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: MNeary.El_Segundo@xerox.com Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER Message-ID: Date: 20 Feb 91 03:19:55 GMT Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu Organization: TELECOM Digest Lines: 38 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 137, Message 6 of 6 Originator: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu This discussion on why (or why not) STOPPER is getting bogged down in details and IMHO most postings are missing the point: Most of the time, when an "security" issue arises, there is no such thing as absolutely secure communications (or whatever). Assertions to the contrary are, ahem, misunderstandings. All you can do is to raise the cost of obtaining the data above the price which the person seeking the data is willing (or able) to pay. Using the STOPPER unquestionably raises the "cost" of gathering the data. Local subpoenas are probably easier to get than out of town subpoenas. Two subpoenas are harder to get than one. The 'noise' of STOPPER's record keeping (or lack of) will slow the correlation of your call somewhat. The local District Attorney might even be naive to the whole concept of STOPPER. (They might think you called an 'information provider', or a contest, and skate right past them.) This may, or may not, be sufficient to obstruct the data gathering. Your mileage WILL vary. And that's MY point. Only the person trying to snoop on you will know whether it's worth it. And you won't find out till he either got the data or didn't. Mike (MNeary.El_Segundo@Xerox.com) */Standard disclaimer/* [Moderator's Note: You make an excellent point, and provide an excellent closing point for this thread, which has gone on longer than it should have. The key is, as you say. the 'cost' or effort involved in doing the trace. I do have to ask that this thread be closed at this time, with one *possible* exception: I received a note from a third party who is familiar with the proprietor of STOPPER, and he explained some aspects of the service in more detail to me. Through this third party I asked that the proprietor join us here and explain himself: how does he keep himself legally out of a jam, etc. If he chooses to call on us, of course the thread will resume. PAT]