Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxj!wapd
From: wapd@houxj.UUCP (Bill Dietrich)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of AT&T Calling Cards
Message-ID: <361@houxj.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 25-May-84 10:27:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxj.361
Posted: Fri May 25 10:27:53 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 20:22:05 EDT
References: <502@hound.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 21

Well, I work for AT&T Bell Laboratories (too), and I have often
wondered why those few lines of code to prevent million-dollar
bills weren't added.  All other credit cards have a limit mechanism
in place, and the phone company is in a more centralized position
than VISA or MASTERCARD (after all, you are already talking to
an operator or a computer when you place a credit-card call;  when
you use VISA the storeowner has to spend money to call a VISA number).

The least AT&T could do is flag high bills immediately so it can only
happen for one month.  Many seem to go on for several months.

The phone company always ends up picking up the tab, so I don't see
where the "so it's okay to stick old ladies with $100 tabs ?" argument
makes any sense at all.

I'm surprised at the snide tone of the response to Martin's original
article.  How about some common courtesy, folks ?

				Bill Dietrich
				houxj!wapd