TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote:

Keith B wrote:In the case of 911, you would not be able to provide false information to the 911 system by spoofing yoru CallerID. Calls are identified by a totally seprate method. You additionally cannot block your information by doing a *67 or other means of blocking CallerID.

Maybe they're spoofing ANI instead but somehow they're fooling the 911 dispatchers.

.

Sangiovese wrote:

Keith B wrote: 911 doesn't use Caller ID; it uses a totally different system. That's all I will say about that.

I don't think I said it does. I don't have a clue how it works, and I (usually) refrain from jumping into areas where I'm clueless :) (My wife may have a different opinion on that subject!)

I was just responding to the "not illegal unless there is intent to defraud" comment... and suggesting some of the many ways that it could be prosecuted.

Sangiovese wrote: You could most likely prove intent to defraud in the case of the fake 911 calls.

Sangiovese wrote:You could most likely prove intent to defraud in the case of the fake 911 calls. 2 options... first is that the caller intended to defraud the PD of the resources it expended in responding to the call. Alternatively, you could contend that the caller intended to defraud the citizens of the community the use of the PD resources that were tied up with the call, and therefore not available to respond to other needs in the community.

You also have false police report/official statements violations, and depending on local statutes, I'm sure that you could add more to the list.

If this is in fact happening, there are multiple ways to prosecute it.

texasag93 wrote:

Bart wrote:The phone company has been allowing telemarketers to spoof the called id number for years. When they intentionally undermined the reliability of caller id, it was only a matter of time before script kiddies started using that for malicious pranks.

I have been out of the game for 4 years, but it is with a FCC violation or may have been a Texas tariff violation, but it was not "allowed" by the telecom industry.

I never saw it enforced either.