Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Thu, Apr 16 1992 Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 05:42:24 EDT Message-ID: 04-16 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update April 16, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Thursday morning in USA TODAY: Phones; Finances; Buchanan. TODAY'S DEBATE - CALLER ID: USA TODAY'S OPINION: The phone rings in the wee hours. You hear nothing but heavy breathing. Now, by pushing a button that displays the caller's number, you've got the breather nailed. Caller ID is a boon to those who want protection from weirdos and phone scams. But it has a drawback: As a caller, you lose your privacy. ... You can't phone in an anonymous tip to the police. ... You unwittingly provide a way for business to build a database about you. A business with Caller ID can check your number in a reverse directory, tap into a database, have a complete dossier in seconds and add to it based on your conversation. That information is a gold mine that can be sold without your consent. Sensible states have found a compromise that solves the problem: Let customers keep their numbers secret from caller ID boxes. Phone companies can do so on request. OTHER VIEW: BRUCE FEIN, former general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission: It is a truism of human nature: Behavior is improved when identity is known. Callers are deterred from improprieties or crime by devices that are akin to fingerprinting. If there were no deterrence, the devices would not be purchased. Intuition and experience teach, however, that the virtual confrontation between caller and called brought about by Caller ID makes offensive or insulting behavior less likely. Philosophers, psychologists and lawyers alike know anonymity is the parent of false accusations and vexations prompted by petty jealousies or hatreds, or desire for deviltry. ... For the overwhelming majority, the telephone has become a sword against privacy and a tool of mischief. Ordinarily, the caller who desires anonymity is up to no good. The handful of exceptions is miles from justifying the blanket "per-line blocking" worshiped by USA TODAY. Moderation in all things. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON OVEREMPHASIZING PERSONAL FINANCES: MCCOMB, Miss., Melvin Greenwood, 34, insurance salesman: The media has not overblown the subject. The voters have the right to know the character of their representation. We're held accountable back home for our actions, they should expect to be held accountable for their actions. WASHINGTON, D.C., Tereza Hagerstrom, 40, marketing executive: I don't think they've overdone it. I think we need more reporting like that. There's something wrong. Either the people are underpaid or are overspenders. It's odd to think they can balance the nation's budget if they can't balance their own. PITTSBURGH, Pa., Dan Honan, 26, private detective: I think that it's up to the media to inform the people what's going on in Washington so that they can make better judgments when election time comes around. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, Calif., Jerry Malugeon, 56, administrator: We rely on the media to do these examinations. If there are indiscretions, we need to know. These are our representatives; we pay their salaries. The public should expect them to maintain the highest standards of conduct. Isn't this why they're elected or appointed? EAGAN, Minn., Ginger Ryan O'Neill, 41, teacher: I think the media is doing their job. Whether we like the findings or not, the media's job is to investigate and report. Their job isn't to deal with how we like the results. TOPIC - PAT BUCHANAN: PAT BUCHANAN, Republican presidential candidate, was interviewed by USA TODAY's editorial board. WHY ARE YOU RUNNING? I'm in this race because I am angry. I was alienated from my own party and its leadership by what it did. The whole basis of my campaign was to turn over the White House and then run a campaign which turned over the entire Congress. As one of my friends put it: "We want to shoot the elephant in such a way that he falls over and crushes the donkey." A trick shot. BUT WHY STAY IN THE RACE WHEN THERE'S NO CHANCE OF WINNING? It's not simply about delegates and about nominations. It's about the heart and soul of the Republican Party and the future of the country. We got Mr. Bush to admit that the major economic decision of his first term - raising taxes - was a mistake. We focused the attention of the country and Mr. Bush on the National Endowment for the Arts, which is going to have a new chairman. We see Mr. Bush's rhetoric is moving in a more conservative direction, and we think he's moving that way in substance. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO GET YOU TO DROP OUT OF THE RACE? Nothing. I'm going to stay in through California. There's nothing they can do to get me out of here. There's some things you could do, but Bush wouldn't do them. He's not going to stand down and apologize. That's a joke. Issues & Debate Editor: Michele Coleman. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM