Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 03:01:14 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 33 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 4 of 7 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: [some stuff, after which the Moderator said:] >[Moderator's Note: Let me try to explain again. What are the two >reasons one would place a call through STOPPER? (1) To prevent one's >own telephone billing records from showing a call to the end >destination in the event the billing records were examined, for >example by law enforcement people. So instead of seeing a call to the >place where they know good and well you called, they see instead a >call to STOPPER at that time. Don't you suppose they will then >subpoena the STOPPER records to demonstrate what happened next? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't the STOPPER link be sufficient pseudo-confusion to make it impossible to *prove* (rules of evidence) that J. PSTNUser made that particular call? "Well, gee, sure you can have my records. You'll note that 57 incoming calls occured during that minute, to these 57 destination numbers. How else may I help you?" I think we all realize that the Dr. Johnny's Phone Cops "have the technology" (to mangle two shows together) but I would think the service is targeted at people interested in what can be proven, not what can be stated. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com [Moderator's Note: Again we are dealing with record keeping and the lack or sufficiency thereof. PAT]