Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!ucsd!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 16 Feb 91 21:06:05 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 40 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 125, Message 5 of 9 In a recent TELECOM Digest the Moderator noted that the providers of this service (which allows you to make un-Caller-Id'able calls) fail to point out that Caller-ID isn't available on international calls, and isn't likely to be anytime soon. The implication is that the service is in some way fradulent. In fact, the service was NOT introduced, at least for the most part, as a response to Caller-ID. A newspaper article describing it was published in TELECOM Digest a while back - in fact, I think I may have been the one who typed it in. The purpose of the STOPPER service is to provide truely untraceable calls. It was started by a lawyer, who cited a number of circumstances in which you might want to ensure that the numbers you dial cannot be found, EVEN BY SOMEONE WHO CAN SUBPEANA YOUR PHONE RECORDS. Mainly, these have to do with things like lawyers who must keep their clients secret, or companies that wish to make sure that who they are talking to remains secret even if someone who is suing them goes after their phone records. Yes, it sounds funny, but there are a variety of legitimate uses for this kind of service - the founder got the idea after he ran into one. Yes, there is also room for a lot of abuse. Considering what they charge, this is hardly a consumer service - or even something a large company would want to use for anything but "special" calls. Jerry [Moderator's Note: The thing is, anyone who could subpoena your records looking for certain connections would surely see the calls to the 900 service, then supoena those records as well. All it would seem to do (in the case of a professional investigator) is add an extra step in the process. For the average John Doe whose only immediate way of call tracing is via Caller*ID then the 900 service is virtually useless at this time. Or is the 900 guy saying he would not respond to a subpoena either? PAT]