[asterisk-biz] ANI

[voipguy]

Of course they would believe caller id is accurate. It was originally 
"sold" to them that way. Same applies to things like "privacy guard" 
that depend on caller id.

Andreas van dem Helge wrote:
> The problem with what you posted is it being very broad. The fact that
> the general population believes caller id is accurate, "defraud" could
> mean simply make them think you are someone, i.e. caller id spoofing
> is inheritently fraud. The fact is technology and law historically the
> law has never been up-to-date technologically. Look at all the hoopla
> surrouding open wifi access points. If you actually look at the low
> level processes taking place you'll notice its more akin to knocking
> on someone's door and being let inside.
>
>
> Anyways.... the Florida law excludes
>
> "A telecommunications, broadband, or voice-over-
>  Internet service provider that is acting solely as an
>  intermediary for the transmission of telephone service between
>  the caller and the recipient."
>
> So noone need worry about that, besides I'm sure the law could easily
> be repealed if challenged under the guise of "interstate commerce."
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Trixter aka Bret McDanel
> <trixter at 0xdecafbad.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 18:40 -0400, Charles Vance wrote:
>>     
>>> each of those scenario's involve either fraud or intent to do harm and
>>> are already prohibited
>>>       
>> `(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person within the United
>> States, in connection with any telecommunications service or VOIP
>> service, to cause any caller identification service to transmit
>> misleading or inaccurate caller identification information, with the
>> intent to defraud or cause harm.
>>
>> emphasis on "intent to defraud or cause harm" so even with this law
>> nothing really changes.
>>
>>
>> Although this is not the first attempt, its a new bill that is basically
>> the same as the 2006 one, what passed was the 2007 one introduced Jan
>> 5 2007.
>>
>> It generally will do nothing, and places no burden on voip providers on
>> its face, although the courts at a later date may decide that providers
>> have to take responsibility for their customers.  The person also has to
>> be in the united states, which provides an interesting loop hole for a call
>> center in say india.
>>
>> The intent to defraud or cause harm will be assumed for grand jury hearings,
>> only to be disputed in trial.  That is the way with intent more often than not.
>> It will be difficult to say that people are doing this with intent before they
>> do anything else, as a result the law wont stop anything, nor will it
>> help much in terms of getting warrants to search before someone actually
>> does something, its yet another law to make people feel good about paying
>> the legislature for doing nothing.  Much like the florida law.
>>
>>