Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["K. Jo Garner" <kelly AT metalab.unc.edu>]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, zman wrote:
->
->On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, K. Jo Garner wrote:
->> Hey, so are you offering to pay the charge for monthly service for caller 
->> ID as well as the equipment (caller ID capable phone) necessary? No? Then 
->> perhaps the understanding of not getting unsolicited calls at home 
escapes 
->> you. 
->
->I agree, I don't see how they can weigh the "right to free speech" over 
->the "right to privacy". A "no soliciting" sign works pretty well outside 
->the house to.

Well, there's the "No Trespassing" thing: you'd think that since you have 
private property you'd have relief from people sneaking around in your 
yard. However, unless you post a sign to the contrary (or speak directly 
to the person(s) who are crossing your property) they can traipse all they 
want. So, to me, the Do Not Call list seems to fulfill the "No 
Trespassing" sign requirement without infringing on the rights of others 
to accept those calls. Currently, you have to speak directly to the 
company that places those calls in order to be removed - without being 
able to simply stop them incoming in the first place. 

Cheers
KJ


-- 
---
                        www.answerbag.com - "It's in the Bag"   
                http://www.ibiblio.org/kelly   -=*=   kelly <@> unc.edu