4 ms·
That may be true for your friend, but it was not true for me - caller ID would even display names of people who asked to be unlisted. If it was opt-in I would h
by toolz 5y ago
That may be true for your friend, but it was not true for me - caller ID would even display names of people who asked to be unlisted. If it was opt-in I would have no issue, but it wasn't for me at least.
- kelnos 5y agoI think the caller ID thing is different. I don't think people should be allowed to opt out of caller ID, except in some pretty narrow cases. If you're going to call someone, you should be required to affirmatively identify yourself. I do agree that an opt-out-required phonebook sounds crazy now, but it didn't back in the 80s and 90s. Mass data collection was not the norm, and all that information wasn't available in digitized form to any person or company who wanted it. So abuse of that data was pretty low.
- toolz 5y agoWell you can't really require identification and if you do you're placing undue trust in a system that would make no difference to pro-social users and grant malicious users more trust than is deserved. I agree that phone book data seemed just annoying at the time, but in hindsight it was a bad idea to normalize letting other people sell your data. Just look where we are now - I imagine a society more privacy focused when it was just annoying might not end up in a surveillance state quite so quickly. Hindsight 20/20 and all, so I'm just looking at the past through todays lens and wondering if the modest (at best) convenience was worth the normalization of letting other people sell our data.