Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Mon, 20 May 91 17:25:54 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 385, Message 5 of 6 Lines: 150 goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > In article , bluemoon!sbrack@cis.ohio- > state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes... > > 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. > Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word! > He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL > THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't > recognize. Now, what's wrong with that picture? Would you by a product, then give the clerk a blank check, without ever checking how much your purchase cost before purchasing it? Of course not. The situations are analogous. Of course, the telco could still do something to end the confusion: require users to dial 1 before any added-cost number. That's what Ohio Bell did for years. It works quite well. > 1) Which operator, 0 or 00? If the call is intraLATA, "0," if not "00," just like the telcos tell you. > 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays? Operators aren't "free". Dialing the operator for dialing charges (and instructions) has always been a free call. The only exception would be a COCOT, which may require a "small" ($10-20 8) deposit. I needed rate information for dialing Cape Town, so I dialed the default operator (Ohio Bell), who transferred me to USSprint. She transferred me to ATT international, who told me she'd "have to call London," dialed her up (I could hear the conversation), and inquired about dialing and rates. I got my rate information, all for a free call. I believe rate information is a mandated free service. (Sorry, his third point disappeared, doesb't this editor doesn't yank back inadvertent cuts.) > 4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take > several minutes just to verify the cost? Hell, it's a local number (7 > digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's > a bomb in the envelope? That's why telcos should require 1+ dialing for value-added calls. But, *they don't*, so we should be wary of dialing "unknown" numbers. > 5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool, > not an audiotex access terminal. The cost of a telephone call is well > understood. From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's > under 20c/call. The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is > an obscure exception that few people care about. Saying your phone is this or that doesn't change what, in fact it is. The modern telephone is an access terminal used by people and machines for all forms of telecommunications, including audiotex. The fact that you are ignorant of the fact that some prefixes and telephone numbers entail special costs doesn't negate your ultimate responsibility to pay for all calls you place. > > 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. > OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a > callback. There was nothing for the paged party but a recording. > Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers. > See how he feels. Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to > the Naughty Peahen Hotline. A beeper is just a way of telling you that someone wants you to call them. It is **incapable** of telling you anything about the reason he/she wants you to call. Anyone can have you paged for any reason. There is no qualification of urgency necessary. > 50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me! Consecutive sentences. OK. Let's assume a three month sentance for each count of wire fraud. In truth, the sentence would probably be longer. For this crime, then, the "criminal" would spend 12,500 years (!!!) in prison. No murder has ever commanded such a long sentence. Generally, it's a good idea to give some thought to what you post. wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) writes: > I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it > seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to > defraud those who were paged. The provider just asked pager users to call his number. He made *no guarantee* as to the cost or nature of the service. Where's the fraud in that? > Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant. > It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had > invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out > small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid > the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was > responsible for the charge. There was an ad in the {LA Times} that used to run about once a month. It would say something to the effect that: LAST DAY TO SEND IN YOUR DOLLAR Mail to: PO Box XXXX Los Angeles, CA The postal inspector shut that one down. I don't see why. If I send 10000 people each a letter asking them to send me money, without promising them anything, then where's the fraud? The people who called that 540 number got what they paid for. "The rest, as Judge Wopner says, is irrelevant." 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 [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Mr. Brack *does* have a valid point about making promises and not keeping them. One of the oldest scams I know about involving the mail is the one where women advertise in 'swinger' magazines with no intention of ever meeting the guys who respond. None the less, they phrase their letters in such a way as to make the guy think the woman really likes him. They ask the guy for a 'donation' or 'token' to show his sincerity. Please note it is always a donation -- never anything (such as photos) for sale. The women who do this (but honestly, it is mostly men posing as women) make out like bandits and the postal inspector is apparently unable to do anything since the letter the 'woman' sends out is absolutely free of any claims or promises of any sort. And if/when our 540 guy goes on trial, I suspect he will get off for the same reason. He could have as easily written his number on a wall somewhere, and several fools would have called it ... but he promised nothing and made no fraudulent claims, and that may very well be what saves him. PAT]