Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
  1. #31
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    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




  2. #32
    Chris Taylor Jr
    Guest

    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
    >
    >






  3. #33
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    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




  4. #34
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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.






  5. #35
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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.





  6. #36
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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.





  7. #37
    Steven J Sobol
    Guest

    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




  8. #38
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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.





  9. #39
    John Richards
    Guest

    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





  10. #40
    John Richards
    Guest

    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





  11. #41
    John Richards
    Guest

    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





  12. #42
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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.





  13. #43
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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?





  14. #44
    John Richards
    Guest

    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





  15. #45
    Scott Stephenson
    Guest

    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




  • Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast