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: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 18 Feb 91 19:58:06 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Reply-To: lang@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com (Lang Zerner) Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto Lines: 41 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 5 of 7 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu In article leichter@lrw.com (Jerry Leichter) writes: >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. ... 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. >[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. ...] It seems to me it wouldn't be all that easy to subpoena the records of the STOPPER service. I'm sure it could be done, but is it that striaghtforward to issue a subpoena against the records of a business that was not complicit in an abuse of its services? Why would that be any more straightforward than issuing a subpeona against the records of any other entity whose phone number appears on the defendants calling record (legally, I mean; I can see the intuitively obvious differences, but they don't help in court)? Be seeing you... Lang Zerner [Moderator's Note: The complicity of the business in the abuse of its services could be easily demonstrated by its lack of record keeping to control such situations if in fact it did not keep records, as has been suggested by some here. And if records *were* kept but a subpoena failed to issue after application for same then the next step would be a backdoor approach of filing suit against the proprietor, accusing him of having no records to produce by reason of having committed the abuse himself. To demonstrate otherwise, he would then produce the records in his own defense if he could not be induced to produce them otherwise. In other words, name your customer or I sue you making the claim you yourself caused the mischief. PAT]