>Complex anonymity tools mean it can cost $100,000 to identify just one hoax caller. >Finley estimates he spent more than a thousand hours tracking down those

>Complex anonymity tools mean it can cost $100,000 to identify just one hoax caller. >Finley estimates he spent more than a thousand hours tracking down those two teenagers, neither of whom will spend much time behind bars, yet this is a crime that can cost police departments as much as $100,000 per incident and could result in fatalities. The number seems to have been pulled from this sentence, but it refers to the damage caused by the crime, not the cost to investigate. (This seems more plausible than thinking the number came from the thousand hours quote.) So it appears whoever wrote the sub headline didn't actually read the article. Edit: also re costs in crime to allowing anonymity: The stated argument for allowing anonymity doesn't extend to anonymous calling of emergency services. The article points out that such swatters already need to use the loophole of calling a regular number and getting routed to emergency; why not display to that operator whether the call is anonymous, and if so don't let them route it to emergency services? Are there a significant number of legitimate anonymous calls forwarded this way?