1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!
    Dismiss Notice

Fake and Anonymous SMS/Text message craze ;-(

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. Has anyone seen this site [link] it allows you to send an sms message
    to ANYBODY'S phone (worldwide). It also allows you to specify who the
    message is FROM !!!

    Is that for real?
     



    › See More: Fake and Anonymous SMS/Text message craze ;-(
  2. On 16 Jan 2006 12:14:19 -0800, davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    >Has anyone seen this site [link] it allows you to send an sms message
    >to ANYBODY'S phone (worldwide). It also allows you to specify who the
    >message is FROM !!!
    >
    >Is that for real?


    Without knowing what site you are referring to, it's kind of hard to
    determine.

    But, technically, yes, it would be possible.
     
  3. On 16 Jan 2006 12:15:36 -0800, davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    >its at http://www.revengetext.com (sorry bout that).


    So you have to sign up for an account, which means they have a record
    of who the true sender is? When you send an unsolicited SMS and piss
    somebody off because they have to pay $$ for your stupid prank, don't
    be surprised when the cops (or a process server) comes knocking on
    your door.

    This is obviously a site created by someone with far too much time on
    their hands.
     
  4. Sorry i sound like a dick, but what is a process server?
     
  5. And couldn't the user just use false details to get round this??
     
  6. Mart

    Mart Guest

    davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    > Sorry i sound like a dick, but what is a process server?
    >


    A person who serves civil court notices (summons to appear as a witness,
    notice that you are the subject of a civil suit, divorce papers) in the
    U.S.
     
  7. The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On 16 Jan 2006 12:15:36 -0800, davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


    >
    > So you have to sign up for an account, which means they have a record
    > of who the true sender is? When you send an unsolicited SMS and piss
    > somebody off because they have to pay $$ for your stupid prank, don't
    > be surprised when the cops (or a process server) comes knocking on
    > your door.
    >
    > This is obviously a site created by someone with far too much time on
    > their hands.
    >


    What's worse is now they have the recipients phone number. It's not so
    bad if it is you enemy but if you are just playing a joke on a friend,
    the "joke" may never end till your friend dumps his phone number.




    --
    Bruce E. Stemplewski
    GarXface OCX and C++ Class Library for the Garmin GPS
    www.stempsoft.com
     
  8. On 16 Jan 2006 12:45:17 -0800, davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

    >And couldn't the user just use false details to get round this??


    IP logging.
     
  9. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:40:51 -0800, Pegleg
    <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:37:22 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    ><ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >>So you have to sign up for an account, which means they have a record
    >>of who the true sender is? When you send an unsolicited SMS and piss
    >>somebody off because they have to pay $$ for your stupid prank, don't
    >>be surprised when the cops (or a process server) comes knocking on
    >>your door.

    >
    >Do you honest think someone will convince the police to pursue an
    >individual because they were charged 10 cents for an SMS message?
    >


    If it is done as an act of harassment, yes. The costs incurred,
    however small, could give rise to civil action, which could lead to
    punitive damages, also.

    There is absolutely no good that can come from such a site.
     
  10. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:01:12 -0800, Pegleg
    <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:49:57 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    ><ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >
    >>If it is done as an act of harassment, yes. The costs incurred,
    >>however small, could give rise to civil action, which could lead to
    >>punitive damages, also.

    >
    >You must be a "wanna-be lawyer"!
    >No wonder the south lost the war!


    Is this all you can come up with when presented with the truth?
     
  11. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:09:46 -0800, Pegleg
    <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:

    >On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:53:52 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    ><ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >
    >>Is this all you can come up with when presented with the truth?

    >
    >I still say no one will get law enforcement interests in pursuing a ten
    >cent message. You must live in some kind of paranoid fantasy world!
    >


    Nope, the real one, with laws against harassment. I could cite you
    some statutes, but obviously the effort would be wasted on you.
     
  12. Me thisBox

    Me thisBox Guest

    Anonymizer

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On 16 Jan 2006 12:45:17 -0800, davemorris6592@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
    >
    >> And couldn't the user just use false details to get round this??

    >
    > IP logging.
    >
     
  13. Me thisBox

    Me thisBox Guest

    This is the story of the Internet - must be a newbie

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:09:46 -0800, Pegleg
    > <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:53:52 -0500, The Ghost of General Lee
    >> <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is this all you can come up with when presented with the truth?

    >> I still say no one will get law enforcement interests in pursuing a ten
    >> cent message. You must live in some kind of paranoid fantasy world!
    >>

    >
    > Nope, the real one, with laws against harassment. I could cite you
    > some statutes, but obviously the effort would be wasted on you.
    >
     
  14. Quick

    Quick Guest

    The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:09:46 -0800, Pegleg
    > <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:53:52 -0500, The Ghost of General
    >> Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is this all you can come up with when presented with
    >>> the truth?

    >>
    >> I still say no one will get law enforcement interests in
    >> pursuing a ten cent message. You must live in some kind
    >> of paranoid fantasy world!
    >>

    >
    > Nope, the real one, with laws against harassment. I
    > could cite you some statutes, but obviously the effort
    > would be wasted on you.


    You need to spell it out. You would not be pressing charges
    for the $0.10/monetary damages. You would be pressing
    charges for harassment.

    Here is an extreme example: You receive an SMS that says
    "I'm going to kill you. Die net kook, die." You would press
    charges for the death threat or harassment. Not because
    your phone bill went up by ten cents.

    -Quick
     
  15. On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:35:08 GMT, "Quick"
    <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    >The Ghost of General Lee wrote:
    >> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:09:46 -0800, Pegleg
    >> <brian-s-jones@comcastnospam.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:53:52 -0500, The Ghost of General
    >>> Lee <ghost@general.lee> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Is this all you can come up with when presented with
    >>>> the truth?
    >>>
    >>> I still say no one will get law enforcement interests in
    >>> pursuing a ten cent message. You must live in some kind
    >>> of paranoid fantasy world!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Nope, the real one, with laws against harassment. I
    >> could cite you some statutes, but obviously the effort
    >> would be wasted on you.

    >
    >You need to spell it out. You would not be pressing charges
    >for the $0.10/monetary damages. You would be pressing
    >charges for harassment.
    >
    >Here is an extreme example: You receive an SMS that says
    >"I'm going to kill you. Die net kook, die." You would press
    >charges for the death threat or harassment. Not because
    >your phone bill went up by ten cents.


    The whole concept of the site in question is to send unsolicited text
    messages and make it look as though they came from someone else. If
    you can find a legitimate use for such a service, I'd be happy to hear
    about it. But it smacks of harassment of the targeted individual.
    Given a financial loss due to the crime, that gives rise to a civil
    cause of action, which can result in actual and punitive damages.
     

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?