3 ms·
Here's a kind of adversarial test of that hypothesis: 1. Spin up new voip company 2. Issue death threat to US President (or similarly powerful man) 3. Spin d
by jdc 7y ago
Here's a kind of adversarial test of that hypothesis:
1. Spin up new voip company
2. Issue death threat to US President (or similarly powerful man)
3. Spin down voip company
4. Wait to see if/when someone finds out who you are
- zbentley 7y agoHow is that a test of GP's hypothesis? Their claim was about commercial spam or scam calls, not potentially felonious threats.
- jdc 7y agoIt seems to me the claim is that identifying VOIP subscribers is not feasible.
- zbentley 7y agoFeasible (as in practical in general to identify spammers/scammers) and possible (as in "could a concerted legal effort identify a single caller who made a threat against an official?") aren't the same thing.
- jdc 7y agoAbsolutely. So now that we've established the possibility, the question is, why exactly is it infeasible to use our existing means to identify spammers. And what do we have to do make it feasible?