[Asterisk-biz] CID Spoofing

[Michael Greb]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:16:25PM -0700, Alex Pui wrote:
> I don't know the second reason, but the first one in fact is illegal :).
> 
> Alex

Yeah, lots of people have listed collection agencies trying to get
money as a legit use for caller ID spoofing.  One of the companies that
was offering the service selectively even stated they would only give
accounts to private investigators, collection agencies, and other
similar users.

The only profession that could use such a service legally, or at least
have a chance of it being legal, would be bounty hunters, in states
where bounty hunters are legal.  The amount of stuff they can do
legally is pretty amazing.  I know they can enter a house and search it
without a warrant as well as lie about who they are on the phone so
wouldn't be surprised if they could legally spoof caller ID.

As for companies trying to collect money.  The specific law that comes
into play is the Fair Debt Collections Act.  § 807 - "False or
misleading representations" states:
 A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading
 representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.
 Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the
 following conduct is a violation of this section:
Item 10:
 The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or
 attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
 consumer.
Item 14:
 The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the
 true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization.

Interestingly the next section makes it illegal to use false
information for the return address and states that no name may be used
on the return address other then the companies actual name (unless it
implies the form of business the company is in).  I imagine it could be
argued that caller id spoofing would be a similarly unfair practice
(§ 808 is headed "Unfair Practices) and had caller id spoofing been
considered, it would have been included directly in the act like
mailing return address.  Though, I think the intention of this
provision was protecting the privacy of the recipient in the case that
a neighbor or other friend might see the envelope.

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20050727/8d05f223/attachment.pgp