Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 00:10:06 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Message-ID: Organization: Cal State Long Beach 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 461, Message 1 of 8 Lines: 61 In article John Higdon writes: > On June 13, the {San Jose Mercury} ran a story about Ms. Bigley's > courageous efforts. The writer, Alex Barnum, did a little more > investigating and presented a little more balanced picture than Ms. > Christian. Excerpts below: > "A year ago, Thrifty Tel Inc. won approval from the state Public > Utilites Comission ot charge unauthorized users of its long-distance > lines a 'special' rate: a $3,000 'set-up' charge, a $3,000 daily line > fee, $200 an hour for labor and the costs of investigating and > prosecuting the offender. > "Even a single call can cost a hacker more than $6,000. And Thrifty > Tel charges an extra $3,000 for every access code the hacker uses. > Since about half of Thrifty Tel's hacker 'customers' are minors, their > parents usually wind up footing the bill. Ethics aside, I wonder if the PUC is doing *its* job in this scenario. If Thrifty Tel is a regulated entity, doesn't its charges have to have some relationship to costs plus a reasonable profit? It's hard to see how these numbers satisfy that, not to mention the apparent fact that a setup is not really performed. If it is, are these rates even vaguely consistent with its normal ones or are they practicing discriminatory pricing with its 'users' ? I also wonder about the element of civil damages with respect to minors using this enforcement concept. If TT is, in effect, establishing a relationship post-facto, they are making (involuntary) contracts with people (the minors) who may not have the ability to enter into such contracts and make them unenforceable. Any lawyers out there (real or self-imagined) ? Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: The minor entered into the contract when he manipulated the telephone connection. TT's 'post-facto' response is merely handling the paperwork involved at that point. Now the contract may indeed be unenforceable since the minor entered into it without his parent's knowledge or consent -- AND -- the transaction has nothing to do with the minor's basic 'life-needs'. Parents can be held responsible for contracts entered into by their minor children for such things as simple clothing, food and shelter, school supplies, etc, since it is the parent's responsibility to meet these requirements anyway. But I'm not sure they can be held legally responsible for long distance phone charges which arose as part of the child's entertainment. TT could claim their published rates in these cases correctly reflect the additional cost involved in locating the 'customer', setting up the account after the fact and effecting collection. They might be right. Still, it seems to me like a kind of sleazy approach if they are deliberatly making it easy to steal from them. There is a requirement in the law that victims make every effort to mitigate their losses; courts are not in the business of being collection agencies; and TT does not seem to be acting in the best of faith. PAT]