mc <look@www.ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote:
> If the allegations are true, this man deserves criminal prosecution, not
> just a lawsuit.
This is Scott Richter, after all. He has been doing this sort of thing
for years.
> Using stolen passwords is serious.
I agree, but who is going to prosecute? And while Richter is probably one
of the worst offenders, you can look at anyone on the ROKSO list and see
similar behaviours. Why aren't they all in jail?
--scott
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well _why_ is Scott Richter allowed to
operate unabated? As the other message in this issue pointed out,
there are practical limitations to the number of lawyers and
investigators available. I agree with 'the biggest bang for the buck'
theory. Get them one after another, the biggest ones first, and
hopefully, when we get around to the smaller ones, some of the bigger
ones will still be in jail; obviously we cannot count on ICANN to do
anything about it; Esther and Vint are probably on vacation somewhere
in South America, living on the proceeds of the fees they collect for
charging all of us for the 'right' to be here. PAT]
Path: telecom-digest.org!ptownson
Date: 24 Jan 2007 08:07:44 -0800
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Don't Call. Don't Write. Let Me Be.
Message-ID: <telecom26.25.8@telecom-digest.org>
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Sender: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-URL: http://telecom-digest.org/
X-Submissions-To: editor@telecom-digest.org
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@telecom-digest.org
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 26, Issue 25, Message 8 of 10
Lines: 55
On Jan 22, 1:01 pm, DevilsPGD <spam_narf_s...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In message <telecom26.22...@telecom-digest.org>:
> Not so much that they get away with it, paying the fines is just a
> cost of business.
The vast, vast majority of the consumers will not go to the trouble of
carefully tracking and reporting illegal solicitation calls. So the
solicitors never get into trouble in the first place and thus there is
no fine.
They use techniques that mask their caller-ID. VOIP carrier?.
"Fly-by-night" long distance carrier that simply doesn't pass along the
data?
Even if a consumer does report a complaint, the authorities only act
upon receiving a great many complaints that are solidly substantiated.
Again, the chance that will happen is very small.
It was a common trick in the old days for scammers to rent a storefront
and fake a busy business, do their thing for a few months, then take
off before the victims and authorities could react. By the time they
do, they only find an empty store, the criminals are long gone.
In the modern world, it's a lot easier, no physical property (and
expense) is required. Just create a website or telephone carrier,
which thanks to deregulation and our beloved "open world*" is very
easy to do. Remember the problem with illegal long distance carrier
switching?
*See Pat's comments on this in a separate post issued today.
In my opinion, the problems we have today result from the lingering
"anti-Bell" attitude some people have. Note the caustic response to me
not long ago from one poster claiming the baby-Bells still had a
monopoly. This attitude resulted in a "wide open" policy for the
Internet and the telephone system. The problem was that criminals take
quick advantage of this. It's made all the worse since this is an
intangible service where there's no physical presence or controls.
In the tangible real world, we still require new businesses to meet all
the laws and regulations to protect the public, yet we exempt new
Internet and telephone providers because we want "competition". Do we
exempt a brand new restaurant from the health code because we want a
new choice to eat out? (I guess some people think we should.)
[public replies, please]
[ TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am getting sort of ambivilent on the
'Network Neutrality' issue. Just wait until the 'time out period'
agreed to by Bell expires in a couple years. Very few of these fool
spammer/scammers will be able to afford AT&T's prices for fast
network connectivity. PAT]
Scott Dorsey (kludge@panix.com)