Hi Jim;

I watched a show a few months back talking about telephone scams. Apparently you can phone a number (Bell Canada) and get a *code* number that is good for $15 worth of phone calls, charged to the phone that got the code.

Apparently they showed people going up to the phone box on the side of house, wiring in a telephone in about 15 seconds and calling for a bunch of these codes. Unless you happened to pick up your phone at that time, you'd never know until you got your bill. The rip-off artists would then sell these *codes* for some discounted amount. The codes could be used from a pay phone instead of a calling card.

What I'd like to know *WHAT the hell for?* Why would people need these kind of codes? A system like this is just so ripe for ripping people off. Of course Bell was very hush hush about how easy it is to tap into a phone line at the side of the house. I mean, pop the cover and connect two wires. Duh!

Some companies seem to go out of their way to come up with systems that make it easy for fraud artists to survive. Maybe they don't care as long as somebody pays and revenues go up!


>Hi Bob,
>
>At the very least I do think that CIVIL action is the way to go.
>
>On perhaps a similar note, I have always had a problem with the POLICE staking out, say, airport telephone areas watching for phone-card artists (you know, the ones who watch you key your number and then sell it all over the place, hitting you with the bill).
>
>My feeling is that if the phone company implemented such an insecure system then it is their problem and not ours (by way of OUR police). If, as one of their users, I happen to get scammed in this way, then the phone company ought to cancel the bill and eat the cost. Sure, some will say that that only leaves it open for anyone to cheat (get their bills paid by claiming they did not make calls when they actually did) but that would be the phone company's implementation problem too!
>
>Yes, it has been interesting. Apparently in Singapore they have a rule for EVERYTHING, so I guess that's one way to handle it. But living in Toronto, which is well on the way to matching Singapore in that regard, I'd stay away from that. But maybe the trouble as it is done in Toronto is that 'they' only enforce the rules when they want to. That is a mighty dangerous thing!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jim N
>
>
>>Albert,
>>
>>I think you are on to something here! Self replicating intelligent agent sounds much more innocuous than virus. It seems to me (though I have no first hand knowledge, ie code) that the Melissa virus wasn't so much inherently 'wrong' but that the scale of its action was so hugh.
>>
>>I would agree too that Microsoft is just as 'responsible' by allowing autoexecuting code but does that make this 'feature' illegal or dastardly?
>>
>>Does over utilization of a mail server by mail create damage conditions?
>>
>>If the facility exists to do something (self-replicating etc.) is this consent to use it? And if not, or it requires 'responsibility' what is the definition of responsibility? I'm sure we would each have their own.
>>
>>Suppose someone created a truly remarkable email message and sent it to and you thought it was so wonderful you immediately sent it to everyone in your address book, and they felt the same way and immediately sent it out too (almost like some cybernetic mass hysteria) until the mail servers crashed under the weight, would this constitute a crime?
>>
>>Some would say no, because the intent wasn't there. So how much intent is required? Is intent the only qualifier? What if the effect is way bigger than intended? Does that count?
>>
>>Maybe the negligence is with the systems that allow the damage.
>>
>>Lots to consider, anyway!
>>
>>
>>>What is the difference between a self replicating intelligent agent and a virus?
>>>The virus causes damage?
>>>How is damage defined?
>>>What if self replicating intelligent agent has a bug and causes damage?
>>>
>>>Microsoft should never have allowed autoexecuting code in documents. Can they be sued for damages.