2 ms·

I mostly agree. The telephone company did not commit a crime through inaction but rather they indirectly facilitated a crime by not fixing their architecture w

I mostly agree. The telephone company did not commit a crime through inaction but rather they indirectly facilitated a crime by not fixing their architecture with known security gaps to prevent it from occurring in the first place. These gaps have existed since the first non-telco SS7 private links were permitted. I say this knowing full well that SS7 will never be fixed. I maintained SS7 switches and understand the international complexity this dated system brings. Its a full topic in and of itself but I believe it is time to move everything off SS7, to what exactly I am not sure.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Even that is subject to debate. Is the telco responsible for maintaining an architecture where swatting is impossible? I think not. I think this limited liability is part of being a commons. The city isn't liable if a bank robber uses a road to escape. The Forrest service shouldn't be liable if a hiker trips and breaks their leg. Full liability leads to full restriction and full oppression