The biggest part of this legislation is the fact it was never officially illegal to spoof your caller-ID information before.
Now that it's illegal, you can be charged with it and that "point of inquiry" can then trigger any number of events to determine the depths of your criminality (is that a word?). Just a case of closing the loopholes that are/were used/exploited to perform further malfeasance on unsuspecting victims. Like Valdis noted: Capone was put away for tax evasion not violent crime. We're going to be seeing another similar law coming down the river soon regarding pretexting. Pretexting had not been defined as being illegal as of yet but here, post-HP, it will soon be. Thanks, Brandon -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 8:53 PM To: J. Oquendo Cc: full-disclosure Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Truths in "Truth in Caller ID Act" On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:41:56 CDT, "J. Oquendo" said: > "It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States, in connection > with any telecommunications service or VOIP service..." > 1) Teleco/VoIP service is out of bounds here. 2) The User who initiated the > command is logged from an address somewhere over the rainbow (Tor+Privoxy). 3) > "within the United States" which? The person, or the telco/VoIP provider? Does > it have to be both - person and provider. Sounds broad to me. No, you're intentionally reading it other than what the legal guys will do. The prosecutor can charge *each and every person involved* who is both a) within the US and b) took an identifiable action which lead to the event. The person who made the request obviously took an action that lead to the event, and if they're inside the US, they may have a problem. The provider took an action (by providing the service) and if they're inside the US, they may want to find a lawyer that can create a good theory of why they aren't culpable as well. > 2) Me being the provider, I didn't initiate the spoof, I provided a service. > Should I be held accountable for upholding the right to privacy? You took an action which caused the forged caller ID to be sent. Better hope that the Congressman doesn't have friends over at Dept of Justice who can make your life miserable. Also, please note that you're arguing the wrong right - the "right to privacy" would be applicable if you were trying to protect the person from a Congressman who was trying to prove the person slept with a political rival or similar. What you *wanted* to be supporting was the First Amendment right to anonymous free speech. > Let's take the case of someone blowing the whistle on government corruption. > History has shown their life will be ruined. Sucks to be a whistleblower. This message is intended only for the person(s) to which it is addressed and may contain privileged, confidential and/or insider information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this message and any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/