Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!news From: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 18 Feb 91 07:11:29 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan Lines: 52 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 130, Message 1 of 7 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >The purpose of the STOPPER service is to provide truely untraceable >calls. >[Moderator's Note: ...Or is the 900 guy saying he would not respond to >a subpoena either? PAT] PAT, If I were running 1-900-STOPPER, I would simply not make any record of the outgoing calls placed by my users. Since the cost of the service is a flat rate per minute, there is no need for me to know what number a user calls, and, given the nature of the service, every reason why I should guarantee to my users that this information is not recorded. If this was the case, then the only way to determine the number a user called would be to 1) get his phone records to determine when he called the 900 number, and 2) get the records of the 900 service from the phone company [since the STOPPER owner would demand that he NOT get itemized bills with ANI, or would destroy that information upon receipt.] To make it tougher, the owner of the STOPPER service could buy long distance service from a different source for each of his outgoing lines, and assign each call to an outgoing line at random. Now the nosy parker trying to get the information is going to have to go after 30 or 40 different long distance providers to get the information. An additional security feature would be for the STOPPER number to allow a caller to "hang around" (at the normal charge) before and after his real call, thus reducing the association (timewise) between the calls on his bills and the call on the STOPPER company's bills. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: If you want the protection of common carrier status -- that is, that you are not responsible for the contents of the traffic you carry, etc, then you *will* keep adequate records of your traffic for the period of time required by your regulating agency. If you do not wish that protection, then don't bother keeping records. I hope that everyone who traces a call back to your outdials then proceeds to sue you, accusing *you* of making the calls, letting you figure out what to do next. If you are not a common carrier then you are are an end user, and every telco has this common provision in their tariffs: the user/subscriber is responsible for the use of his instruments. Are you *sure* you don't want to be a common carrier? A lot of BBS operators who have gotten stung in the past sure wish they had had that protection for their email! Did you ever wonder why if you get harassed by someone on the phone you can't just go sue Sprint for putting the call through? Same difference. PAT]