > when a private caller calls another private caller they should not have
a
> > say in the matter. I should see their info.
> >
> > when a private caller calls a NON private caller (buisness or government
or
> > public service or emergency service (rape counseling etc.. etc..) they
> > should be able to hide their info.
>
> Too many gray areas here. Some rape counselors have private numbers
> instead of a business number. How in the world would you implement such
> a rule?
>
> > When a non private caller (buisness government etc..) calls a private
caller
> > they should NEVER be permitted to hide who they are.
>
> What about the example I gave previously: when an abused spouse needs to
> make a call to the abusing spouse from a semi-secret shelter facility,
which of
> the above categories does that fall under? Let's face it, there are too
many
> exceptions to your rules, which is why the FCC has not required mandatory
> CID.
I've only seen one example.
- 02-17-2004, 10:14 PM #43Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What about the example I gave previously: when an abused spouse needs to
> make a call to the abusing spouse from a semi-secret shelter facility,
which of
> the above categories does that fall under? Let's face it, there are too
many
> exceptions to your rules, which is why the FCC has not required mandatory
> CID.
And why can't your 'semi-secret shelter facility' take it upon itself to
have phone line that blocks the CID for all calls? Or would that be too
intrusive on somebody's rights?
- 02-17-2004, 10:31 PM #44John RichardsGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
Scott Stephenson wrote:
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
>> come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such a
>> policy might have on someone else.
>>
>
> You know, you don't read real well. I have stated at least twice in this
> thread that I have absolutely no problem with a caller ID block being used
> on a phone call.
I read just fine, thank you. This thread was started because the OP wanted
SprintPCS to list phone numbers of all incoming calls on his statement.
If Sprint complied with that request, in essence that would defeat CID blocking.
See the connection? :-)
--
John Richards
- 02-17-2004, 11:05 PM #45Scott StephensonGuest
Re: Incomming calls on phone bill
"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Stephenson wrote:
> > "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> >> In essence you are saying you want all your incoming calls identified
> >> come hell or high water, and you don't care what negative effects such
a
> >> policy might have on someone else.
> >>
> >
> > You know, you don't read real well. I have stated at least twice in
this
> > thread that I have absolutely no problem with a caller ID block being
used
> > on a phone call.
>
> I read just fine, thank you. This thread was started because the OP
wanted
> SprintPCS to list phone numbers of all incoming calls on his statement.
> If Sprint complied with that request, in essence that would defeat CID
blocking.
> See the connection? :-)
>
Nope- all I see is an attempt to infringe on people's rights and priveleges
out of some paranoid notion that the expectation of privacy trumps
everything else, including the same expectation of the person answering the
phone. If people want to remain anonymous, the burden is on them to find a
method of communication that allows for that. When I am paying for a
service on a 'per piece' basis (which is what cellular is), I have specific
consumer rights (afforded to me by the government) that say I can ask for a
detailed billing of those pieces, in order to reconcile my account. The
same can not be said for the blanket expectation of privacy you are touting
in this thread. All you have offered is a single instance where someone may
wish to remain hidden, and I have already asked the question of why the
shelter can't provide a totally anonymous service to their clients (the
telcos are perfectly capable of providing such a service). Your arguments
have no basis in law, and show a level of disrespect for basic human decency
that is a little surprising (having my phone on is like sitting on my front
porch?). You go on and on about a single instance and ignore the basic
point- nobody can force their expectation of privacy on me (or anyone else)
just because they feel the need, and this is exactly what you are saying in
every single post.
Similar Threads
- Verizon
- Bluetooth
- HP (Palm)
- Samsung
- alt.cellular.verizon
Creditare Eficientă
in Chit Chat