Nic

I know I'm not Paul but it seems to me that people may wish to withold their numbers for the same reason that they post messages on discussion groups using pseudonyms; they might simply have a preference for annonymity for example.

I find the argument that "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be concerned about revealing your identity" as unconvincing in this context as I do in the context of compulsory ID cards.

mkpdavies

There is a difference between wanting to keep anonymity on a public forum, and calling someones home with anonymity in my opinion. I'm not sure I want to speak to anyone who wants to call me at home and withholds their number intentialy. Convince me why I should have to accept such calls?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Nic

I don't believe you do have to accept them.

There are 2 options here. Either carry on getting hot under the collar about such things or call the telephone preference service. The latter worked for me cos I figured life's too short for the former.

mkpdavies

I've done that, but I still get the odd call with number withheld. I don't get hot under the collar at all really, in fact it is a minor irritation. I just don't see any benefit at all in someone being able to withold their number, when calling me in my home.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

B.A.Ware

Why should I do anything? It is like ID cards why should I carry something around to say I am not guilty of anything. If people want anonymity then they can go out and call from a phone box. Why put a system in place that allows someone to harass some anonymously.

UKIP MAN

B.A.Ware wrote:

Im not paul either. but:

If I rang one of my Ex-Wifes I dont want them knowing my number :?

social observer

How about increasing the charge for a withheld number call?

That way you can still make one if you want, but you pay for the privilege of remaining anonymous to the call taker.

This may cut down the number of commercial phone canvassing as these costs can mount up for a company that employs people to bother you at night about double glazing.

__________________
If you don\'t like what I think, attack the opinion with Logic and reason, don\'t attack the opinion holder!

mkpdavies

So why would you want to phone her?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

social observer

That did occur to me but I didn't want to ask. Luckily you did.

__________________
If you don\'t like what I think, attack the opinion with Logic and reason, don\'t attack the opinion holder!

Paul Birch

That would be a reasonable option. In fact, it's an option we already have, in a way, when using a public payphone.

Elderly people in particular often wish to withhold their number and retain anonymity because they are fearful of being harrassed or burgled or assaulted. It's similar to going ex-directory. Their fears are not always entirely rational, but they are real nonetheless. It is also possible to use the telephone number to reverse search for the owner's address, which people may also wish to prevent (or at least make harder).

There are numerous other situations in which a caller might wish to withhold his number. For example, you might need to ring from a friend's house, or the premises of a firm with whom you are doing business; but that might be information best kept confidential.