Article View: comp.dcom.telecom.tech
Article #242Re: CALLER ID ~~ MYSTERY
From: Harry
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:00
49 lines
3028 bytes
3028 bytes
Hosun Lee wrote: > > Ken M. (speedy-page@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > : Harry wrote: > : > > : > Jason: You are exactly right. Your caller ID may not be giving > : > correct information. All attorneys and judges should take heed to this > : > warning! > : > > : > CALLER ID has no integrity. The information may not be accurate and > : > may be sent from another location entirely. In the past couple of days > : > I have had numerous 999-999-9999 for phone number on my Id. The caller > : > would hang up when I answered. I finally found out that it was > : > Nationsbank collection services looking for a boarder whom I used to > : > rent a room too. The individual stated that he could change the number > : > at will and make it say whatever he wanted. I have also had calls from > : > "George Washington" and "John Kennedy" with the dates as their > : > birthdays. In conclusion: Do not believe what you hear and only half > : > of what you see! > : > > : > Harry > > : Oh -- that's just great! We have Nations Bank here in the Washington- > : Baltimore areas. So if I receive a phone call, and my caller ID reads > : "999-999-9999" I can assume it's a collections agency? Then again, I > : don't owe anyone money. But this is disturbing -- just knowing that > : the "incoming" caller ID information can be altered. > > : I hope you called Bell Atlantic and reported this! > > Doesn't that only completely void the entire purpose of Caller ID? How do > these companies even change their numbers like this, I'm assuming that > Bell Atlantic offers them some sort of service for this. Yeeesh, can we > get a service to void their service that's voiding our service? > > -- > Hosun Lee > E-Mail: holee@syr.edu > WWW: http://web.syr.edu/~holee/ > [Urr...Right. Umm...Some Quip Goes Here, Right?] Yes Hosun, I did call Bell Atlantic and they just would not tell a straight answer. maybe I need to litigate against them so that caller Id must either be deemed unreliable or they tell the truth..that is namely that caller id is totally unreliable and simply "incredible". Harry
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<329277E3.2607@worldnet.att.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<56r4jo$qp5@camel1.mindspring.com> <32916610.3149@worldnet.att.net> <3291A297.636C@worldnet.att.net> <56si1d$8lf@newstand.syr.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10a9ce,8cb9bc158bc4606a X-Google-Attributes: gid10a9ce,public X-Google-Thread: f4e50,b04b4ce7cb859f48 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4e50,public X-Google-Thread: 101049,8cb9bc158bc4606a X-Google-Attributes: gid101049,public X-Google-Thread: 1038e3,b04b4ce7cb859f48 X-Google-Attributes: gid1038e3,public From: Harry <Harry-White-Wolf@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: CALLER ID ~~ MYSTERY Date: 1996/11/19 Message-ID: <329277E3.2607@worldnet.att.net> X-Deja-AN: 197546182 references: <56r4jo$qp5@camel1.mindspring.com> <32916610.3149@worldnet.att.net> <3291A297.636C@worldnet.att.net> <56si1d$8lf@newstand.syr.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Harry Fun House mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech,misc.legal,dc.general,balt.general x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Win95; I)