--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 13:03, Peter Beckman <beck...@angryox.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jul 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> On Thursday, 11 July, 2019 12:38, Ross Tajvar <r...@tajvar.io>
>wrote:
>>
>>> What if you use different carriers for termination and
>origination?
>>> How does your termination carrier validate that your origination
>>> carrier has allocated certain numbers to you and that you're
>>> therefore allowed to make outbound calls with a caller ID set to
>>> those numbers? That doesn't sound to me like something that can be
>>> solved as quickly and easily as you imply.
>>
>> It does not really matter. What matters is that they bear
>responsibility
>> for an act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit fraud.
>
> Fraud means you'll need to know the content of the call to
>determine if
> the spoofing of the CallerID value meets the bar of breaking the
>law.
>
> Truth in CallerID Act is only violated if there is intent to
>defraud when
> the CallerID is spoofed. If you spoof CallerID and do not know the
>content
> of the call, you cannot know if the Act was violated.
The "content" of the call is irrelevant.
If one received identification information (the CallerID) and then passes that
information on (a deliberate act) with the intent that it be acted upon as if
valid (is the CallerID), and that information later turns out to be fraudulent
(it does not in fact identify the caller) then the "passer on" has acted in
furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud. Neither negligence nor recklessness
is a defense against the conspiracy. The only essential elements that need to
be proved are that (a) the callerid information was fraudulent (b) the
passer-on intended that the information be taken as non-fraudulent. The fact
that the passer-on also "made money from" its specific act in furtherance of
the conspiracy is further proof of active participation and benefit from
participation in the conspiracy.
The second rule in relation to intent also applies:
If one deliberately engages on a course of action in which a given result is
possible outcome, and that result ensues, implies the intent to cause the
result so obtained, notwithstanding that the course of action was intended to
obtain a different result.
If "CallerID" were in fact sold as "whatever information caller chooses to
convey" rather than as the Identification of the caller, then there would be no
problem in "passing on" that information. However holding out that "CallerID"
is in fact the ID of the Caller, and making money by holding out that to be the
case, means that the passer-on of the fraudulent information is liable for the
falsity of that information notwithstanding that he cannot verify it.
So in fact the whole thing is and was from the get-go a designed with the
intent to convey information under fraudulent pretenses and for fraudulent
purposes.
