gutierre@calvin.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez) (06/11/90)
Hello,
There was an episode of "Columbo" that was aired on 6/10/90
(Saturday) which starred Patrick McGoohan and Arthur Hill. It was
about an attorney who killed a friend-turned-nemisis who was asking
one too many favors.
Why am I discussing TV shows in comp.dcom.telecom/TELECOM Digest?
Well, in tracking down clues to the killer (McGoohan), Peter Falk as
Lt. Columbo used and analyzed a number of TELECOM related items.
First, the victim had faxed a letter to his wife, who was staying
at a Hawaiian hotel. In asking the deceased's secretary when the fax
was sent, the fax log was printed out to show time/date/pages, etc.
Does anyone know which fax machine was used (out of curiosity?). More
importantly, would there have been a way to forge a fax log,
internally, in the machine. Is the "fact" that it is very hard to do
a forgery of that type convincing enough to a judge to have the fax
log admissable as evidence in a criminal case. Is there any precident
pro or con? (ie: does LEXUS or Westlaw have such a subject in their
database?). I don't get alt.fax (or alt.anything here), so this is
the only other place I could think of asking.
Second. Lt. Columbo was amazed by the amount of buttons on the
phone of the victim's desk. As a matter of fact, so was I. I never
saw so many buttons on a Merlin set before (or what I _thought_ was a
Merlin). Columbo wanted to know if there was a way to see what the
last call was made to (can you say: Last Number Redial?). After
Columbo was (again) amazed by the latest TELECOM technology, the
viewing public got to see that the telephone set was....an AT&T ISDN
set! (a model 7352 or 7532 ?). Yes, we know ISDN isn't available to
individuals, much less small businesses, but, is this what a typical
ISDN set is going to look like (or at least an AT&T vision of an ISDN
set)? I mean, it has more buttons than a Northern Telcom SL-1
Operator's Console! I would envision that a 'personal' ISDN set would
be less intimidating ... or maybe not? Your views on this?
Third (and last), Columbo was able to get the calling records of
the victim the very next day (local telco records, it appears). The
suspect was amazed on how fast he got those records, and again, so was
I. I seem to remember discussion here on how hard it was obtaining
telephone records (a court order and 10 levels of management were
mentioned), but in the case where the records involved were a victim's
(and a dead one's at that), is the telco more readily willing to make
those records available to a police agency "in the intrest of
justice", or some gobbledy-gook like that???
Thanks.
Robert Gutierrez
Office of Space Science and Applications,
NASA Science Internet Project - Network Operations Center.
Moffett Feild, California.
"If cartoons were made for adults, they'd be shown during prime time."
(The Simpsons [4/29/90])
[Moderator's Note: Actually, the time-stamp on FAX messages is not
that hard to spoof. Whoever maintains the FAX machine (the 'key
operator', as we are sometimes called) in their office controls the
time clock inside the machine. Set it for whatever you like, as well
as the sender's ID, which is also programmed very easily. Which makes
me wonder, are the FAX ID messages now illegal in PA in the wake of
the court's ruling? Maybe some FAX user doesn't want to risk having
the recipient know who sent the message. PT]Edward_Greenberg@cso.3mail.3com.com (06/12/90)
In-Reply-To: Message from {telecom@eecs.nwu.edu}:ugate:3Com of 6-10-90
>Which makes me wonder, are the FAX ID messages now illegal in PA in
>the wake of the court's ruling? Maybe some FAX user doesn't want to
>risk having the recipient know who sent the message. PT]
I don't think so, since it's the sender who provides the number, not
the telco. If you don't want your number sent, just don't program it.dhk@uunet.uu.net> (06/12/90)
From article <8841@accuvax.nwu.edu>, by gutierre@calvin.arc.nasa.gov (Robert Gutierrez): [Discussion of episode deleted] > Second. Lt. Columbo was amazed by the amount of buttons on the > phone of the victim's desk. ... > Columbo was (again) amazed by the latest TELECOM technology, the > viewing public got to see that the telephone set was....an AT&T ISDN > set! (a model 7352 or 7532 ?). Yes, we know ISDN isn't available to > individuals, much less small businesses, but, is this what a typical ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dale Mullen, a Telecom Consultant in Englewood, CO, is going to be very dissapointed to hear that. Dale has been using two ISDN lines (with AT&T 75xx phones) for about a year and a half now, and likes it fine. > ISDN set is going to look like (or at least an AT&T vision of an ISDN > set)? ... The ISDN sets that I've seen, from AT&T and NTI, are _very_ similar in appearance and function to the manufacturer's multi-button sets for their PBXs. >Thanks. You're welcome. Don H Kemp B B & K Associates, Inc. Rutland, VT uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk
Mike Riddle <Mike.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org> (06/24/90)
Re: Evidentiary Value of Computer Logs and Fax-Machine-Generated Records. The Federal Rules of Evidence, and most State rules, allow such to be admitted. In the case of computer logs, any printout is considered "original." BUT -- and a big BUT -- when using them, the party offering the logs as evidence needs to "lay the foundation." Someone has to explain what they are and the significance (relevance and materiality in legal terms) to the issue being decided. If there is an easy way to fake the product, the opposing party has an opportunity to show that. If the opposition is strong enough, the judge may decide not to allow the evidence in. It's like a lot of other things in life -- you may use it, but it might not have much value. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3 [1:285/27@fidonet] The Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0) --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 Mike.Riddle@f27.n285.z1.fidonet.org