 DestBoloPremium
join:2000-03-21
Naperville, IL | i wonder...? wouldn't sexual harrasment law or something help stop those crank calls?
and wouldn't relay scam call make the comapny/operator "accomplice" to fraud? so that the company/lawnmaking may want to tighten up? |
|
 roamer1sticking it out at you
join:2001-03-24
Atlanta, GA | said by Dest:
and wouldn't relay scam call make the comapny/operator "accomplice" to fraud?
No...the IP relay services, like the phone companies that own three of the four major ones (Hamilton isn't affiilated with a major IXC) are basically considered common carriers. It's no different from, say, BellSouth or MCI not being considered an accomplice when fraudulent telemarketers buy phone service from them.
-SC
--
"it seems like all you ever buy is Abercrombie and cell phones" --a friend
No-Bull SE US Wireless Info: »www.sewireless.info/
Atlanta Apt/Condo Cable & Broadband Info: »www.atlaptcable.info/ |
|
 keith2468Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB | reply to Dest
A common carrier is not assumed to know about abuses using its service. The reasoning is the service is big, it has many users, so the common carrier can't monitor it all constantly.
However, a common carrier is expected to take action when details of a specific incident are drawn to their attention of lawbreaking with their service.
Someone has to officially report it with reasonable details.
Failure for them to take action might be negligence, and it might eventually make them an accomplice. But they have to be told of specific incidents with enough detail. And maybe they should be told via the FBI so there is proof they were told.
In this case, with them billing the government for fraudulent phone calls (by non-deaf non-vocally impaired people) maybe the common carrier is the main monetary beneficiary of the fraud.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
