Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: rhyre@cinoss1.att.com (Ralph W. Hyre) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 19 Feb 91 00:35:10 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Lines: 32 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 3 of 7 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In article cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 128, Message 7 of 9 >... [call tracing through STOPPER.]. Don't you suppose they will then >subpoena the STOPPER records to demonstrate what happened next? This implies that records are kept linking the incoming subscriber with the outgoing call. If I were providing the 900-STOPPER service, I would be aware of this and only record the time and length of the call for billing purposes. Presumably the protection of not having the number itemized on your bill would be worth the inconvenience of not being able to challenge the call. I could also set up a call-back mechanism to dial out both numbers (caller and victim.. er, callee) and connect the calls, making it somewhat harder to trace (assuming I had several users 'on-line' at a time). As a responsible provider, I could also shut-off access to certain outgoing numbers that complained (via call-screening or other feedback) about abusive calls. I would also tend cooperate with law enforcment if they offer evidence that a crime is being committed using my facilities. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: rhyre@attmail.com UUCP: attmail!cinpmx!rhyre Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code] or: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288