Amen
>>-----Original Message----- >>From: [email protected] [mailto:asterisk-biz- >>[email protected]] On Behalf Of Trixter aka Bret McDanel >>Sent: May-17-09 8:14 PM >>To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion >>Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] on the topic of fraud >> >>On Sun, 2009-05-17 at 17:02 -0400, SIP wrote: >>> If this guy had been defrauding AT&T and Verizon out of money by >>using >>> up their minutes and not paying bills, then fine. >> >>I disagree with the "then fine" part. Its a civil matter not a >>criminal >>matter if that was all he was doing. Failure to pay your bills should >>not land you in jail (or the potential for that) in this country unless >>you do it through fraud (which is what is alleged in this instance). >>The allegations go beyond just using minutes and not paying bills. >> >>They are alleged to have committed fraud (18 USC 1342 or so, mail, >>wire, >>etc are all right next to each other and I forget which is which) by >>forging documents which were used to grant the line of credit (ie >>instead of prepay or some other mechanism). The same types of things >>apply if you lie on a credit card application, mortgage application >>(why >>the Clintons had issues during the "white water" stuff, they checked >>the >>box saying they would live there for the first year to get a lower >>interest rate). >> >>Now there is the whole 10th amendment argument of whether or not the >>federal government even has the right to do this ("regulate" as per >>article I section 8 Clause 3 initially meant "to make regular" not to >>tax, legislate, or anything else) but that is a totally separate >>discussion :) >> >> >>> I'm assuming AT&T and >>> Verizon were smart enough to cut him off at some point. And now the >>FBI >>> is involved. Would it have honestly taken a lot of extra work to hire >>a >>> data forensics team to advise them before they actually went on the >>> raid? Would that extra two days of planning have meant a massive >>> difference in the back payments? >>> >>The FBI has a team based out of Quantico, which is the group that wrote >>the "take everything" policy. This includes criminal and innocent >>systems. They need to be able to replicate the environment exactly for >>trial, and until you figure out what is and what is not part of it its >>safer from a prosecution perspective to take everything. >> >>The fact that the agents in charge went on vacation just after and made >>it really difficult for the innocent customers to get at least copies >>of >>their data let alone their hardware back is a bit over the top, they >>should have left someone in charge that could have dealt with that. >> >>They usually do not respond well to claims that stuff needs to be >>returned, and the problem is that if it never goes to trial they can >>keep the systems forever. Now generic fraud like 18 USC 1342 has a 5 >>year statute of limitations, so they can keep it for 5 years unless >>they >>can get some additional crime tossed in there, such as financing by a >>FDIC insured entity (perhaps some of the systems were leased with >>similarly fradulent documents), which would mean its a crime against >>the >>government and thus a 10 year statute of limitations. After the >>statute >>has expired they cant justify keeping the systems, but to keep systems >>for 5 years basically makes them all but useless in the enterprise >>anyway. >> >>Software being developed, graphics for webpages, etc all qualify as a >>"artist work in progress" which per first amendment rulings by SCOTUS >>they have to return immediately upon being notified, yet they regularly >>do not do this. >> >>Note that they do not need to charge anyone, only have an investigation >>into a crime that has a statute of limitations of X to seize and keep >>the equipment for that duration. At the end of the day, yes they can >>make an affidavit to a judge to get a warrant even if the affidavit >>contains inaccurate, incomplete, or incorrect information, seize >>equipment and only return it after its no longer valuable. >> >>They can even rely on conflicting statements made by some informant, >>for >>example the informant can be obviously just telling stories until they >>get the one they like (it happens more than you think in the federal >>system) and based on those statements they can get a warrant. They >>have >>"qualified immunity" in doing this, meaning that you have to show that >>they knew they lied in the affidavit to sue them, and once the judge >>signs the warrant they have "absolute immunity" which means that from >>that point on you cant sue (unless you can pierce the "qualified >>immunity" layer first). >> >>Judges have ruled that as long as the FBI agents are doing what any >>other FBI agent would think is reasonable they have immunity. >> >> >>So um yeah.. The flipside is that there are customers out there that >>want phone service and currently do not have any, and it may entail >>some >>consulting work to get them back where they were before all of this. >>So if anyone is wanting to get a few extra customers they should look >>at >>this as an opportunity and try to contact those companies (which may be >>hard given phone/email systems are now offline :) and offer services >>to >>them. >> >> >> >>-- >>Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel >>pgp key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8AE5C721 >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- >> >>asterisk-biz mailing list >>To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
