Boundaries, privacy and your home

[rahmota]

Ok on the CS board about the person who called a ahouse and got called a homewrecker I got into a bit of a discussion about HIPPA and privacy and what a person should expect when they call your house. Which got me to thinking aobut how our boundaries and privacy are under attack. I'll get to the direct response to the concerns on that discussion in a minute but some other comments first. And I know some of this is goign to sound like I'm over in foil hat territory but just because you're paranoid don't mean someone isnt out to get you.

Ok first off to me a person's home is their castle, their sanctuary against the rest of the world. There is a boundary line between the lunatics, freaks and general insanity out there. A person should be able to feel safe, comfortable and relaxed in their own home that they are the master of their domain and that all is right within at least their small corner of the world. To cross that boundary and enter into my domain and my sanctuary you must ask my permission (well technically my wife or I as we speak for each other in many things) and be allowed to enter. You cannot just come barging in, be it in the flesh or virtually through the phone. I have no tresspassing signs up and gates across the driveway and fences to give the hint that this land is my land this land aint your land get the heck outta my land to people. I have an unlisted unpublished number. You cannot get my number by just calling directory assistance. Supposedly the only way you can get my number is get a court order or have me give it to you. So to have someone call me that I dont recognize I am going to ask them who they are, why they are calling and where they are calling from. Then if its not someone that is on the secured and approved lis ti will be asking them how they got my number. And if they cannot or will not answer me properly I have every right to get bent and angry and hang up on them after ripping them a new one for refusing to do the right thing and answer those questions. because they are trying to cross my boundaries. They are trying to invade my space and my time with their phone call and if I am not good enough to be told what they want then they are not good enough to cross my boundary. Hell if I could get my farm declared a NO-FLY zone I would.

I mean our priavacy is under assault every day and every time you step out side your door. Public cameras in many cities for your "safety" since they cannot put enough police on teh streets to actually affect real crime. Monitoring and tracking of your spending habits by companies. There have been cases where rental companies have used the GPS in your car to fine peopel for speeding or taking the car beyond certain boundaries. GPS in your phone. There is talk about putting GPS enabled RFID chhips in children and the elderly. If that's allowed for their safety whats to say why not doing so in each and every person so they wont get lost or in case of kidnapping. Yeah an RFID has a limited range but in an urban environment you would be passing a reader quite frequently.

And its not just in the physical world that our privacy and our boundaries are being assaulted. I was just reading on CNN that the leader of the intelligence community is saying that we need to rethink what it means to be private. Not to mention all the various spying on americans actions taken under the PATRIOT ACT and other government programs. So not even your phones are safe and secure.I mean look at this quote from CNN

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence

Whats even worse is that too many people are willingly surrendering their privacy and their anonimity to bog brother and the world in general because they dont understand. Any wonder the amount of identity thefts are so high?

The only place a person can be safe and secure and comfortable is in their home. They deserve to take whatever actions they find reasonable to achieve that security. And if that includes interrogating anyone who comes to the door or calls then so be it.

Anyone who calls a person's house has the burden of prooving who they are, why they are calling and where they are calling from on them and if they refuse to do so they deserve whatever they get. If someone wants you personal data they should be required to proove they actually NEED that data. And people should have a bit more paranoia about just releasing whatever they bloody well like into the ether.

I mean I've been accused of saying i tell to much on here and CS. Just how much data do you have on me? I doubt anyone could find me at home. Know my real name. Or otherwise be able to say you know much about me other than what I have authorized for release into the general knowledge pool. Thats the way it should be.

And now for a few thoughts/comments in response to the CS thread.

if your husband/wife/significant other cannot get the phone and be told about the drs office calling you then maybe you shouldnt be in that relationship because obviously you dont love/trust that person.

Also anyone who works the phones and does not answer who they are, why they are calling and where they are calling from deserves whatever they get.

Finally:

Ok so let's say I am seeing Dr. X for a particular condition that I want to keep private and Dr. X is a specialist in treating this condition. I leave them my cell phone number to reach me.

I would NOT want someone calling from Dr. X's office to identify that's where they are from to ANYONE who might answer my cell phone,

Its YOUR CELL PHONE no one else should be answering it. Why would anyone else answer your phone unless it was someone you gave permission to do so. And if you gave permission for them to answer it then it should be someone you trust enough to have secured communications with.

Same with your home phone. If its your home phone the only person who should be answering it are you or your significant other. If its your significant other then they have as much a right to know whos calling even if its your doctor (because you should have told them you went to the doctor anyhow otherwise you dont love/trust them) as you do. Heck as uptight as the law is being interpretted here if you take your kids to the dr and they call with the test results the parent isnt even able to talk to the doctor about their own kids test results.

And Tonydonuts I have not worked medical collections etc.. I have worked security, I have dealt with individuals with military clearance ranging from top secret to Q. And even under those rules the way I listed the phone to be answered would be kosher. When I had to call someone I was required to say" This is Sgt Rahmota calling from security post 23 to speak with individual about reason code." I was REQUIRED to say that. What is so hard about giving the simple common decency human right thing of answering who, what and why?

I am not against privacy I do agree that privacy is important. That is why I get so bent when i see people so blithly saying that a company or their representative has the right to invade or intrude upon another person's privacy by callign them and bugging them but can refuse to disclose who they are why they are calling or wherethey are callign from. Look at it this way say they came to your front door. You open your door and theres a person there wanting to talk to someone but they wont say who they are, why they are there or what they want. What are you goign to do invite them in? Hell no! You slam the door in their face and tell them to bugger off. Same thing with the phone.

Whats legal aint always right and whats right aint always whats legal.
And thats all I have to say about this.

[Seshat]

There are still people in the world who believe certain medical conditions (such as mental illnesses, some of the less visible illnesses, and many of the venereal diseases) are 'God's punishment' or 'you brought it on yourself' or in some way indicate that the person suffering from it is somehow 'wrong' or 'bad'. Sometimes, these people are the parents of someone suffering such an illness. Sometimes they're the spouse of a person suffering such an illness.

Medical privacy laws are in place to protect people in situations like this, as well as others (like co-workers or bosses finding out).

Financial privacy laws are in place for similar reasons, and also to protect people like a battered spouse trying to squirrel away enough to escape.

I have a strong dislike for telemarketers, but I strongly support these privacy laws. I also explicitly tell medical people I deal with that they can speak with my husband or my best friend, which means we don't have to deal with privacy laws interfering in our particular home.

This issue really is one of privacy vs privacy: which holds more strongly, the sanctity of the home, or the right to privacy of personal information?

[AFPheonix]

As long as a doctor's office has written notice that they are allowed to release information to someone else other than you, then they are able to.
I can totally see someone wanting to keep something medical secret from someone else in the house, even spouses. You have to remember that not all spouses are rainbows and kittens. HIPPA protects those who aren't in such good situations. You're right, everyone SHOULD be able to participate in relationships that are free and open and safe, but not everyone has that.
When I call, according to my understanding of the law, I can identify myself and the company I'm calling from, but we cannot discuss patient information with anyone other than the patient or patient's guardian, if the patient is a child or in adult care.

What fries me are the people who are so paranoid about their information that they won't even give it to me when they drop off a script. Like I'm going to steal your identity. You fucking morons. You know my first name and where I work, for chrissakes!

[Boozy]

rahmota, I can think of at least a dozen reasons why one might have someone answering the phone at their house and not want that person knowing anything about their medical care. Someone who lives with their parents, a roommate, a housekeeper, an abusive spouse...just to name a few.

I don't think that failure to identify oneself when calling another person's home is an invasion of privacy. If you refuse to accept calls from unidentified people, all you need to do is let your doctor's office staff know that they can identify themselves to whomever picks up.

Otherwise, the medical community is right to assume that not everyone wants even the smallest piece of medical info being passed along to whomever happens to pick up and say "Hello?" That's a major breach of privacy and will always trump your right to know who's calling unless you tell them otherwise.

[rahmota]

Well maybe I'm an idealist. having grown up with parents in a good relationship, and being in a great relationship for the past 10 years but if you are in an abusive relationship or in a relationship with someone you didnt trust or love then you should be getting the heck out or getting them the heck out of there by any means necessary including the dixie chick method if need be. (in defense of course)

I can understand not revealing the medical conditions or exact test results but just identifying the doctors office when you call is taking things way way way too far as that is not anythign secured, priviledged or otherwise overly sensitive information. Its just abusines sname. And if they are calling a person's home then the only people answering your phone should be the people authorized or otherwise trustworthy enough to know these thigns anyhow. Otherwise why the living fark are they living together? I would never live with someone or allow someone in my home and most especially allow someone I didnt trust to answer my phone.

I mean is it really all that difficult to just identify yourself? If it is then don't whine if people go off on you, consider you rude or otherwise hang up on you. You deserve it. I mean my and my wife's doctor always identifies themselves when they call. Its just basic common decency and proper etiquette when calling someone.

Oh and Seshat to answer you query. IMO The sactity of the home is the supreme right, law or condition in the world. Inside these walls outsiders need to proove they have a reason to be here otherwise they can go bugger off.

[Velfarre2001]

Okay, this post will be long like usual for me

An idealist? That is putting it lightly.

While you are correct in saying what is legal isn't always right and what is right isn't always legal, it does not change the fact what is not legal is illegal. Whether you want to interpret it a certain way, a lawyer and a judge will interpret it differently, and THAT is what matters in the end.

Also yes, in the case of a doctors office, which can include a medical specialist, whether one is there or not, sometimes the doctors name IS more then enough information to get the general gist of it, a gist you might not want other people having. If the law says this is how it is done, you best do it like that. ESPECIALLY in todays sue happy world. You generally should not risk a lawsuit, or (even if not in a lawsuit risking situation) your job for not following company protocol, to kowtow to another persons interpretation of what is right no matter even if it is a decently sensible one. Yes there will be situations were morals should probably trump job concern, and even a few were morals should trump the law as well (even if they won't) but that is in serious situations, not something that is a rather small concern like a point of contention in phone etiquette.

Also it is easy to say what you are saying when you are not in that situation and not raised in the situation, but it is another thing ENTIRELY to those experiencing it or having grown up in it. You sound like you were VERY lucky, does not mean it is that simple for everyone. Hmmm... looks like Seshat got to clarifying that one point before I did...

Also, if you lived here, whatever your IMO on the sanctity of your house, if someone broke in and hurt themselves they could sue you and they would win. Yes, it really happens. Right? Nope. The way it is? Unfortunately, yes. Reality does not kowtow to your IMO. You could stand in court giving your logic to the judge until you were blue in the face, and you would still be out a chunk of change to the careless invader. THAT is the sad reality that matters.

I can see what you are saying, and I agree you make very good points, and it would be nice if it was like that, but it unfortunately is not. If the world and reality were that convenient, I would not be having what little faith I can muster in humanity every so often dying every time I look at a coffee cup and see the "CAUTION!! CONTENTS MAY BE HOT!!!" crap that is so necessary these days

As far as them deserving rudeness, I have a question for you. Can you take it the other way yourself should it happen? If someone in your house ends up not getting what they needed or wanted or having it delayed a lot because you hung up on the people who were making the call and following the protocol they were trained on, can you take it without complaint? Can you accept that when you follow what you believe should be done, and they do the same, and you are the one hurt by it, that is your problem and your reality biting you in the ass?

[Seshat]

And if they are calling a person's home then the only people answering your phone should be the people authorized or otherwise trustworthy enough to know these thigns anyhow. Otherwise why the living fark are they living together? I would never live with someone or allow someone in my home and most especially allow someone I didnt trust to answer my phone.

You have a level of privilege and advantage that many, many people do not. Please recognise that.

Suppose someone is trying to live in, say, San Francisco, or New York, or even Chicago, on minimum wage. To get housing which is clean, safe and has public transport access, they have to share with several other people to be able to afford the house. These people may be people they know only slightly, at the time they move in. Each person puts a lock on their bedroom, and their bedroom is their sanctuary, but to save money on phone bills, they share a common phone line.

This is a common thing, and it happens in Australia as well. There's a vast share housing community in the world. Students are common residents of share housing, as are minimum wage workers, and artists of various sorts until their careers take off.

The disabled often live with carers. The carers may or may not be relatives, those whose relatives refuse to care for them can be placed with carers who are assigned to them by an agency. Again, this is a person who they may not want having private information.

If my mother-in-law's health continues to deteriorate, it may become my and my husband's duty to bring her into our house to care for her. There are many, many people who care for elderly relatives, some of whom they may not even like.


I understand your ideals, rahmota. But the world is not an ideal one. Share houses, carers, people who are forced by finance, circumstance or duty to live with relatives, all happen. There are many, many cases where people live with people who are not in their inner circle of privacy. The medical and financial privacy laws protect those people.

[rahmota]

Velfarre2001: Where to begin, at the begining I suppose.

I am guessing we are having another one of those moments where the upbringing and culture have a big impact on things. I have lived in the country my entire life. Out here land and a person's home is sacrosanct. You have to ask permission before being on it. you have to ask permission before crossing it. Yeah people do so and they get caught they get run off. Sometimes at the shotgun point or sometimes at dog point. But the point is the attitude about personal property is a lot different around here.

As for the law. That again is one of those things that is looked at differently aroud here. An immoral law or a stupid one is generally ignored. Even by the cops who are supposed to enforce it. At least until election time or budget time when they get tough and look like their doing something. I mean they have to live in the community too so they dont want to alienate too many people.

if someone broke in and hurt themselves they could sue you and they would win.

That is not true in the county I live in. Our local ordaninces say that if a person injures themselves in the commision of a crime they cannot sue the person they where commiting the crime to. No judge in the county would be stupid enough to let a criminal win a lawsuit like that as was proven a few years back when some dipshit got a high powered cincinnati lawyer and tried to sue. The judge threw the guy out, fined him a big amount of money and almost threw the lawyer in jail for contempt of court. It was in both of the county papers. And besides which the person would have to live long enough to be able to sue. I would say if a person tried to break into about 90% of the houses in this coty they would be looking down the barrel of a firearm really really quick if they didnt have the last thing they heard in this world be the action of the shotgun being worked. And you know what the sheriff's office knows this and gives wink wink nudge nudge to it. Hell I had one deputy tell me to make sure they got inside before I shot them as once their inside their fair game.

If the law says this is how it is done, you best do it like that.

And if the law says go jump off a bridge would you do that? Not all laws need to be or should be followed and if enough people civilly disobeyed those laws then it would be a lot better world. Some laws are just downright offensive or stupid in and of themselves.

You sound like you were VERY lucky, does not mean it is that simple for everyone

I guess I dunno. I was 19 before I met the first kid of divorced parents. All my friends and all my classmates had reasonably happy stable homes. Believe it or not. Am I saying my parents and their parents where perfect saints. No dad drank a bit much on occasion and we had our good times and our bad times but there was nothing that would be able to be considered abusive. Family takes care of family That is the way it always was. The family and the clan (note C not K in that word) takes care of each other and dont allow folk to hurt. I guess its that old fashioned appalachian hillbilly upbringing that a man just doesnt mistreat his wife or others. tAt least not without getting his ass handed to him. I dont know.

not something that is a rather small concern like a point of contention in phone etiquette.

Its not just about phone etiqutte. Its about the erosions of people's personal space, their personal privacy in their own home. An erosion and insult to the respect people used to ahve for other people. I mean like i said before you wouldnt want someone coming to your front door and acting like that woudl you? Its the same thing over the phone. We get spied upon too m uch as it is in the world. Our personal space and personal priovacy are being eroded left and right along with the rights and freedoms we have. Theres no need to hand it away on a silver platter.

Can you take it the other way yourself should it happen?

HELL YEAH!!. We dont need much and we dont ask for much. Most of the people who call here are polite and professional and respectful enough to declare who they are or to answer the question posed to them. We have had a few rude bastard call here for whatever reason and I've told them off and hung up on them and never looked back. I dont care if it was the president of the united states asking my opinion on if we should nuke canada or not if he wont declare who he is he gets hung up on. I'm quite happy with that being the rule here and quite comfortbale with it, so are the wives. Call me an asshole or whatever but I aint about to change that anytime soon. And I sure aint loosing any sleep over it.

Can you accept that when you follow what you believe should be done, and they do the same, and you are the one hurt by it, that is your problem and your reality biting you in the ass?

Let me put it to you this way. A long time ago I chose to accept full and total responsibility for all my actions and their results. Good bad or whatever. No god, no human, no animal has power or responsibility over me but me. I decide and I choose what to do with my life and if that puts me in a barrel then oops damn maybe I shuldna not dont that. Oh well if I live next time I wont. I wont go out of my way to look for trouble but if it comes to me then so be it. Thats the way the world goes round. Or at least it should.

Seshat:

Suppose someone is trying to live in, say, San Francisco, or New York, or even Chicago, on minimum wage. To get housing which is clean, safe and has public transport access, they have to share with several other people to be able to afford the house. These people may be people they know only slightly, at the time they move in. Each person puts a lock on their bedroom, and their bedroom is their sanctuary, but to save money on phone bills, they share a common phone line.

You know what I would rather give my beretta a blow job than live in conditions like that. I really honestly would. Living under a bridge or in my van would be preferable. That really honestly saddens and scares me that people are forced to live in conditions like that. Hell living in a grass shack in the middle of the amazon or mud hut in somalia would be better off than that. Having to put a lock on your bedroom door because you are living with strangers? I would probably go nuts within a week of that.

And throw away cell phones are not that expensive anymore so that still throws the burden of privacy back on the individual. So there would be no real need to share a phone line.

The disabled often live with carers. The carers may or may not be relatives, those whose relatives refuse to care for them can be placed with carers who are assigned to them by an agency. Again, this is a person who they may not want having private information.

I'm sorry I still say the person should work with the agency to find a person they can trust if they are being given care. No one should be forced to allow into their home or have to be exposed to someone they cannot trust. And this also saddens and sickens me that families would throw away their elderly like that. Family members who do that should be taken out and flogged.

I didnt think the culture and area I grew up in was that far out of step with the times. I'm pretty average around here in attitude about this sort of thing. We believe that if you're too stupid to not know how to hold hot coffee then its your fault for that. We wouldnt allow a judge to sit on the bench if he gave even 1 penny to a person who sued over somethign as frivolous as that. He'd probably be run out of the county. This has got to be another one of those issues where I'm coming at things from one direction and you guys are coming at it from another.

I'm concerned about the erosion of respect and priavacy and personal boundaries. Comapnies and governmetns all want to get orwellian on people and put GPS tracker chips in your cars in your cell phones, taps on your land phones, cameras on the streets of the cities. Its just too much and when are peopel going to say enough is enough and stand up to it? *sigh* Idealism. Definately not for the faint-hearted.

[Velfarre2001]

Then I truly hope you appreciate how damned lucky you are. Your country and life are undoubtably not perfect, but on this issue you have quite a few things I would give my eye teeth to see here. Also not for the faint hearted? That would NOT be so easy a sentence to say if you lived and grew up here. Also if you will accept the consequences, then I don't have as much annoyance for you being brusque. Just curious on that one.

[rahmota]

Ok to figure this out I went to the Department of Health and Humanservices webpage for the United States Government.

From everything I can find on there. The following phone greetings is actually acceptable and NOT in violation of the HIPPA privacy portions:

"Hello this is Nurse name from Dr's Office calling to speak with Person name about a personal matter."

The name of the doctor's office is not consider part of your medical record and is NOT covered by the HIPPA.

What information is protected?
 Information your doctors, nurses, and other health care
providers put in your medical record
 Conversations your doctor has about your care or
treatment with nurses and others
 Information about you in your health insurer's
computer system
 Billing information about you at your clinic
 Most other health information about you held by those
who must follow this law

To make sure that your information is protected in a way that does not
interfere with your health care, your information can be used and shared
 For your treatment and care coordination
 To pay doctors and hospitals for your health care and help run
their businesses
 With your family, relatives, friends or others you identify who are
involved with your health care or your health care bills, unless
you object
 To make sure doctors give good care and nursing homes
are clean and safe
 To protect the public's health, such as by
reporting when the flu is in your area
 To make required reports to the police,
such as reporting gunshot wounds

So anyone who says that you cannot tell the person on the other end of the phone where they are calling from or you will loose your job is either misreading, misunderstanding or misapplying the HIPPA laws and full of shit.

This is from teh Depart of Health and Human Services whoare responsible for adjudicating complains and violations of HIPPA themselves. So pretty much I'd say that wraps this up.

[rahmota]

Velfarre2001: Believe me I appreciate that every day i wake up and every night I go to bed. And the more I deal with things the more I appreciate it and see how fragile soemthign this good can be. Can you blame me for wanting to fight so hard to protect it?

And yeah I've been accepting the responsibility for my actions for nigh on 10 years now. Its cost me some friends, brought me closer to others. Probably helped cost me a job but opened other doors. Thats life. I'm not afraid to live it. And if I'm going to live it I'm going to do so my way. And this may not be the way for everyone but *shrug* It works for me. At least so far.

That would NOT be so easy a sentence to say if you lived here.

My apologies but you have piqued my curiousity with that comment. Can you elaborate on that or is that crossing your boundaries? I can understand if you would prefer not to.

And I am sorry if I come off as brusque. I get that on occasion. I dont sugar coat my opinion and if its something I'm passionate about that has a tendency to brush even the little bit of sweetness off sometimes. Also please dont think I'm directing my comments at anyone particular person when I say you in the main rant/comments. Thats when I use the generaic and general you to mena humanity in general. If I preface my comments with your name or am responding to a person's direct quote then you is directed at you. Hope that helps clear any misunderstandings. Peace!

[Velfarre2001]

Crossing boundaries I'd rather not cross. Even under the anonymity of the net. Also there can be merit in straightforwardness too. Well, I suppose there is really nothing more to squeeze out of this one.

[Boozy]

I'm still not seeing how a telephone call from someone to whom you gave your phone number is an invasion of your home and privacy.

You said you had an unlisted number, rahmota. So do I. The only calls I get are from people and businesses to whom I freely gave my contact information. If I didn't want them calling, I could have chosen not to given them my number.

Also, why is this such a big deal for you? If someone doesn't identify themselves, you don't take the call. I take calls all the time from people who don't identify themselves to my husband. See? To to each their own; everyone can live the way they'd like. This isn't one of those privacy issues that requires everyone on board so a bill can get passed in Congress or something. Like you said, its your home and your phone and you don't have to take calls if you don't want.

You live in a country whose government has given themselves the right to tap phones without warrants, get complete access to individual medical records, and snoop into people's borrowing records at the local library. I would think these would be the bigger concerns.

[Seshat]

You know what I would rather give my beretta a blow job than live in conditions like that. I really honestly would. Living under a bridge or in my van would be preferable.

It's a very normal, ordinary, accepted thing in Australian cities. I've spoken to people in the States who live in share houses too, though they use a different term. It seems to be normal for them, too.

And throw away cell phones are not that expensive anymore so that still throws the burden of privacy back on the individual. So there would be no real need to share a phone line.

At the time I was living in shared accomodation, cell phones didn't exist. (Actually, I was one of the people who developed the basic technology that permits digital exchanges in Australia.)

As for 'not that expensive anymore' - some of the people in share housing are living at subsistence level, for whatever reason. Or they might choose to spend their money - already a scarce resource - on something like medical costs rather than a phone. 'not that expensive' can be too expensive.

I'm sorry I still say the person should work with the agency to find a person they can trust if they are being given care. No one should be forced to allow into their home or have to be exposed to someone they cannot trust.

Agreed. But that option is frequently not available. It isn't for several people I know, unfortunately.

And this also saddens and sickens me that families would throw away their elderly like that. Family members who do that should be taken out and flogged.

It's not always the elderly: I know two people, in their twenties and thirties, severely disabled, and essentially discarded by their families.

And, of course, there's always the possibility that a family chooses not to 'throw away' their relative and brings them into their own home for care - but that relative is someone they don't trust.

This has got to be another one of those issues where I'm coming at things from one direction and you guys are coming at it from another.

Yes. I'm assuming that privacy of one's home and/or phone line isn't necessarily available; so privacy of personal information has to be respected by permitting someone like a doctor's nurse to not declare anything personal about the patient.

You're assuming that privacy of one's home and/or phone line is available; and that privacy of the home should be respected by everyone who approaches the home declaring their purpose and intent.

Given the different premises, of course we came to different conclusions. If I didn't have the information to declare your premise as not-applicable in many cases, I'd agree with you.

I'm concerned about the erosion of respect and priavacy and personal boundaries.

So am I. But where privacy of the home isn't available, I'll accept privacy of information instead.

Its just too much and when are peopel going to say enough is enough and stand up to it? *sigh* Idealism. Definately not for the faint-hearted.

No, it's not. But we have to work towards our ideals, while accepting reality for what it is.

[rahmota]

Velfarre2001: Ah well okay. In that case good luck with your situation and I hope it works out for you.

Seshat: Like I said I guess I'm looking at thigns differently again. If a person cant trust someone then why are they in your home. I dont let peopel in that I dont trust and figured others felt the same way. I appreciate it when people let me into their home as I consider it a sign of trust. Its kinda difficult for me to understand the concept that people might not trust someone and yet allow them into their home.

Oh well different concepts make the world go round.

Boozy: Yeah I have an unlisted number and all and I try to keep a tight control over who has the number and all but things happen. Also most of this came fm the homewrecker thread on CS not too much direct personal experience. A few times to be sure.

Also, why is this such a big deal for you? If someone doesn't identify themselves, you don't take the call. I take calls all the time from people who don't identify themselves to my husband. See? To to each their own; everyone can live the way they'd like. This isn't one of those privacy issues that requires everyone on board so a bill can get passed in Congress or something. Like you said, its your home and your phone and you don't have to take calls if you don't want.

You live in a country whose government has given themselves the right to tap phones without warrants, get complete access to individual medical records, and snoop into people's borrowing records at the local library. I would think these would be the bigger concerns.

Yeah this isnt a huge situation compared to the other aspects of privacy loss issues. It is one aspect and one part of things where if people get too comfortable with anonymous business or whatever calls then what else can they be forced into accepting. I was trying to get that across in my Original post here. Apparently I failed to make the other points clearer. Mostly though I got rubbed the wrong way by a few posts on CS and took it here instead of blowing things up there.

But yes you are right there are a lot more worrying and scary privacy loss concerns. The cameras I was talking about on city streets for safety issues since there arnt enough cops to actually put an oficer on the streets. Rental companies using GPS chips in their cars to see if peopel are speeding in them. Some modern cars even have the same kind of black boxes that track driving data the way airplanes track flight data. And the most orwellian of all the Patriot and eschelon.

I was trying to make a point about how if a person gets comfortable giving up one aspect of control over their lives then that little crack can be wedged bigger and bigger. Sort of the pebble that started an avalanche. If a person gives up one little aspect of their home and their privacy and control of their life then the bigger thigns become a lot easier to do for the bad guys. Also how a lot of people are way too accepting of anything that goes against themselves. Like standing up for yourself is a bad thign and shouldnt be done.

Am I making more sense or am I still spitting in the wind? Somehow I think I'm not going to be able to get the words from the brian to the fingers in this regards. Well anyhow. Until next time.