What is Digg?19 Comments
- Ragzouken, on 11/11/2009, -0/+9Phowned.
- ccpearce5, on 11/10/2009, -0/+8Everything about Telecommunications is terrible.
- MisterPink, on 11/11/2009, -0/+7I would feel sorry for him, but according to the article he was asked several times to change his password and he failed to which was how the pirates gained entry. hard to tell but it seems like he brought this upon himself.
- inactive, on 11/11/2009, -1/+7Before everyone bitches about how evil thje company is, explain why THEY should be the victim of the fraud? Is it just because they have more money? So anytime a customer gets screwed through their OWN fault, the rich corporation should cover all the charges?
The company is not at fault at all. They did nothing to cause this to happen. The customer did. It is reasonable to expect that company to waive their profits in this case, but expecting them to eat the pretty substantial cost of placing these calls is silly. - TheActivedigger, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5Terrible news ,he should ask more money
- rolf, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5I wish they really had voluntary limits on accounts such as these, set by the account holders online. I can't tell my cable company I just don't want Pay Per View, not to let anything like that through - I have put a set up a stupid pin code on each every set top box in the house and check them before I let anyone housesit (my neighbor got a housesitter once whose stupid boyfriend racked up over $2K in PPV charges in under two weeks).
At the same time, I'd limit my phone bill to $100 before I get contacted that something is amiss. - shutaro, on 11/10/2009, -0/+4Y'ARR!!!
- swiftsurfere, on 11/11/2009, -0/+4Is captain jack sparrow involved in this??????
- DaDrake, on 11/11/2009, -0/+3Not sure if it his responsibility from a legal standpoint. I've remember reading about individuals stealing utilities from homes, and a court case saying it is not the homeowner (the victim) responsibility to pay for those utilities. In the end, the thief stole from the "big company" (aka.. the telecommunication company in this case) by impersonating themselves as a real customer.
Thus, while the company likely feels wronged and want to share the burden of the theft... the criminal simply stole from them, and not this small business owner. I am not a lawyer, but really wouldn't surprise me that the courts rule in favor of this idiot. - backwardscompat, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Ouch, phone-owned.
- absurdist, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Or are on satellite broadband or another service with so much lag as to make it unusable. It may be a good product if you have a robust broadband link; otherwise not so much so.
- rolf, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1Yes, but I use international calling to call Europe. It costs me 6 cents a minute if it's a landline. Blocking international calls wouldn't be an option for many businesses, and there is a big difference between 6 cent per minute calls and whatever this somalia number was charging.
Although now, I suggest the guy go with Google Voice. He could block international calls from his local line and call up his Google Voice number and use prepaid credits there at much cheaper rates. - nyxerebos, on 11/11/2009, -0/+1It seems pretty insecure anyway. If the passwords were 4 digit numbers it would take a maximum of 9999 attempts to guess the password, at 3 attempts per minute it would take an automated dialer about 56 hours to break. 13 days if it kept at it between 00:00 and 04:00 every morning, but possibly only an hour if it started with the most common. So at what point does this guy become liable - having default passwords? Weak passwords? The best passwords possible for an insecure system? I'm sure the law would define this as unauthorized access to his phone system.
- FoxtrotYankee, on 11/11/2009, -1/+1In the "stealing utilities" court case you're talking about, the thieves tapped directly into the connection point with the utility...thus the determination that the thieves were stealing directly from the company.
In this case, the customer's connection to the utility was left wide open and the calls were made as a product of extreme customer negligence. The telco here is being very generous in just giving the customer their wholesale rate.
If the customer wants to recover the rest, he may have a case against the company who set up the system. - inactive, on 11/11/2009, -0/+0But if this was his business, it is harder to place a limit. Sure, he would have put a limit much lower than what he got stuck with this time. But ia business phone would likely have a much wider range of monthly totals than a personal phone.
Also, he COULD have had international calling shut off. (like he does now.) That would have solved the problem. But really, all this could have been avoided if he didn't use a passowrd that idiots use for their lugage. - inactive, on 11/11/2009, -1/+0Even then, I don't think he would recover it all. If he sued toe company sho set it up, undoubtedly the civil judge would assign some responsibility to him for not changing passwords after repeatedly being told to do so. She he would have to pay some portion.
- LuxFestinus, on 11/11/2009, -2/+1Magic Jack For the Win.
The account never goes negative. If the funds are not there in the form of a debit then none will be accessed. As it should be in all cases IMO.
http://www.magicjack.com/7/index.asp
I am not paid or work for them in any way. I have used their service for over 11 months now. People that give it negative reviews are either industry shills and/or clueless users. - inactive, on 11/11/2009, -1/+0I will say one thing bad about hte phone company...holy crap! They have a 44% profit margin on international calling? Absurd!
- jackirock, on 11/11/2009, -3/+1aww.!! is possible?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is