Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salem News 2)   So it turns out AT&T might not have dropped that $1 million BS lawsuit against a small business owner after all   ( salemnews.com) divider line
    More: Followup, international calls, Facebook Connect, street address  
•       •       •

11049 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 10:22 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-11 10:26:24 AM  
AT&T would never drop anything unless they can fark you by doing it.

/obvious
 
2012-07-11 10:27:19 AM  
I was more entertained by the witch attacking another witch further down the page.
 
2012-07-11 10:27:22 AM  

fluffy2097: AT&T would never drop anything unless they can fark you by doing it.

/obvious


Except your calls on it's mobile network.
 
2012-07-11 10:28:52 AM  
How is it a BS lawsuit? He didn't secure his business and AT&T is now suppose to cover the cost? What a shiatty little world.
 
2012-07-11 10:29:47 AM  
Well lets get this story to start making the rounds and we'll see what offer AT&T brings to the table tomorrow. I'd be tempted to cancel my UVerse (or call up and threaten to) but that would mean going back to Comcast and I can't bring myself to do that.
 
2012-07-11 10:31:45 AM  
AT&T needs to drop the lawsuit with out any requirements , and if they want the man to drop his counter suit they should offer to pay or reimburse him for his legal costs.
 
2012-07-11 10:32:50 AM  

grimlock1972: AT&T needs to drop the lawsuit with out any requirements , and if they want the man to drop his counter suit they should offer to pay or reimburse him for his legal costs.


No. they need to intimidate him into settling, so he can be out 30 grand and they can laugh at him.
 
2012-07-11 10:33:21 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Well lets get this story to start making the rounds and we'll see what offer AT&T brings to the table tomorrow. I'd be tempted to cancel my UVerse (or call up and threaten to) but that would mean going back to Comcast and I can't bring myself to do that.


Don't do it, the business owner is partially at fault for being a dochebag and not securing his PBX after he had it happen on Verizon the first time. I have little sympathy for this guy and he should cut his losses for being a tech idiot or at the least sue his PBX provider for not fixing it.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:32 AM  
As much as I hate AT&T, I don't think they should suck up the charges because someone had an insecure phone system that got hacked. Usually people never change the default password thinking they will never get hacked. AT&T should have some accountability though by blocking all International calls by default and have the customer tell them they want calls unblocked. Phone systems can also be programmed that all International calls be blocked (usually not blocked by default.) I think the bill should be split 50/50 and the company that installed the phone system should be partially responsible as well.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:40 AM  

grimlock1972: AT&T needs to drop the lawsuit with out any requirements , and if they want the man to drop his counter suit they should offer to pay or reimburse him for his legal costs.


He's at fault, he had this happen on Verizon but he still didn't fix his PBX issue, he should use his loss as an expensive learning experience.
 
2012-07-11 10:34:51 AM  
Ok so I work for a phone company. If you don't lock down your PBX and someone hacks it and runs up charges your getting a bill.

However, it's generally understood that while you can send a customer a bill like this good luck getting it. And you'll likely also lose the customer and after lawyers/court fees it's usually not worth it. So management will work out a deal with the customer and the company eats the cost.

Now what a normal Telecom does is set rate limits and maximum cost limits. For instance at my company we set a limit that is 30% of your highest monthly bill. That way if you phone system gets hacked (and it happens more frequently then you would think) the hackers can't run up ridiculous bills. The customer pays the extra and it's a good slap on the wrist to get them to lock down their platform. We also flat out reject calls to and from Somalia, Myanmar, etc. Sometimes a customer will want to reach those destinations and we make them send us an email so we have in writing they are opening up calls to that destination. It covers us if they don't like their bill later on.

There is a lot of blame to go around in this scenario.
 
2012-07-11 10:35:21 AM  

steamingpile: ha-ha-guy: Well lets get this story to start making the rounds and we'll see what offer AT&T brings to the table tomorrow. I'd be tempted to cancel my UVerse (or call up and threaten to) but that would mean going back to Comcast and I can't bring myself to do that.

Don't do it, the business owner is partially at fault for being a dochebag and not securing his PBX after he had it happen on Verizon the first time. I have little sympathy for this guy and he should cut his losses for being a tech idiot or at the least sue his PBX provider for not fixing it.


This. It's not the telco's job to babysit your equipment unless you had it written into your service contract.
 
2012-07-11 10:38:35 AM  

Tomji: How is it a BS lawsuit? He didn't secure his business and AT&T is now suppose to cover the cost? What a shiatty little world.


Actually sounds like AT&T's problem. Verizon noticed someone was running around, shut it down on their end, wrote off the charges, and all was well. It appears that someone then dialed into AT&T's calling system and ran up charges for four days with the bill pointing back at Todd Tool. Maybe AT&T should invest in some better fraud detection systems. AT&T basically got phreaked and it trying to take it out on some hardware business as opposed to kicking the ass of whichever idiot set up their network so you can call Somali for four days without any kind of alerts. This guy never had an account with AT&T, yet AT&T extended him $891,00 of credit without ever verifying it was really him. Simply based on the source number, which is easy to spoof.

It would be like if I went into the bank, used your name, and walked out with half a million. Later the bank agrees someone impersonated you to get the money, you didn't take out the loan, but still demands you pay.
 
2012-07-11 10:41:27 AM  

EvilTaxi: This. It's not the telco's job to babysit your equipment unless you had it written into your service contract.


This. If your toilet leaks all quarter and you get a large water bill. Guess who's paying that?
 
2012-07-11 10:43:54 AM  

steamingpile: grimlock1972: AT&T needs to drop the lawsuit with out any requirements , and if they want the man to drop his counter suit they should offer to pay or reimburse him for his legal costs.

He's at fault, he had this happen on Verizon but he still didn't fix his PBX issue, he should use his loss as an expensive learning experience.


If Verizon had beef with him, I could understand. This article makes it sound like post Verizon lockdown (Verizon blocked the guy's ability to make international calls), the hackers dialed into AT&T's system and used it to make the calls. AT&T just went ahead and processed them. The guy was too lazy to secure his PBX, but AT&T also needs to be smarted and cap charges until they verify the person.

Based on the article it makes me think if I cloned I SIM and dialed into AT&T to place international calls, I could run up 891k worth of charges in the cellphone owner's name.
 
2012-07-11 10:45:41 AM  

ha-ha-guy: It would be like if I went into the bank, used your name, and walked out with half a million. Later the bank agrees someone impersonated you to get the money, you didn't take out the loan, but still demands you pay.


While you're close with your example it's not a perfect fit. For this to be a better example it would have to involve the owner of the bank account broadcasting his account numbers to the world and then taking no steps to prevent it being stolen.

Any public telephone DID or public IP address is easily searched, traced, and tested for vulnerabilities. And you're a fool if you don't test it before a criminal does.
 
2012-07-11 10:54:31 AM  
So much ugh to go around here. I worked for both the Death Star and the Big Red V for the past decade, plus some (got laid off recently, it sucks), and I'd say this is about 70% the customer's fault, although I never understood for the life of me why T doesn't have certain locks and limits available on the wireline side. I mean, I know WHY they don't have it by default, but it should be available.

My prediction is, they'll negotiate and probably split it 50-50 or 60-40, something like that. Let this be an object lesson to the PBX owner... know how your junk works so you can prepare.
 
2012-07-11 10:57:35 AM  

ha-ha-guy: steamingpile:

Based on the article it makes me think if I cloned I SIM and dialed into AT&T to place international calls, I could run up 891k worth of charges in the cellphone owner's name.


Not exactly. The wireless side is generally pretty proactive about monitoring that sort of thing. Fraud will catch it pretty quick. Wireline... well, wireline was the bane of my existence and is one of a couple reasons I was laid off.
 
2012-07-11 10:58:43 AM  
Wait! How does he owe AT&T if he is not even their customer? I don't get that part of the story. If I am not a customer of some company how in the hell do I owe the any money what so ever? This is AT&T's fault since they allowed this to happen.
 
2012-07-11 11:07:56 AM  

ha-ha-guy: steamingpile: grimlock1972: AT&T needs to drop the lawsuit with out any requirements , and if they want the man to drop his counter suit they should offer to pay or reimburse him for his legal costs.

He's at fault, he had this happen on Verizon but he still didn't fix his PBX issue, he should use his loss as an expensive learning experience.

If Verizon had beef with him, I could understand. This article makes it sound like post Verizon lockdown (Verizon blocked the guy's ability to make international calls), the hackers dialed into AT&T's system and used it to make the calls. AT&T just went ahead and processed them. The guy was too lazy to secure his PBX, but AT&T also needs to be smarted and cap charges until they verify the person.

Based on the article it makes me think if I cloned I SIM and dialed into AT&T to place international calls, I could run up 891k worth of charges in the cellphone owner's name.


No, that's not what happened, Verizon provides his service, what it appears to have happened is someone then used a 3rd party long distance service to then rack up those charges routed through his PBX.

He is at fault, a 45 minute visit from his vendor could have stopped this and that should have been his first call after Verizon alerted him about the problem.

The customer is not always right, usually because they have no idea what they are talking about, its why you hire the right people.
 
2012-07-11 11:10:41 AM  

Towermonkey: ha-ha-guy: steamingpile:

Based on the article it makes me think if I cloned I SIM and dialed into AT&T to place international calls, I could run up 891k worth of charges in the cellphone owner's name.

Not exactly. The wireless side is generally pretty proactive about monitoring that sort of thing. Fraud will catch it pretty quick. Wireline... well, wireline was the bane of my existence and is one of a couple reasons I was laid off.


I got into an argument the other day with a wireline employee trying to say they are the only side making money and have to write off wireless losses. I was stunned anyone could be that stupid and walk upright.
 
2012-07-11 11:11:59 AM  

mctwin2kman: Wait! How does he owe AT&T if he is not even their customer? I don't get that part of the story. If I am not a customer of some company how in the hell do I owe the any money what so ever? This is AT&T's fault since they allowed this to happen.


Read the articles, they used a 3rd party calling company to rack up charges, if the customer had half a brain this shiat would never had happen.
 
2012-07-11 11:13:59 AM  

mctwin2kman: Wait! How does he owe AT&T if he is not even their customer? I don't get that part of the story. If I am not a customer of some company how in the hell do I owe the any money what so ever? This is AT&T's fault since they allowed this to happen.


If you're old enough, you probably remember the 10-10 long distance phone services that were all the rage in the 90s. You dial a number with a 10-10 prefix and that gets you access to a 3rd party long-distance service. The 3rd party provider then bills your service provider, who includes the charges on your bill. It was advertised as a cheaper alternative to whatever service you might be subscribed to. Honestly, I'm surprised they still exist.

So the hackers got into this guy's phone service, dialed into AT&T's 10-10 system, then dialed some premium rate number in Somolia.
 
2012-07-11 11:16:07 AM  

s1ugg0: Any public telephone DID or public IP address is easily searched, traced, and tested for vulnerabilities. And you're a fool if you don't test it before a criminal does.


I'd also say the phone company who assumes some guy who makes pipe wrenches for a living can lock down his PBX is also a fool. You know it's the reason Windows turns a firewall on by default these days (for whatever good it does).

A lot of this could have likely been avoided if Verizon was harsher on him and just totally pulled the plug on him when they saw it was compromised. I'm betting Verizon told him they turned off international calls to prevent more calls to Somali, the guy things "Okay I never call overseas anyways, no problem", and just went on with his life. Somewhere in the process Verizon failed to make clear it was compromised domestically or the guy failed to grasp that due to a low technological IQ. In hindsight Verizon should have been "Looks like you were hacked, we're pulling the plug until your PBX is secured. We can fix it (have a tech redo all the security) but it will cost X dollars".

/of course I work in an industry were we consider an industry standard to have the car's computer remind customers they need to put air in their tires and refill the window washer fluid since they never check anything on the car
 
2012-07-11 11:17:09 AM  

s1ugg0: EvilTaxi: This. It's not the telco's job to babysit your equipment unless you had it written into your service contract.

This. If your toilet leaks all quarter and you get a large water bill. Guess who's paying that?


Not a valid analogy. He was not even an AT&T customer.

Someone who's not even a customer can make $900k in phone calls through AT&T's network. Who's the one with the security issues, here??
 
2012-07-11 11:19:48 AM  

ha-ha-guy: It would be like if I went into the bank, used your name, and walked out with half a million. Later the bank agrees someone impersonated you to get the money, you didn't take out the loan, but still demands you pay.


Much better analogy.
 
2012-07-11 11:26:36 AM  
As much as I hate overbearing laws on businesses, and the saying "there ought to be a law...", Ive got to say, there ought to be a law that requires telecoms (both for land and cell) to put triggers in place for a potential fraud red flag after a certain dollar amount/usage minutes, calls to countries never previously made, etc. The technology is there, so that is not an excuse.

Yeah, this guy should have secured his PBX, but come on man...

While it may not be their intention, AT&T is making themselves look like a blood thirsty, money grabbing, uncaring company.
 
2012-07-11 11:30:48 AM  

steamingpile: No, that's not what happened, Verizon provides his service, what it appears to have happened is someone then used a 3rd party long distance service to then rack up those charges routed through his PBX.


Personally I disagree with that. Phone networks are not secure on the consumer end. Something like an insecure PBX you can remote dial into makes it even more insecure of course. However it's not impossible to tap a phone directly into the NID and I assume when you dial from the NID it appears to come form that home's phone number. I remember learning how to do it back in an EE class in college. Of course these days I'd likely pry the cover off the NID and go "Wow, it didn't look like this in the 1980s". Anyway in in theory someone could be at home right now, tapping my NID and running up 800k worth of charges to call Somalia.

AT&T has a real problem if they extend 800k worth of calling credit to someone whose only proof of identity is their source number. Whenever I call up Verizon, even though they can see I'm calling my cellphone on their network, they still make me prove who the hell I am (account PIN, security question) and I'm only calling up to change my text message plan not get 800k in credit.
 
2012-07-11 11:30:57 AM  

ha-ha-guy: s1ugg0: Any public telephone DID or public IP address is easily searched, traced, and tested for vulnerabilities. And you're a fool if you don't test it before a criminal does.

I'd also say the phone company who assumes some guy who makes pipe wrenches for a living can lock down his PBX is also a fool. You know it's the reason Windows turns a firewall on by default these days (for whatever good it does).

A lot of this could have likely been avoided if Verizon was harsher on him and just totally pulled the plug on him when they saw it was compromised. I'm betting Verizon told him they turned off international calls to prevent more calls to Somali, the guy things "Okay I never call overseas anyways, no problem", and just went on with his life. Somewhere in the process Verizon failed to make clear it was compromised domestically or the guy failed to grasp that due to a low technological IQ. In hindsight Verizon should have been "Looks like you were hacked, we're pulling the plug until your PBX is secured. We can fix it (have a tech redo all the security) but it will cost X dollars".

/of course I work in an industry were we consider an industry standard to have the car's computer remind customers they need to put air in their tires and refill the window washer fluid since they never check anything on the car


You know he didn't install it so after Verizon alerted him of issue his first call should have been to his installer to fix the issue.

Its almost all his fault.
 
2012-07-11 11:39:28 AM  

steamingpile: You know he didn't install it so after Verizon alerted him of issue his first call should have been to his installer to fix the issue.

Its almost all his fault.


So your grandmother buys a computer at Best Buy.
She fails to run Windows update.
I hack the computer via a known security flaw and use it to start seeding child porn torrents.
Your grandmother's ISP alerts her to this traffic and tells her they blocked the port (Verizon blocking international calls).
Your grandmother fails to unplug the computer and call Geek Squad (since Best Buy was the vendor).
I remote log in again, switch over to another port or start running it over a VPN (dialing into a 10-10) and return to seeding CP torrents off her computer.

Now your grandmother is liable for CP possession and distribution charges right?
 
2012-07-11 11:42:49 AM  

ha-ha-guy: steamingpile: No, that's not what happened, Verizon provides his service, what it appears to have happened is someone then used a 3rd party long distance service to then rack up those charges routed through his PBX.

Personally I disagree with that. Phone networks are not secure on the consumer end. Something like an insecure PBX you can remote dial into makes it even more insecure of course. However it's not impossible to tap a phone directly into the NID and I assume when you dial from the NID it appears to come form that home's phone number. I remember learning how to do it back in an EE class in college. Of course these days I'd likely pry the cover off the NID and go "Wow, it didn't look like this in the 1980s". Anyway in in theory someone could be at home right now, tapping my NID and running up 800k worth of charges to call Somalia.

AT&T has a real problem if they extend 800k worth of calling credit to someone whose only proof of identity is their source number. Whenever I call up Verizon, even though they can see I'm calling my cellphone on their network, they still make me prove who the hell I am (account PIN, security question) and I'm only calling up to change my text message plan not get 800k in credit.


You are not following along, they were dialing into his phone switch then dialing out using the 3rd party.

And the phone systems I maintain are secure on the consumer end for just this farking reason. Stupid business owner and he is at fault.
 
2012-07-11 11:44:32 AM  

steamingpile: You know he didn't install it so after Verizon alerted him of issue his first call should have been to his installer to fix the issue.

Its almost all his fault.



I think the bigger discussion we should be having here is about technology and where the responsibility of the customer ends and the responsibility of the provider begins for network security. Clearly this guy has zero grasp on how to secure a telephone network...hell, I am willing to bet that he never even knew he needed to secure it in the first place.

But as technology becomes more and more complicated and more and more specialized, I feel it is the providers responsibility to assist their customer base in securing the technology they purchase from them. It is unreasonable for a company to expect its "lay person" end users to have 100%, in depth knowledge of its products and how to secure them.
 
2012-07-11 11:44:45 AM  

ha-ha-guy: steamingpile: You know he didn't install it so after Verizon alerted him of issue his first call should have been to his installer to fix the issue.

Its almost all his fault.

So your grandmother buys a computer at Best Buy.
She fails to run Windows update.
I hack the computer via a known security flaw and use it to start seeding child porn torrents.
Your grandmother's ISP alerts her to this traffic and tells her they blocked the port (Verizon blocking international calls).
Your grandmother fails to unplug the computer and call Geek Squad (since Best Buy was the vendor).
I remote log in again, switch over to another port or start running it over a VPN (dialing into a 10-10) and return to seeding CP torrents off her computer.

Now your grandmother is liable for CP possession and distribution charges right?


That's a stupid analogy and easily disproved, there is no way to prove who made those calls since they appear to originate from his phone system.

Its the customers fault.
 
2012-07-11 11:49:55 AM  

steamingpile: ha-ha-guy: steamingpile: You know he didn't install it so after Verizon alerted him of issue his first call should have been to his installer to fix the issue.

Its almost all his fault.

So your grandmother buys a computer at Best Buy.
She fails to run Windows update.
I hack the computer via a known security flaw and use it to start seeding child porn torrents.
Your grandmother's ISP alerts her to this traffic and tells her they blocked the port (Verizon blocking international calls).
Your grandmother fails to unplug the computer and call Geek Squad (since Best Buy was the vendor).
I remote log in again, switch over to another port or start running it over a VPN (dialing into a 10-10) and return to seeding CP torrents off her computer.

Now your grandmother is liable for CP possession and distribution charges right?

That's a stupid analogy and easily disproved, there is no way to prove who made those calls since they appear to originate from his phone system.

Its the customers fault.


...except that AT&T agreed that the calls were fraudulent and did not originate with the business owner.
 
2012-07-11 11:51:37 AM  

steamingpile: You are not following along, they were dialing into his phone switch then dialing out using the 3rd party.


Try reading some of my posts better, I full grasp that.

steamingpile: That's a stupid analogy and easily disproved, there is no way to prove who made those calls since they appear to originate from his phone system.

Its the customers fault.


And if I leave no proof of intrusion on your grandmother's computer, there is no way to prove she didn't seed that torrent herself. Except of course in the case of the tool company everyone knows the guy was hacked, so we know he didn't make those calls.
 
2012-07-11 12:02:33 PM  

steamingpile: Towermonkey: ha-ha-guy: steamingpile:

Based on the article it makes me think if I cloned I SIM and dialed into AT&T to place international calls, I could run up 891k worth of charges in the cellphone owner's name.

Not exactly. The wireless side is generally pretty proactive about monitoring that sort of thing. Fraud will catch it pretty quick. Wireline... well, wireline was the bane of my existence and is one of a couple reasons I was laid off.

I got into an argument the other day with a wireline employee trying to say they are the only side making money and have to write off wireless losses. I was stunned anyone could be that stupid and walk upright.


Yuuuuuuup. Some of the wireline folks are great, a lot of them leave a good bit to be desired. Not that the wireless side did not have its winners. I'm glad I'm gone.
 
2012-07-11 12:05:48 PM  

zorlack7: fluffy2097: AT&T would never drop anything unless they can fark you by doing it.

/obvious

Except your calls on it's mobile network.


Around these parts, AT&T is putting out ads bragging about their 1% call failure rate.
 
2012-07-11 12:11:38 PM  
I'd be suing the vendor who installed the PBX without asking the customer if he wanted appropriate security enabled.

As for AT&T's offer, I'd gladly drop a $30K lawsuit to get a $1.4 million lawsuit dropped, and I wouldn't need several hours to make up my mind.
 
2012-07-11 12:14:52 PM  
Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it and uses it as the getaway vehicle for a bank heist in which they steal a million dollars. Then the bank sues you for the entire amount.

Technically, you could have prevented your car from being used in a crime by locking it, but at the same time... holding you 100% responsible is utterly buckfark insane.
 
2012-07-11 12:17:22 PM  

ha-ha-guy: steamingpile: You are not following along, they were dialing into his phone switch then dialing out using the 3rd party.

Try reading some of my posts better, I full grasp that.

steamingpile: That's a stupid analogy and easily disproved, there is no way to prove who made those calls since they appear to originate from his phone system.

Its the customers fault.

And if I leave no proof of intrusion on your grandmother's computer, there is no way to prove she didn't seed that torrent herself. Except of course in the case of the tool company everyone knows the guy was hacked, so we know he didn't make those calls.


No you don't fully grasp that one is not related at all and are different ends of the technology, there is no way to get into another persons computer and leave no trace of an intrusion. I could spend a few minutes and get into someone's phone system and they would never know I was there.

You don't know the technology involved so stop. Its the customers fault, ATT's biggest douche move is dragging it out 3 years. But this headache is his own doing.
 
2012-07-11 12:19:30 PM  

Gunther: Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it and uses it as the getaway vehicle for a bank heist in which they steal a million dollars. Then the bank sues you for the entire amount.

Technically, you could have prevented your car from being used in a crime by locking it, but at the same time... holding you 100% responsible is utterly buckfark insane.


A better example would be if your car were stolen and driven up and down a tollway that billed by the car's plates.
 
2012-07-11 12:23:18 PM  
What about the money? Assuming the guy pays, is it all kept by ATT, or do they have to pay someone else for the 'last mile' of these calls? If they are out real money I can see their point in going after the guy. Having said that, if 'real money' is due to go to Somolia (that 'last mile' part), all I can say is Fark Somolia.
 
2012-07-11 12:30:38 PM  
Whose fault is this mess...... the small business owner's (he should have secured his line.)

Who should be liable for the costs....... AT&T (I mean seriously, they extended almost a million dollars credit toward someone they had no conection with, no idea of his credit score or assets, and in spite of the overwhelming evidence that he had clearly been hacked)
 
2012-07-11 12:34:24 PM  
Seems like the real argument here boils down which party suffered a massive lapse in security and common sense first.

Going solely on that, I'd say the business owner is pretty well hosed. By that same token, thinking that someone who you admit is not directly responsible for calls made on your network and that isn't even a customer of yours in the first place is going to actually pay an $800,000 bill is laughable. This isn't even addressing the fact that it is apparently somehow possible for a phone call to cost $22 per minute. That figure has to require nearly American healthcare system levels of absurdly inflated cross-billing by carriers to arrive at.
 
2012-07-11 12:54:00 PM  
He doesn't owe a penny. AT&T owes him all court fees and expenses for fraudulent billing.

If they continue trying to push the issue they'll owe him damages too.
A LOT of damages.

Verizon turned off the long-distance access, at which point the calls HAD to originate external to his phone system. They're a lapse in AT&T's security.

Rule of thumb, an AT&T employee committed the crime, it is not possible to place THAT many calls through hacking alone. Todd pissed someone at AT&T off very badly.
AT&T is out of a lot of money paid overseas and has probably already shiat-caned the employee and covered his tracks and is now trying to make Todd pay for its own fark-up.

These calls crossed an international border and are the jurisdiction of the federal government, they were probably used to fund terrorist activities.
 
2012-07-11 01:03:54 PM  

prjindigo: He doesn't owe a penny. AT&T owes him all court fees and expenses for fraudulent billing.

If they continue trying to push the issue they'll owe him damages too.
A LOT of damages.

Verizon turned off the long-distance access, at which point the calls HAD to originate external to his phone system. They're a lapse in AT&T's security.

Rule of thumb, an AT&T employee committed the crime, it is not possible to place THAT many calls through hacking alone. Todd pissed someone at AT&T off very badly.
AT&T is out of a lot of money paid overseas and has probably already shiat-caned the employee and covered his tracks and is now trying to make Todd pay for its own fark-up.

These calls crossed an international border and are the jurisdiction of the federal government, they were probably used to fund terrorist activities.


Another one who can't grasp technology, this is solely the business owners fault and all they have to prove is he was aware of the issue and since he already had the issue with his dial tone.
 
2012-07-11 01:29:01 PM  

Juan_Kerr: What about the money? Assuming the guy pays, is it all kept by ATT, or do they have to pay someone else for the 'last mile' of these calls? If they are out real money I can see their point in going after the guy. Having said that, if 'real money' is due to go to Somolia (that 'last mile' part), all I can say is Fark Somolia.


It's (nearly) all last mile ... that's why it's cheap to call Australia, no local termination fees.

The fact that AT&T is allowed to connect these 10-10 numbers, or however the second hack was done, and pass through an arbitrarily large bill, shows serious flaws in the US telecoms regulations, designed to screw the end user and benefit the carriers. Consumers should not be exposed to this kind of risk simply by getting a phone line. instead, if someone wants to call premium rate numbers in Somalia, they should have to specifically request that capability.

/ AT&T once tried to screw me by switching my long distance rate to $1/min for non-premium-rate calls to Europe, telling me my rate plan had "expired". I told them to produce something I signed saying I'd pay $1/min after the plan expired and to otherwise fark off, and did a chargeback. Amex FTW.
// yes, it's as farked up as US healthcare list pricing, no-one would ever willingly pay that much for calls that should cost 4c/min
 
2012-07-11 01:43:39 PM  
Go to Jamaica and you can get a disposable cell phone for $25 and call the US unlimited for a month. Yet we get billed a couple dollars a minute for sending electrical signals the other direction. It's a ripoff and a disgrace.
 
2012-07-11 01:51:02 PM  
We need to just close all networks to/from 3rd world countries. I know it sounds harsh, but they simply aren't ready for the responsibility or have the technical knowledge to contain their citizens who abuse systems.

Several countries, such as the United States, almost entirely rely on the Internet for communication, economics, security, etc. We cannot leave ourselves to susceptible to groups that bring nothing good to the table.
 
2012-07-11 01:58:44 PM  
Am I the only one that did the math and figured out that it was over 36,000 minutes of calls in a 4 day period?
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report