Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

One caller has to be outside of the United States...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:36 PM
Original message
One caller has to be outside of the United States...
That's why the phone calls are routed thru Mexico...as a technical excuse that they are obeying the law? I read that someplace a few weeks ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. Do you have a link of that?
thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. MCI routed calls through Canada for this reason - google should
give you details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. MCI/WorldCom was routing them through Canada for the NSA. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. yeah, like our SOLDIERS calling home..
Damn him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Domestic Taps Smoking Gun? WorldCom Routed US-to-US Calls Through Canada!
(originally posted by another DU-er)


There is an easy way to circumvent the strict "no eavesdropping on US-to-US calls" Bush referenced: secretly route any snooped calls through another country.

It is a method that has already been used and documented in court, by WorldCom, and brought up by AT&T in WorldCom's bankruptcy filing: Route the domestic calls through a second country.

AT&T brought the accusation in 2003 that WorldCom routed US-to-US calls through Canada.

Furthermore, in the AT&T suit against WorldCom, AT&T specifically cites the case of a Democratic Congressman's US-to-US calls being so routed through Canada.

I'm going to post this AT&T press release in it's entirety as press releases from corporations are issued expressly for release and reprint, unlike copyrighted news stories and other such written materials.

For Release Wednesday, August 6, 2003
AT&T Replies To WorldCom's Bankruptcy Court Response

NEW YORK -- In a filing today in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, AT&T said MCI/WorldCom's court filing earlier this week admits to the deception and fraud that AT&T had alleged in its objections to MCI/WorldCom's Plan of Reorganization for emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

AT&T's filing argued that MCI/WorldCom's response of Monday, August 4, purposely avoided addressing the point of AT&T's fraud allegations that the intent of the rerouting of calls was to deceive and defraud AT&T into paying termination fees for the calls.

MCI/WorldCom sought to justify the fraud scheme as legitimate "least cost routing," but AT&T said: "'Least cost routing' involves availing oneself of the lowest access charge available from the terminating carrier, i.e., shopping for the lowest charges from the terminating carrier. That is different in kind from deceptively causing another carrier to pay that terminating access charge," AT&T said.

"We're talking about the difference between shopping for bargains and shopping with somebody else's credit card. The latter is clearly a crime that people can go to jail for," AT&T Chief Counsel James Cicconi said in commenting on AT&T's request for the Bankruptcy Court's permission to seek damages it has suffered as a result of the fraud.

AT&T's filing today also cited additional instances of domestic U.S. Government telephone calls that were routed through Canada for completion, including calls for the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy. On July 28, AT&T cited domestic calling traffic of several U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of State and the Postal Service, as part of the scheme to defraud AT&T and its shareowners.

Further, the AT&T filing included examples of in-state calls between the Wisconsin district offices of U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisc.). The offices are pre-subscribed to MCI/WorldCom for long-distance calling, but calls between the offices were routed over AT&T's network after being diverted through Canada.

AT&T's filing today said MCI/WorldCom achieved the deception by:
* Separating out only the calls to the most expensive independent telephone companies, thus reducing the likelihood that the scheme would be discovered;

* Routing the calls through three intermediaries, thus hiding the fact that the calls were MCI/WorldCom's customers;

* Routing the calls through a foreign country, thus further concealing the source and setting up the next step; and

* Taking advantage of the knowledge that upon delivery to AT&T's network, MCI/WorldCom's "customer traffic commingled with literally trillions of minutes of calls on the AT&T network each year."
"Debtors (MCI/WorldCom) were well aware that even if AT&T had known to look, AT&T could not have easily detected Debtors' high-cost calls. Indeed, even after law enforcement notified AT&T of Debtors' fraudulent diversion scheme, it took AT&T weeks to locate the diversions in the ocean of data that AT&T's network generates," AT&T said in its filing today.

Elsewhere in its filing, AT&T said that MCI/WorldCom's description of its actions in admitting diverting traffic through Canada misstate the nature of the scheme. Yet, AT&T said, the admissions MCI/WorldCom made in its filing fall under the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal's Pattern Jury Instruction for Mail and Wire Fraud, which state in part: "A scheme to defraud is a scheme that is intended to deceive or cheat another and to … cause the loss of money or property to another."

In seeking to justify its fraudulent actions by disclosing that detailed call-routing information traveled along with the voice telephone calls, MCI/WorldCom failed to show it wasn't violating the law, AT&T said.

" … The mere fact that there is disclosure during the course of the scam does not eradicate the swindle," AT&T said. "So too, the mere fact that a carrier discloses call detail as part of a scheme to deceive or an artful stratagem does not in itself eliminate the deception."

AT&T also denied MCI/WorldCom's assertions that it had participated in shifting its costs to another carrier, saying that the instances MCI/WorldCom cited in its filing were not fraudulent activities and that the facts underlying the assertions were either wholly distinguishable from the "Canadian Gateway" scheme or irrelevant to it. (--End AT&T Press Release--)


If the Bush administration wanted to play with semantics and say they haven't snooped on any US-to-US calls (although it's becoming apparent that they have done so in some cases) the simple way would be to bulk route US-to-US calls through a third country (in this case Canada) then call that an "international intercept."

No wonder * went with the "we don't intercept domestic-to-domestic calls." Routing such calls outside of the country between end-points would mean that a simple domestic-only call suddenly becomes an international call (and all this without any knowledge of the caller or callee.)

(Edited to add link to AT&T press release: http://www.att.com/news/2003/08/06-12038 )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks for this info..
I knew I had read about it before..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. That is probable bullshit anyhow.
I and others claim that the assertion that 'one caller had to be outside the US' is just more bullshit from the bullshitters. Here is why: the NSA already monitors all international communications. All. But wait, they aren't allowed to monitor domestic communications even if those communications are to international locations. True, so through a arrangement with UK, NZ, and Australia, we listen in on their domestic-international calls, they listen in on ours, we all use the same system (google echelon.) Everyone is square with their own local laws and we all share the data. Isn't that special? So the administration had no need to go outside the existing arrangement in order to snoop your phone calls to afghanistan, it already had that capacity and was doing that (technically) within the law. Therefore, I claim that this assertion of 'only domestic international calls' is total bullshit, right alongside 'we only snooped on calls to known terraists'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrary1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-23-06 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I have a friend in Australia who calls a couple times a month...
About a year ago, I noticed that quite often when she called me, the Caller ID
would indicate that the call was coming from Florida.

Once I started paying closer attention to it, I found it to be the case in about
75% of her calls. She made an inquiry of her telephone company, and was told
they had no clue why.

Can you think of any explanation as to how this is happening? Since it is incoming
from a foreign country, Shrubco wouldn't need to go to all this trouble. :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC