  boogi man
join:2001-11-13 Apo, AE clubs:  | meh the cost of doing business right? | |
|
 |   n2jtx
join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: meh If he died they would probably have had zero chance of getting that $20. I would think it might have been in their interest to at least keep him alive long enough to get their money back. Of course, holding the Sheriff hostage works too. -- I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
 |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: meh "...and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs."
I suppose that had nothing to do with anything either, right?
The Sheriff calls a customer service line and wants a past due phone turned on? So, if my phone ever gets turned off, I'll just call in to customer service, say I'm the pope, please turn this phone back on becuase it's one of the priests who have lost his way.
As we see, Verizon apologized but also made it clear that the Sheriff didn't go through the proper channels to get done what they needed done.
The way I see it, Verizon didn't apologize nor should they have. The ONLY thing I see that could have been done was that the CSR could have either escalated the call or gave out the number to that hot-line in-case the Sheriff wasn't aware of it, or didn't have the number. (I tend to believe that these law enforcement agencies are aware of how to talk to departments on important matters.. after all they do deal with them all the time) | |
|
 |  |  |   CocoaVanilla I love oranges Premium join:2008-04-16 Tucson, AZ | Re: meh The sheriff wasn't asking for them to turn it on and keep it on. He wanted it to be turned on for 5 or 10 minutes. Sure, the unconscious guy is going to run up a huge bill in 5 or 10 minutes. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  nanoflower
join:2002-07-14 30876
| Re: meh I think you are making an assumption that the CSR could do that. Maybe they could turn it on and then turn it off after a few minutes or they may not have that power. In any case I'm certain the CSR doesn't have the power to do that without getting in serious trouble. His/Her manager may be able to do that without getting in trouble (since the past due bill is still there) but I'm pretty sure the CSR couldn't do it. That suggests either the CSR should have escalated the call or the sherriff should have asked for it to be escalated. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| said by CocoaVanilla :The sheriff wasn't asking for them to turn it on and keep it on. He wanted it to be turned on for 5 or 10 minutes. Sure, the unconscious guy is going to run up a huge bill in 5 or 10 minutes. Doesn't matter.. the law isn't above the law. Warrentless wire taps ok? Is it okay for them to use your phone as ANY aid in ANY law enforcement with out a warrent? Lines have to be drawn.. I'm glad Verizon did what they did.. it's not about money. You DO realize that the guy who owned that phone could actually SUE Verizon if they made any change to his account, for what ever reason, later if he decided to, right?
It's not always about the money.. that's a moot argument. | |
|
 |  |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by fiberguy :The way I see it, Verizon didn't apologize nor should they have. The ONLY thing I see that could have been done was that the CSR could have either escalated the call or gave out the number to that hot-line in-case the Sheriff wasn't aware of it, or didn't have the number. (I tend to believe that these law enforcement agencies are aware of how to talk to departments on important matters.. after all they do deal with them all the time) Maybe some of the bigger departments but a lot of the smaller outfits probably don't call cell phone providers on a daily basis.
The CSR wasn't aware either or just didn't feel like doing anything about it. | |
|
 |  |  |   trebzon
join:2001-09-03 Grandville, MI | You are completely wrong. Just because he did not have ready access to a specific number does not give Verizon reps the right to be complete and total a55es without any common sense. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: meh Sure it does! As the law enforcement agencies will say themselves.. "we are a society of rules".. period. End of discussion.
If you wanted the rules broken here, then maybe warrentless wire taps were a good thing after all, right?? I mean, it was for the best interest of the country, right?
You can't have it both ways.. you have a break down of law and order.. and then the lines of what's right and wrong are blurred. No way.. no thanks..
I also don't want law enforcement thinking that a cell phone is a tracking device. The next time they want to catch a guy for unpaid speeding tickets.. you think they should just call the provider and say "track them.. they're law breakers"...? You're asking the same thing.
It may not have been a great heroic story for Verizon on this one.. but I'm sorry.. the ends don't justify the means..
You guys REALLY, and I'm sorry to say this, REALLY need to take a lesson on civics and society issues. We don't do what "feels" right when it comes to these things.. we do what is right.. and Verizon, as much as I SOOO hate them, I'm standing up for them. The "law" is not above the law. You have NO idea what you're asking for and getting yourself in to.. its very clear. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   trebzon
join:2001-09-03 Grandville, MI
·AT&T Yahoo
| Re: meh Your argument is specious. There is no question Verizon would have turned the device on regardless of any legal precedent or rule. The question is not that regardless of your ability to puff yourself up and argue a different issue then is on the table. The issue is that the Verizon rep put $20 in revenue in front of a human life. If you want to propose that this is good behavior then do so but your arguments currently are misleading and obscuring the truth. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  fiberguy My views are my own. Premium join:2005-05-20
| Re: meh Just becuase you want to ignore facts, laws, and quite honesty, the way life works, is not going to make your argument any better by simply saying it's so.
In many places, there still is no "good Samaritan" laws either.. meaning, if you helped someone on the street in need and what you did caused further damage to them, you CAN be sued for it.
It's nice to sit back in an illusion of a perfect society and say nice heart warming things like "$20 in front of a human life" all day long.. but, in reality, it's not so simple as you may want to. I've said it many times, I've given examples, I've even stated potential downfalls, but people like you come back and attack my "specious arguments" as you say.. while you're focused on the $20 over "a life" (talk about drama and a half here) why don't you, and the others that care to attack me, go back and address the very arguments I actually made. Until then, this "perfect harmony word" you all believe we live in is still going to remain anything but!
Again, and until you address the following, anything you say is simply perfect world Utopian at its best.
1) Would you accept warrant-less wire taps? After-all, they are argued to save thousands of lives.. (I don't support them, however, the argument was made AND the supporters of them believe they HAVE saved lives, but others who disagree say they don't becuase there has not been a life lost yet.. how does anyone know that they did in fact work?)
2) Would you accept the fact that while they can turn the phone on to save a life, what's next? .. turn it on becuase you MAY be someone about to hurt / kill someone else and by simply having Verizon or any company turn on a phone account would be beneficial to save the potential loss of life? I don't know about you, but if some law enforcement agency did that to me with out a warrant, I'd be up Johnny Law's ass in a heart beat with a lawyer for trampling my constitutional rights.. you can't simply bend the rules in one case with out allowing it for others.
3) Verizon gave them the location of the phone. Yet, the article still states that it took all the kings horses and all the kings men to find this guy. The story alone stinks and is over exaggerated. Why would they need the phone turned on? Besides, if your telephone was turned off for non-payment, and unless it happened in the last hour or two, which I doubt, do YOU carry a phone with out that is not in service?
4) You're saying that it's Verizon who is at fault here with the who issue.. it was, let me see.. "CORPORATE GREED".. right? It was CG that once again, got in the way between this so-called Good and Evil argument that people here believe exists.
The bottom line, the more and more people like you come in with this Utopian view and argument on how we should simply break rules, policy, procedure, and LAW becuase of someone's JUDGMENT CALL, or LACK OF FOLLOWING THE LAW (and not violating the rights of the very person they wanted the phone turned on of) the more and more I'm standing proud behind Verizon for "doing the right thing"..
Johnny law needs to follow the rules. PERIOD. I would GUARANTEE that you are of the same mentality that stood up after 9/11 and the patriot act stating that we should not give up our freedoms in the name of terrorism. To give up freedoms is to give up liberty.. right? I mean, with the argument you're making now, about Johnny law getting to demand something with out following the very protections we have in place (that the patriot act violated) you're asking them to do now.. So, I can only assume that you MUST support the Patriot act as well, right?
Simply put, you can't have it both ways... not in a society of laws. The MOMENT you cross those lines, you open yourself and the rest of us up to more over reaching powers.
I'm sorry to say this.. but, if the guy died.. oh well! Yup! I said it! OH WELL! We as people are NOT perfect. People die all the time. It's a simple fact of life. Remember our friend Darwin? I like him a lot! The fact remains that we try to legislate perfection. We try to ensure that we can always do the right thing.. that all lives will be saved. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. We try to save lives and we have seat belt laws. (I disagree with them. I am on the camp that believes that seat belts can also KILL you too) We can not ensure every life will be saved.. sorry.. yea, I'm cold hearted.. but, if we didn't have cell phones, this would be a moot point. How else would Johnny law have saved the man that day? .. by doing exactly what they did, as it should be.
If it's ok for them to bend the rules this time, what about next? when does it stop? .. it stops now. I believe in the constitution and it's purpose to limit the hands of the law. WE grant the powers to the government, .. they are not there for them to take. If a life is lost over this.. sorry.
Now, attack away and tell me how horrible a human I am.. becuase if you believe so.. go for it! I'm proud to be who I am! | |
|
 |  IanR
join:2001-03-22 Madison, NJ | What's weird is that I be;ieve you can use any phone, whether is service or not, to make a 911 call. If that's so why did Verizon try to charge the Police for merely switching the phone on for 5 minutes? | |
|
 |  |   RARPSL
join:1999-12-08 Suffern, NY
| Re: meh said by IanR :What's weird is that I be;ieve you can use any phone, whether is service or not, to make a 911 call. If that's so why did Verizon try to charge the Police for merely switching the phone on for 5 minutes? All Cellphones are REQUIRED to be able to call 911 even if they are otherwise disabled. There is no need to activate the phone's account for incoming or outgoing calls just to locate it. Verizon can look up the phone's location so long as it is powered on and get the cell tower it is handshaking with. If needed they can CALL the phone to get the handshake if needed (I do not know if the phone account being deactivated disables the handshake but I doubt it since to make the 911 call you'd need a dial tone and communication with the tower). | |
|
  Cheese Premium join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL clubs: | So Verizon can now turn on a phone remotely?  | |
|
 |   dohnayme
@sbcglobal.net | Re: So Tracing GPS signal is 1 thing but turning on a phone remotely is just creepy (if its true that they can do it). | |
|
 |  megatron266 Premium join:2007-08-11 Miami, FL | I think they meant to re-activate the account from suspension. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |   Phil Rojo Sol Premium join:2001-06-11 Camarillo, CA
·Verizon FIOS
·DSL EXTREME
| Re: So said by burgerwars :The only call it could have made was to 911, in which this person didn't ever make. Tough to do while unconscious. | |
|
 |  |  PittsPgh
join:2003-08-21 Pittsburgh, PA
| said by burgerwars :said by Cheese :Verizon can now turn on a phone remotely? I also wonder how confident the police were that the guy was carrying his cellphone. Given he didn't pay his bill, what's the use carrying it around if it can't make calls? The only call it could have made was to 911, in which this person didn't ever make. I've known several people who still carry around a disconnected cell phone just so they have access to the phone numbers they have stored in it, in case they have to call from someone elses phone. | |
|
 BuzzDar
join:2006-01-28 West Frankfort, IL | cant happen verizon can not turn a phone on remotely. | |
|
 |  bn1221
join:2009-04-29 Cortland, NY | Re: cant happen They cannot power the phone on remotely but they can enable or disable the CMDA network accepting the signal from the phone. | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
| Re: cant happen said by GOLFnSUN :said by BuzzDar :verizon can not turn a phone on remotely. You are right. They can turn service back on, but not power up the phone. If service was already disconnected, the man probably didn't have the phone either with him or turned on anyway. And isn't an important point not mentioned - did the police have a court order to track the phone even if it was powered on and the service on. Waiting for a court order while somebody's life hangs in the balance is wrong ( in an immoral sense).
LIFE > LAW | |
|
 |  |  |   woody7 Premium join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA | Re: cant happen "Waiting for a court order while somebody's life hangs in the balance is wrong ( in an immoral sense"
This was stated where in the article? -- BlooMe | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
1 edit | Re: cant happen said by woody7 :"Waiting for a court order while somebody's life hangs in the balance is wrong ( in an immoral sense" This was stated where in the article? I find it amazing you can't figure out who i was replying to. | |
|
 |  |  |   tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by DataRiker :said by GOLFnSUN :said by BuzzDar :verizon can not turn a phone on remotely. You are right. They can turn service back on, but not power up the phone. If service was already disconnected, the man probably didn't have the phone either with him or turned on anyway. And isn't an important point not mentioned - did the police have a court order to track the phone even if it was powered on and the service on. Waiting for a court order while somebody's life hangs in the balance is wrong ( in an immoral sense). LIFE > LAW If you're using that kinda logic, I'd be interested in hearing your views on torture... -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |  |  |   DataRiker Premium join:2002-05-19 Metairie, LA clubs:
1 edit | Re: cant happen said by tiger72 :If you're using that kinda logic, I'd be interested in hearing your views on torture... I advocated helping a person in trouble, and you mentioned torture.
I think someone needs to check their own "logic" | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   tiger72 SexaT duorP Premium join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO clubs:
·T-Mobile US
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: cant happen said by DataRiker :said by tiger72 :If you're using that kinda logic, I'd be interested in hearing your views on torture... I advocated helping a person in trouble, and you mentioned torture. I think someone needs to check their own "logic" the logic used to justify torture is identical to the logic you used to justify not using court orders (which wouldn't be needed in this case anyways): "LIFE > LAW". -- "What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? ...If we can't persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we'd better reexamine our reasoning." -United States Secretary of Defense (1961-1968) Robert S. McNamara | |
|
 |  |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs | No court order needed in these circumstances.
»Re: BS -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|
 |  |  moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by GOLFnSUN :And isn't an important point not mentioned - did the police have a court order to track the phone even if it was powered on and the service on. Probable cause. There was an immediate danger of loss of life.
If a police office sees blood on a door, he does not need a court order to go into a house. | |
|
 |  JoelC707
join:2002-07-09 Tucson, AZ clubs:
| They might could. Of course if the battery is out of it then nothing they have put in place will work. They probably don't even need the phone in the fully on state to triangulate it's position. My guess is it was corporate greed trying to lower their debt some. | |
|
  kdwycha
join:2003-01-30 Riverview, FL | Erm.... If the guy's phone bill was not paid and he couldn't use it why would he have the phone on him in the first place? Wouldn't it be a bit useless to him not to be able to make or receive calls? | |
|
 |  stufried Premium join:2003-10-13 | Re: Erm.... Perhaps he thought he would use it to call 911:) You can do that from a disconnected phone. | |
|
 |  |   kdwycha
join:2003-01-30 Riverview, FL
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Erm.... said by stufried :Perhaps he thought he would use it to call 911:) You can do that from a disconnected phone. Yah that used to amuse me when I was 12YO  | |
|
 |  cyclone_z
join:2006-06-19 Ames, IA
·Qwest.net
| said by kdwycha :If the guy's phone bill was not paid and he couldn't use it why would he have the phone on him in the first place? Wouldn't it be a bit useless to him not to be able to make or receive calls? Some people have an irrational attachment to these devices. I see it every day. | |
|
  jeffjs
join:2000-12-11 US
·Comcast
| $20 vs. 11hr snad 100 volunteers? "11 hours, two K-9 units, several fire departments and 100 volunteers later the man was found"
The cop couldn't fork over a personal credit card to pay $20???? Nah, better to spend who knows how much money and 11 hours of people's time...
The cop should be fired. -- I walk upon this Earth by the power of my own two legs. | |
|
 |  See 11 replies to this post |
|
  jblake
join:2003-06-28 Birmingham, AL | privacy, anyone? I'm more concerned that Verizon was even entertaining the idea of giving out account information to a non-authorized party without a warrant. | |
|
 |  |
 |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs | Not needed in these circumstances.... »Re: BS -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|
  aaronwt Premium join:2004-11-07 Woodbridge, VA | Is a warrant needed? Didi they have a warrant to trace the cell phone? | |
|
 |  Mannus Premium join:2005-10-25 Fort Wayne, IN
·Dish Network
·Vonage
·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Is a warrant needed? said by aaronwt :Didi they have a warrant to trace the cell phone? A warrant is not needed to "trace" your cell phone. Our local dispatch centers can triangulate the lat/long location of a cell phone using the cell towers. Pranksters who use deactivated phone are not as safe as they think. An azzhat student at the school I work at kept calling in fire and death threats to the school from an old cell phone. Since we had a suspicion it was this particular student, he was called down to the office and searched. Lo and behold a cell phone whose IMEI number matched the callers info. Needless to say, he took a trip to the Grey Bar Hotel for a while. | |
|
  Niarlan Excelsior Premium join:2002-11-09 Manville, NJ
·VoicePulse
·Verizon FIOS
| Comments on the story linked above show a bit more detail newportson 3 days ago
Here are the facts of this story, which the reporter didn't bother to get right: 1. missing man was in his 20s; 2. he had overdosed on pills; 3. he beat up his 62 year old father; 4. he was only missing for 3.5 hours; 5. he called police at midnight on 911; 6. verizon did provide the police the best locational information available; 7. the missing man's phone was a prepaid phone that had run out of minutes so it was inoperable without more minutes being added; 8. verizon shouldn't have worried about the $20, but neither should the police...it's $20 bucks!; 9. the police don't have GPS locating capability for 911 calls because the county hasn't paid for it yet; 10. the Sheriff's comments were, surprise, taken out of context. So, the real culprit in this story seems to be the reporter for getting so much wrong!!! | |
|
 |   Shelleyp
@sbcglobal.net
| Re: Comments on the story linked above show a bit more detail said by Niarlan :newportson 3 days ago Here are the facts of this story, which the reporter didn't bother to get right: 1. missing man was in his 20s; 2. he had overdosed on pills; 3. he beat up his 62 year old father; 4. he was only missing for 3.5 hours; 5. he called police at midnight on 911; 6. verizon did provide the police the best locational information available; 7. the missing man's phone was a prepaid phone that had run out of minutes so it was inoperable without more minutes being added; 8. verizon shouldn't have worried about the $20, but neither should the police...it's $20 bucks!; 9. the police don't have GPS locating capability for 911 calls because the county hasn't paid for it yet; 10. the Sheriff's comments were, surprise, taken out of context. So, the real culprit in this story seems to be the reporter for getting so much wrong!!! Where is the link to your source that backs up your information? From what I can find online, the original DSL Reports story is accurate. Are you someone personally involved, and if so, are you willing to identify your involvement? | |
|
 |  |   Niarlan Excelsior Premium join:2002-11-09 Manville, NJ | Re: Comments on the story linked above show a bit more detail As posted, this was in the comment section of the original story. | |
|
 |  |  |   Shelleyp
@sbcglobal.net | Re: Comments on the story linked above show a bit more detail I see it now. Well, since it was in comments, it must be the truth. | |
|
 |
  absurd
@optonline.net | 20 seconds i was going to make a thoughtful post on this, but i can't spare the 20 seconds it would take for a response... NEXT! | |
|
  cableties Premium join:2005-01-27 | Hey Sheriff, can you hear PAY me now? | |
|
  GlobalMind Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL
| Curious... Whether the police phoned in to Verizon or went by a local office? I would think it would be pretty easy to get a court order to do what they wanted.
As it is if they just called in the Verizon rep doesn't know who you are and will assume you're trying to scam them, thus saying NO.
Same thing goes for when you're turning up cable on your apt and they want you to pay for the last tenant's unpaid bill. It's total and complete crap but it's what they do.
FAIL. -- TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
 |   Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA
| Re: Curious... said by GlobalMind :Whether the police phoned in to Verizon or went by a local office? I suspect the answer to a lot of this confusion revolves around this statement from the press release:
quote: and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs.
I'm guessing the hotline to which they refer is not the public Verizon number. -- Come let us reason together. | |
|
 |  |   GlobalMind Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL
| Re: Curious... said by Combat Chuck :I suspect the answer to a lot of this confusion revolves around this statement from the press release: quote: and we remind law enforcement to use our 24-7 hotline for public safety needs.
I'm guessing the hotline to which they refer is not the public Verizon number. I suspect you're correct there. -- TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
  jjoshua Premium join:2001-06-01 Scotch Plains, NJ | BS The authorities should have requested a court order.
Verizon should not be making exceptions. | |
|
 |  See 8 replies to this post |
|
  Hpower Roflmao
join:2000-06-08 Glendale, CA | Unpaid bill LOL wtf @ not helping till $20 unpaid bill is paid. Wow that's just funny and sad. -- The Internet is about to go down....it is actually. | |
|
 |
  Maggs Premium join:2002-11-29 Woodside, NY | Obstructing a police officer The cop shouldn't have to fork over $20. Verizon should do it for free. | |
|
  Nightshade sic semper tyrannis Premium join:2002-05-26 Salem, OR
| Sheriff Should of Threaten Charges So Verizon wouldn't activate a suspect's cell phone unless the Sheriff payed the 20 dollar phone bill.
If I was that Sheriff I would of told Verizon to turn that phone on or face charges of interfering in a police investigation and obstruction of justice. -- The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest -- for himself, his family, and the future of his country -- to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. | |
|
 |  See 9 replies to this post |
|
 expert007
join:2006-01-10 Buffalo, NY
| People stop your griping.... It's very clearly stated in the Verizon TOS:
"If your bill is overdue, and your health or life is at risk, it is the responsibility of local law enforcement to pay the minimum amount due to restore service. Note that we are a FOR profit company"  | |
|
 mdh218
join:2005-06-28 Madison Heights, MI
| something else not correct... in almost all large companies, authorities have ways to communicate with them not via the 1.800 "i'm an idiot and can't do this" phone number but with a restricted/private line for this sort of thing.
same with credit card scams. you don't think cops/feds call the number on the back of cards do you? when you call, is one of your menu options "if you are the police, please press 7" do you?
so if this cop called the normal 1.800 number, then the CSR did what he/should have done...can't help you until unpaid balance is paid. what, is a CSR phone jockey in India going to know you are a cop? | |
|
 |  |
 |  |   N3OGH Bear patrol must be working like a charm Premium join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs
·Verizon FIOS
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: something else not correct... The deputy would co ordinate the communication through the County's 911 center.
The deputy would contact Verizon, have them contact the dispatch center through a published number, or possibly from Verizon's database. The dispatcher can verify that Verizon is speaking to a real Deputy.
Same Idea works for you ladies out there that may get stopped by an unmarked car in the dark of night. Call 911 from your cell phone, and tell them what's going on. Give them your tag number (as the officer should have given it to the dispatcher when he/she made the stop) and 9 times out of 10 they can verify if that's actually the fuzz sitting behind you. -- Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power
| |
|
 |  |  |   Telecom Tech
@verizon.net
| Re: something else not correct... Sounds like a lot of extra work to verify who the rep is actually talking to. Why not just call the official unpublished hotline for police business? There is a reason this number exists and they are probably setup to handle verifications of callers.
I work in the business. If a cop shows up at my door and wants me to do anything with a customers line, I will demand a warrant. I stand to lose my job if I don't follow the rules. There is a reason the rules exist in the first place. After all, the last time someone in the telecom industry failed to follow the rules, we were talking about the Bush wiretapping fiasco. We can't have it both ways. | |
|
 |  |   MemphisPCGuy Senior Systems Engineer Premium join:2004-05-09 Memphis, TN
·Comcast
| What's to prevent a Verizon employee from turning on his buddies overdue phone? Maybe the system is setup to "require" a minimum payment before it can be reactivated to prevent abuse by employees. -- Onsite Computer Support in Memphis »www.memphispcguy.com | |
|
  ahhhhhhhhhhh
@charter.com | maybe the cop should of hung up and tried another agent. thats all | |
|
 |
|
 |