Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: Leichter-Jerry@cs.yale.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Computerized Collect Calls
Message-ID: <3672@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 90 05:16:46 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)
Lines: 39
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 88, message 3 of 10


I suspect a telco would have a lot of trouble obtaining a conviction
of someone who "misused" the automated collect call system.  It would
take rather a stretch of the law to make it a crime.  The fact that
the INTENT of the service was to pass my name on isn't likely to be
binding on me, absent some specific agreement on my part, ahead of
time, that all I will ever use the system for is to pass my rightful
name.

Post cards are cheaper because they aren't private, but nothing
prevents me from encrypting my message (or, as a practical expedient
available to some people, writing it in a language few who are likely
to see it will be able to understand).  Post cards are also smaller,
but again I can write as small as I like.

Continuing the analogy, people who send out business-reply envelopes
do so with a very specific purpose in mind.  If I use such an envelope
to send something the sender didn't have in mind - well, he still gets
to pay for it.  I could even make it a policy to take every
business-reply envelope I receive and promptly seal it and send it
back empty.  I'd be rather astonished if this was a crime.  (So,
astonish me....)

Yes, "message passing" would probably contravene telco regulations -
as do many other abuses that are not illegal.  The usual recourse a
telco has is to cut off your service for such abuse.  That would be a
lot tougher to make stick in this case - after all, the abuser is the
caller, who it would be almost impossible to track down and even
harder to PROVE was really involved, not the callee, who you could act
against easily if you wished.

							-- Jerry

[Moderator's Note: Actually, the mis-use of Business Reply Envelopes
is a violation of Postal Service regulations. What constitutes the
proper use of same is spelled out in the regulations. Essentially, the
old tricks of deliberatly sending them back empty, or in large
quantities, or with other than an ounce or less of printed matter
pertaining to the business at hand is prohibited.  PT]