Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 110 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 09:50 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:25 +0100
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 12:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:29 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2015-07-22 17:07 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 03:25 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:30 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:32 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:27 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:27 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:26 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 15:24 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:28 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:13 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:59 +1000
imei modification is legal in the US (proof posted) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 09:40 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:02 +1000
imei alteration is not fraud -- 1 of 5 legal tests pass. Insufficient. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-07-26 12:00 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:52 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 19:51 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:09 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:03 +0200
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:52 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:06 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 19:09 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 22:13 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-25 20:04 -0700
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 23:16 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 15:21 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:13 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-26 22:07 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:04 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:30 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:11 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:49 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 07:18 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 17:13 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 14:24 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 06:48 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-31 20:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 12:00 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:18 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-01 15:19 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-02 20:15 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-02 17:38 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-04 18:20 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-04 14:25 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:06 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 08:03 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:51 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:12 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-30 05:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:31 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-27 18:50 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-28 19:46 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-28 17:02 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 19:34 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 14:41 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-29 20:27 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:39 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-07-29 15:42 -0500
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-01 19:07 +0000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:54 +1000
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:53 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:22 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:14 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:07 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:18 +1000
Smartphone contracts in the US (was: Who pays for a phone call..) Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201507.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-07-23 15:27 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:45 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 14:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:20 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 00:56 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:09 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 01:40 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 15:44 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-28 08:48 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 10:22 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:15 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 10:10 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 13:55 +1000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 14:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1b7vfF33ouU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21204 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:220720152306200254%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <d1aqosFcktU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for >> >> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart >> >> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to >> >> that of a "dumb" phone. >> >> > that's fraud. >> >> Nope. > > altering an imei is definitely fraud. Wrong, as always when you are paying for calls made by that IMEI.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 01:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <230720150108561552%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21213 |
In article <d1b7vfF33ouU2@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for > >> >> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a smart > >> >> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI to > >> >> that of a "dumb" phone. > >> > >> > that's fraud. > >> > >> Nope. > > > > altering an imei is definitely fraud. > > Wrong, as always when you are paying for calls made by that IMEI. altering an imei is without question fraud, which is why it's illegal. anyone who does that is doing so to obtain something to which they are not entitled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 15:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1bbslF3umjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21218 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:230720150108561552%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <d1b7vfF33ouU2@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> So, as I mentioned, the moment they said they'd charge me just for >> >> >> plugging the SIM card into what they called (by IMEI number) a >> >> >> smart >> >> >> phone, the first thing I told them was that I would spoof the IMEI >> >> >> to >> >> >> that of a "dumb" phone. >> >> >> >> > that's fraud. >> >> >> >> Nope. >> > >> > altering an imei is definitely fraud. >> >> Wrong, as always when you are paying for calls made by that IMEI. > altering an imei is without question fraud, Wrong, as always when you are paying for calls made by that IMEI. > which is why it's illegal. Wrong, as always when you are paying for calls made by that IMEI. > anyone who does that is doing so to obtain > something to which they are not entitled. They aren't when they are paying for the calls made, fuckwit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <250720152044552900%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21218 |
In article <6e850$55b417ac$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > > altering an imei is without question fraud, which is why it's illegal. > > > > anyone who does that is doing so to obtain something to which they are > > not entitled. > > Last I looked it up, altering an IMEI in the USA is *not* illegal by > any means. nonsense. > The IMEI is just like a MAC address, and altering a MAC > address isn't illegal in the USA either, any more than spoofing your > IP address is, or changing the serial number on your computer is, or, > last I checked, spoofing your telephone number. it depends what your intent is. if all you're doing is screwing around on your home network, nobody will care. on the other hand, if you're connecting to the internet and obtaining something to which you aren't entitled, then it's illegal. > Basically, you have to (1) *intend* to commit fraud in your contract, > and you have to then (2) *lie* about something material, and then > the person defrauded has to (3) *believe* you, and they must be in > a position to (4) *trust* what you do (having no other typical avenue > of gaining the necessary information, and lastly, the clincher, which > is that the other party must suffer (5) *harm*. all of which are satisfied by altering an imei to avoid being forced to use a smartphone data plan or to 'clean' a hot device that has been blacklisted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 13:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1j496F2g69U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21334 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:250720152044552900%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article > <6e850$55b417ac$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. > <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > >> > altering an imei is without question fraud, which is why it's illegal. >> > >> > anyone who does that is doing so to obtain something to which they are >> > not entitled. >> >> Last I looked it up, altering an IMEI in the USA is *not* illegal by >> any means. > > nonsense. Fact. >> The IMEI is just like a MAC address, and altering a MAC >> address isn't illegal in the USA either, any more than spoofing your >> IP address is, or changing the serial number on your computer is, or, >> last I checked, spoofing your telephone number. > it depends what your intent is. And if you are changing the IMEI so that it doesn't appear to their system as a smartphone, there is no fraud whatever involved, fool. > if all you're doing is screwing around on your home network, > nobody will care. on the other hand, if you're connecting to the > internet and obtaining something to which you aren't entitled, That isn't the case with what he was wanting to do, fool. And it isn't if you just want to avoid NSA arseholes keeping track of you either. > then it's illegal. Have fun listing that law, fool. >> Basically, you have to (1) *intend* to commit fraud in your contract, >> and you have to then (2) *lie* about something material, and then >> the person defrauded has to (3) *believe* you, and they must be in >> a position to (4) *trust* what you do (having no other typical avenue >> of gaining the necessary information, and lastly, the clincher, which >> is that the other party must suffer (5) *harm*. > all of which are satisfied by altering an imei to avoid being forced to > use a smartphone data plan or to 'clean' a hot device that has been > blacklisted. Wrong, as always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 09:40 +0000 |
| Subject | imei modification is legal in the US (proof posted) |
| Message-ID | <9c8da29320951b6b43e10d9bd579f429@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #21334 |
> > Last I looked it up, altering an IMEI in the USA is *not* illegal > > by any means. > > nonsense. Laws are normally in the form of prohibitions. An act is legal if it's not banned explicitly. It's nospam's burdon to supply us with a link on the Cornell Law site stating that it's illegal to alter imei numbers. As we know, nospam would never do that - he would just pound the table with his neocon conviction whether or not there is a law. In this unusual case, there is proof to the contrary. That is, proof that is *is* legal to alter imei numbers. This is a senate bill that attempts to ban imei alteration: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.3186.IS: The bill has been dead for years. There was an attempt to resurrect the bill again a couple years later, and that bill also just sits idle for years. Obviously there would not be a bill specifically to place a ban on an act if it is already banned. This can be considered proof that it's not illegal to alter an imei number. This also shows that nospam just makes shit up to fit into his neocon world. Well, there's still an /out/ for nospam.. he could perhaps claim that he was talking about Turkey or the UK, the two places where it is illegal to alter imei numbers. > if you're connecting to the internet and obtaining something to > which you aren't entitled, then it's illegal. Internet users are not generally "entitled" to anything online. They aren't even entitled to be online; it's only a priviledge in most of the world. Lack of entitlement != illegal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <250720152044562996%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21204 |
In article <d8269$55b413c1$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > > altering an imei is definitely fraud. > > You fundamentally don't understand fraud. yes i do. > Fraud has five (count 'em) five requirements. > If you miss just one of those five, it's not fraud. altering an imei just for shits and giggles for a phone that you have *no* intent of using on the cellular system might not be fraud, but you're not doing that. you're deliberately altering the imei to obtain service to which you are not entitled. that's fraud. > Just altering an IMEI alone doesn't have all five, and, upon first > initial thought, it doesn't even have one of the five. > > I'd have to look at the five things that make up fraud to see if altering > an IMEI *for the purpose* of deceiving the phone company, to see if all > five are encompassed (since certainly *some* of the five are). <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud> Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered it's fraud. there is no way you are going to convince a judge it's not fraud. > But, altering the IMEI alone, for example, on a T-mobile plan, where they > don't care *what* the IMEI is, clearly can't even be considered close to > fraud. nonsense. it is without question, fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 14:02 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1j4etF2he3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21335 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:250720152044562996%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article > <d8269$55b413c1$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. > <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > >> > altering an imei is definitely fraud. >> >> You fundamentally don't understand fraud. > yes i do. No you don't. >> Fraud has five (count 'em) five requirements. >> If you miss just one of those five, it's not fraud. > altering an imei just for shits and giggles for a phone that you have > *no* intent of using on the cellular system might not be fraud, No might about it, it ain't, fuckwit. > but you're not doing that. > you're deliberately altering the imei to obtain > service to which you are not entitled. that's fraud. Wrong, as always. >> Just altering an IMEI alone doesn't have all five, and, upon first >> initial thought, it doesn't even have one of the five. >> >> I'd have to look at the five things that make up fraud to see if altering >> an IMEI *for the purpose* of deceiving the phone company, to see if all >> five are encompassed (since certainly *some* of the five are). > <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud> > Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved > five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) > knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, > (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged > victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the > statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. > > 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. > 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false > 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan > 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service > 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered That doesn't happen when you don't use the data services, fool. > it's fraud. Wrong, as always. > there is no way you are going to convince a judge it's not fraud. Wrong, as always. And there is no judge anyway, fool. >> But, altering the IMEI alone, for example, on a T-mobile plan, where they >> don't care *what* the IMEI is, clearly can't even be considered close to >> fraud. > nonsense. it is without question, fraud. You can keep shouting that pathetic little mantra till you are blue in the face if you like, changes nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 12:00 +0000 |
| Subject | imei alteration is not fraud -- 1 of 5 legal tests pass. Insufficient. |
| Message-ID | <ec192c2f47e3fece23424bbe993d8217@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #21335 |
> you're deliberately altering the imei to obtain service to which you > are not entitled. that's fraud. Actually it's the opposite in the case under discussion, imei is altered to *avoid* needless service. > (1) a false statement of a material fact, > 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. Test 1 fails. Your phone has a *different* imei, just like having a different IP address after changing ISPs. Your first identifier is not "true", and those used thereafter are not "false". You made that up to try to win an argument. To be a "false" imei, it would need to be unfit as an imei; e.g. having too many or too few digits, or it would need to match an already taken imei (the real purpose for imei is so the network can route traffic based on a unique number -- any other imei usage is an abuse of this in the same way that social security numbers are now abused in situations where they are not used for accessing social security records). > (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, > 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false Test 2 fails because test 1 failed. It's not a matter of true or false, and test 2 depends on test 1. Test 2 also fails because there is no statement. A statement cannot be untrue if there is no statement at all. > (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, > 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan Test 3 passes, but only in cases where there is a victim. In the case at hand, it would be the carrier. In cases where someone changes their imei for privacy and not to break up unreasonable plan package bundling, there is no victim and this test fails. A user could change their imei for privacy reasons (not to avoid paying for unused service), and have the *incidental* effect of avoiding needless service. In this case the test would fail too, because the intent is privacy. > (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, > 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service Test 4 fails. The reliance on imei to guess model number is not *justifiable*. There are other ways (in fact less sneaky ways) to obtain a clients phone model. Using imei to speculate on device capability is actually an abuse - this is not why we have imei numbers. Consumers need not accept or respect others bizarre repurposing of the imei number. > (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. > 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered Test 5 fails in the case we're discussing because the data service not rendered. In fact it's the opposite in the case at hand, where the imei was changed precisely so that service would *not* be rendered. > there is no way you are going to convince a judge it's not fraud. You would need to find a neocon lunatic judge to get the failed tests above to be overlooked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 17:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270720151733120600%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21335 |
In article <mp539c$snc$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> wrote: > >> Just altering an IMEI alone doesn't have all five, and, upon first > >> initial thought, it doesn't even have one of the five. > >> > >> I'd have to look at the five things that make up fraud to see if altering > >> an IMEI *for the purpose* of deceiving the phone company, to see if all > >> five are encompassed (since certainly *some* of the five are). > > > > <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud> > > Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved > > five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) > > knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, > > (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged > > victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the > > statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. > > > > 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. > > 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false > > 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan > > 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service > > I have yet to meet one provider binding their services to the IMEI. they don't bind the service to the imei. they bind it to the *type* of phone which is determined by the imei. there are cases where a sim is tied to a specific device but that's not that common (however, it does exist). > If > that were the case with my provider (just as an example), my phone would > now be out of service as I had it replaced just on the weekend. And I > didn't tell anybody at the provider about this change, nor do I plan to, > nor do I have to, nor would they be the least interested in that useless > piece of information. Their service delivery (and cost allocation, ...) > is bound to the identification the SIM card provides, and is completely > agnostic as to the IMEI. They might (some providers do, others don't) > check the IMEI against blacklists, but that's a different story and not > the point in question here. swapping one phone for another similar phone is not the issue. the issue is trying to get a cheaper plan of service by falsifying the imei to look like a different class of device. in other words, putting a dumbphone imei into a smartphone so the carrier sees it as a dumbphone and doesn't automatically upgrade the service plan to a smartphone plan. that's illegal. another reason for altering an imei is to 'clean' a stolen phone that has been blacklisted. that's also illegal. you do see the difference, do you not? > > 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered > > Wrong. it's not wrong. if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim to a smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's a dumbphone, then the carrier has been financially injured because you're not paying for the appropriate plan. also if the other device ever shows up on the network at the same time, there can be other problems. > I'm not quite sure about the US plans, but here in Germany you > can go online with a phone without data plan, but in that case you'll be > charged comparably high prices (per minute usually, sometimes per 1kB or > 10kB block, in any case this measure carries a high price tag). If the > situation is anything similar in the US (which I understand from the > argumentation of the AT&T exec it is), then the provider will get money > for the service rendered. The customer might not be happy about the high > bill, but the company will see their money. that doesn't matter. > Bottomline: Even if I don't consider the first three points, points 4&5 > are not fulfilled, therefore no fraud. all of the five items are fulfilled. you are wrong and it is very clearly fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 08:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1nr1eF8fttU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21466 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:270720151733120600%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <mp539c$snc$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> > wrote: > >> >> Just altering an IMEI alone doesn't have all five, and, upon first >> >> initial thought, it doesn't even have one of the five. >> >> >> >> I'd have to look at the five things that make up fraud to see if >> >> altering >> >> an IMEI *for the purpose* of deceiving the phone company, to see if >> >> all >> >> five are encompassed (since certainly *some* of the five are). >> > >> > <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud> >> > Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions >> > involved >> > five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) >> > knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, >> > (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged >> > victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the >> > statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. >> > >> > 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. >> > 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false >> > 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan >> > 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service >> >> I have yet to meet one provider binding their services to the IMEI. > > they don't bind the service to the imei. they bind it to the *type* of > phone which is determined by the imei. > > there are cases where a sim is tied to a specific device but that's not > that common (however, it does exist). > >> If >> that were the case with my provider (just as an example), my phone would >> now be out of service as I had it replaced just on the weekend. And I >> didn't tell anybody at the provider about this change, nor do I plan to, >> nor do I have to, nor would they be the least interested in that useless >> piece of information. Their service delivery (and cost allocation, ...) >> is bound to the identification the SIM card provides, and is completely >> agnostic as to the IMEI. They might (some providers do, others don't) >> check the IMEI against blacklists, but that's a different story and not >> the point in question here. > > swapping one phone for another similar phone is not the issue. > > the issue is trying to get a cheaper plan of service by falsifying the > imei to look like a different class of device. > > in other words, putting a dumbphone imei into a smartphone so the > carrier sees it as a dumbphone and doesn't automatically upgrade the > service plan to a smartphone plan. that's illegal. > > another reason for altering an imei is to 'clean' a stolen phone that > has been blacklisted. that's also illegal. > > you do see the difference, do you not? > >> > 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered >> >> Wrong. > > it's not wrong. > > if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim to a > smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's a dumbphone, > then the carrier has been financially injured because you're not paying > for the appropriate plan. The carrier has no right to force you to have a plan with data when you have a smartphone. > also if the other device ever shows up on the network at the same time, > there can be other problems. Irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether it is fraud. It isn't. >> I'm not quite sure about the US plans, but here in Germany you >> can go online with a phone without data plan, but in that case you'll be >> charged comparably high prices (per minute usually, sometimes per 1kB or >> 10kB block, in any case this measure carries a high price tag). If the >> situation is anything similar in the US (which I understand from the >> argumentation of the AT&T exec it is), then the provider will get money >> for the service rendered. The customer might not be happy about the high >> bill, but the company will see their money. > that doesn't matter. Corse it does. >> Bottomline: Even if I don't consider the first three points, points 4&5 >> are not fulfilled, therefore no fraud. > > all of the five items are fulfilled. Wrong, as always. > you are wrong Nope, you are, as always. > and it is very clearly fraud. Wrong, as always.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-27 19:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <270720151951529776%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21474 |
In article <d1nr1eF8fttU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim to a > > smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's a dumbphone, > > then the carrier has been financially injured because you're not paying > > for the appropriate plan. > > The carrier has no right to force you to have a > plan with data when you have a smartphone. carriers aren't forcing anyone to do anything. they offer various plans and people are free to sign up if a given plan fits their needs or shop elsewhere if not. it's *entirely* up to the customer. however, if someone does sign up for a plan that requires data (or voice or texting), then they are responsible for paying for that. trying to get out of a contractual agreement by altering the imei is without question, fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 10:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mp7dck$h99$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #21478 |
Am 28.07.2015 um 01:51 schrieb nospam: > In article <d1nr1eF8fttU1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed > <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim to a >>> smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's a dumbphone, >>> then the carrier has been financially injured because you're not paying >>> for the appropriate plan. >> >> The carrier has no right to force you to have a >> plan with data when you have a smartphone. > > carriers aren't forcing anyone to do anything. What else is it if my carrier changes my plan without *my expressed consent* to a plan containing data? Yes, that's forcing a customer into something! :-) > they offer various plans and people are free to sign up if a given plan > fits their needs or shop elsewhere if not. I found a plan at AT&T that fit my needs (ie. without data as this is my need) - why are they forcing me into another plan? > it's *entirely* up to the customer. Nope, it isn't, they won't let me get what I ordered. > however, if someone does sign up for a plan that requires data (or > voice or texting), then they are responsible for paying for that. No doubt about that - but remember, I didn't sign up for a plan containing data. And, assuming that the new plan is more expensive than my old one was/would've been, that makes it more expensive for me that anything I ever signed. Actually, in the jurisdiction I'm living in this would most probably be considered fraud and possibly even robbery. > trying to get out of a contractual agreement by altering the imei is > without question, fraud. A contractual term like the requirement to have a data plan when using a smartphone would be null and void in front of any German judge. If that's not the case in the US, you (the consumers) should go out and request your congress to support you better against predatory practices. :-) Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 20:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d1ubp6Fs071U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21478 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim >>> to a smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's >>> a dumbphone, then the carrier has been financially injured >>> because you're not paying for the appropriate plan. >> The carrier has no right to force you to have a >> plan with data when you have a smartphone. > carriers aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Of course they are when they charge you for data when they work out that you are using a smartphone. > trying to get out of a contractual agreement > by altering the imei is without question, fraud. Wrong, as always. That 'contract' is not binding when it flouts the most basic consumer law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-28 10:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mp7d09$h2i$1@news.sap-ag.de> |
| In reply to | #21466 |
Am 27.07.2015 um 23:33 schrieb nospam: > In article <mp539c$snc$1@news.sap-ag.de>, Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> > wrote: > >>>> Just altering an IMEI alone doesn't have all five, and, upon first >>>> initial thought, it doesn't even have one of the five. >>>> >>>> I'd have to look at the five things that make up fraud to see if altering >>>> an IMEI *for the purpose* of deceiving the phone company, to see if all >>>> five are encompassed (since certainly *some* of the five are). >>> >>> <http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud> >>> Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved >>> five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) >>> knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, >>> (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged >>> victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the >>> statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result. >>> >>> 1 - false statement. your phone has a false imei. >>> 2 - knowledge - you changed it, so you have knowledge that it's false >>> 3 - intent - you deliberately changed it to get a cheaper service pan >>> 4 - reliance - the carrier relies on the imei to provide service >> >> I have yet to meet one provider binding their services to the IMEI. > > they don't bind the service to the imei. they bind it to the *type* of > phone which is determined by the imei. Definitively not over here in Germany. > there are cases where a sim is tied to a specific device but that's not > that common (however, it does exist). I know, that's the strictest binding of a device to a provider (SIM lock the hardest way, usually here in Germany such devices are only locked to a provider, but any SIM card from that provider will do). >> If >> that were the case with my provider (just as an example), my phone would >> now be out of service as I had it replaced just on the weekend. And I >> didn't tell anybody at the provider about this change, nor do I plan to, >> nor do I have to, nor would they be the least interested in that useless >> piece of information. Their service delivery (and cost allocation, ...) >> is bound to the identification the SIM card provides, and is completely >> agnostic as to the IMEI. They might (some providers do, others don't) >> check the IMEI against blacklists, but that's a different story and not >> the point in question here. > > swapping one phone for another similar phone is not the issue. It would be if it was tied to the IMEI. > the issue is trying to get a cheaper plan of service by falsifying the > imei to look like a different class of device. > > in other words, putting a dumbphone imei into a smartphone so the > carrier sees it as a dumbphone and doesn't automatically upgrade the > service plan to a smartphone plan. that's illegal. Wrong. Illegal means against the law. Which law is prohibiting that? > another reason for altering an imei is to 'clean' a stolen phone that > has been blacklisted. that's also illegal. That's not a point in question, as that would have to be support of fencing (is that the correct term?), if not fencing in the first place. > you do see the difference, do you not? I see it, why don't you? ;-) >>> 5 - injury - the carrier is not being paid for services rendered >> >> Wrong. > > it's not wrong. > > if you sign up for a dumbphone plan and then swap the sim to a > smartphone that has had its imei altered to look like it's a dumbphone, > then the carrier has been financially injured because you're not paying > for the appropriate plan. A plan I never subscribed to, a plan I never wanted in the first place. And the provider will get money for any service I used (billed per minute or per block of data, more expensive than if I had a data plan - but hey, it's my money and I'm free to choose how to throw it of the window!). So where's the damage? > also if the other device ever shows up on the network at the same time, > there can be other problems. Technical problems, yes, but not legal problems. >> I'm not quite sure about the US plans, but here in Germany you >> can go online with a phone without data plan, but in that case you'll be >> charged comparably high prices (per minute usually, sometimes per 1kB or >> 10kB block, in any case this measure carries a high price tag). If the >> situation is anything similar in the US (which I understand from the >> argumentation of the AT&T exec it is), then the provider will get money >> for the service rendered. The customer might not be happy about the high >> bill, but the company will see their money. > > that doesn't matter. It does because there's no damage at all for the provider and as such your claim of 'fraud' is proved to be wrong. >> Bottomline: Even if I don't consider the first three points, points 4&5 >> are not fulfilled, therefore no fraud. > > all of the five items are fulfilled. you are wrong and it is very > clearly fraud. No reliance, no fraud. No injury, no fraud. Best regards, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) |
| Message-ID | <250720152044522748%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21187 |
In article <bd27d$55b418d7$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > Fraud has *FIVE* separate elements, in the USA, *all* of which must apply! > > (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the > defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the > defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the > alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as > a result. > > In the case of T-mobile in the United States, on "my" plan, not one of > those five elements apply, let alone all five. > > REFERENCE: > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud all of them are. every single one. it's fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 13:52 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud (was: Who pays for a phone..) |
| Message-ID | <d1j3sbF2dk0U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21330 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:250720152044522748%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article > <bd27d$55b418d7$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. > <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > >> Fraud has *FIVE* separate elements, in the USA, *all* of which must >> apply! >> >> (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the >> defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the >> defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the >> alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as >> a result. >> >> In the case of T-mobile in the United States, on "my" plan, not one of >> those five elements apply, let alone all five. >> >> REFERENCE: >> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud > > all of them are. every single one. it's fraud. You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag. There is no injury to the alleged victim if you still pay for the use of the device, fool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 20:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <250720152044532783%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21187 |
In article <4c75f$55b41998$adb2d18a$1241@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, M.L. <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: > When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was > considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone > that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint. bullshit they did. > As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all > five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA > AT&T that all five elements don't apply. you didn't prove any such thing. the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to the fcc. > So, whether or not it's fraud, depends on the first three elements under > your control, and of the last two elements under the control of the other > party: > > http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fraud > > Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved > five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) > knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) > intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) > justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) > injury to the alleged victim as a result. all 5 conditions are satisfied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 19:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <250720151904539469%michelle@michelle.org> |
| In reply to | #21331 |
In article <250720152044532783%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was > > considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone > > that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint. > > bullshit they did. > > > As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all > > five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA > > AT&T that all five elements don't apply. > > you didn't prove any such thing. > > the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only > blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to > the fcc. I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-25 22:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: IMEI alteration is not fraud |
| Message-ID | <250720152206004831%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #21345 |
In article <250720151904539469%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > When I was considering changing the IMEI, I even told the FCC that I was > > > considering it (in my written complaint), and they said over the phone > > > that it was legal, in and of itself, when we discussed the complaint. > > > > bullshit they did. > > > > > As I already proved, in the USA, with T-mobile, it's impossible for all > > > five elements of fraud to apply; however, I wouldn't be so sure with USA > > > AT&T that all five elements don't apply. > > > > you didn't prove any such thing. > > > > the only thing you've proven is that you have no ethics and not only > > blatantly violate the law but advertise that you're doing so, even to > > the fcc. > > I wonder what he thinks about copyright laws. you do realize who it is, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web