Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:35:11 EDT From: "Steven S. Brack" Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud Message-ID: Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4]) Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu 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 363, Message 3 of 10 Lines: 72 ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes: > In article nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax. > cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > > [I say that dialing an unknown number w/o checking what > > charges are levied is not such a bright thing to do > > anymore.] > Okay ... I've had enough. > "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to walk in the parking lot at night. Just her fault she got > raped." There is a *slight* difference between a person, of his own volition, dialing a phone number and taking the consequences, and a rape victim. Besides, if the "young woman" could ask an operator whether that parking lot had a rapist in it, then it would be her fault. All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell you in what manner the number is billed. > "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age, > than to trust that building contractor. Just her fault she got bilked > out of her money." No, blind trust is not a good idea. But, in this case, again not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming) lied. The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper users to call his number. No lies there. > Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us. It's not the criminal's > fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence. That's his > job, right? Once again, no. But if a burglar calls you up and asks you to leave your home unlocked, or simply to send him money, and you do, then I don't think the "criminal" is to blame. That situation would be more analogous to the audiotex "scam" everyone thinks is so terrible. > I got a buddy who's a plumber. Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper, > from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the > numbers of people who have emergencies). If this guy get's ripped off > in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault? If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8). If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested, be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number. > Quit balming the *victim*, dammit! The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he requested from the telco. No one represented the call to be anything other than what irt was. If he or she needed more information about the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the information was only a DTMF away. I wasn't "blaming" anyone who didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit." Steven S. Brack | sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.rn.com Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower | sbrack@bluemoon.uucp The Ohio State University | sbrack@nyx.cs.du.edu 50 Curl Drive. | sbrack@isis.cs.du.edu Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112 USA | brack@ewf.eng.ohio-state.edu +1 (011) 614 293 7383 | Steven.S.Brack@osu.edu