Joerg wrote:
>> Robert Baer wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>=20
>> Ahm, if the alarm company gets an apologetic call from the "home =
owner"=20
> or whoever had been claiming to be that person, did they not check=20
>> whether the call indeed come from this residence?
>* The person dong the monitoring was rather lame; never asked for=20
>password, in fact did not call the police until after the 3rd (or was it=
=20
the 4th) time.
> Hell, it seemed that he did not even know the homeowner's phone =
number!
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Since the operators of the alarm company are not intimately =
familiar=20
>> with customer voices, they cannot ID the callers either when someone=20
>>> supposedly called from the house or when someone supposedly answered=20
>>> the phone at the house.
>>> So, there is no way to determine who was the instigator at that=20
>>> time; illegality becomes moot.
>>>
>>=20
>> They can (and should) verify called ID if someone claims to be the =
home=20
> owner. If it doesn't match then that's a red flag. A home owner =
claiming=20
> to be in a residence where an alarm had gone off can reasonably be =
asked=20
> to call again from that landline instead of his cell (unless they had=20
>> that cell number already registered). Anyhow, the caller ID and name=20
>> must match and unless I understood something wrong they did not verify=
=20
> that. Meaning someone called saying something like "Oh, sorry, it went=
=20
> off by accident" but the caller ID was not that of this house.
>* This was all landline, no cell phones were owned or used my homeowner.
> I fully understand and concur, but the monitoring guy did almost=20
>nothing correct.
Maybe the intercept / intrusion was the alarm company end as well. I understand that they hire from the bottom of the barrel and have high turnover, but really. The monitoring person little bit too incompetent perhaps?
>>=20
>>=20
=20