pornography and minors

[tcarnright]

We are in Tennessee. My son, age 14, had three long distance charges on the phone bill which were charged by AT&T (they are NOT our long distance server). Upon querying, we have learned that he was able to access a paid pornography site which was billed through AT&T Long Distance to his phone number.

He claims to have not been asked for any information (such as drivers license number, credit card info, etc.) which would identify him as a minor.

We feel legal action is in order, if not against the actual site (it is probably "off-shore"), then against AT&T for supporting this activity which is available to minors.

Is there any possibility of such action?

 

[lawrat]

I am a law school graduate. WHat I offer is mere information, not to be construed as forming an attorney client relationship.

Not really against AT&T, they are a secondary provider, they have nothing to do with it. BUT you can void those charges because he was a minor and any contracts/purchases made by minors may be disaffirmed and monies refunded (unless it was a necessity and porn is not).

 

[tcarnright]

Thank you, Lawrat. I guess my question is this: if it is illegal to have sites with pornography available to minors within the USA, but AT&T has made the site available by providing the billing service, how can they have no responsibility or liability for their actions. Are they not a USA company? If this had been billed through our own long distance service (MCI), then I would have considered them an innocent second party. But since AT&T apparently has an agreement with this pornographic site, since they are providing the "billing service", do they not have to abide by US laws in not making this type site available to minors?

Again, thank you for your initial response!

 

[Jack Mevorach, Esq.]

Yes, it's possible. Expense will be certain; outcome, uncertain. What result would you want?

 

[tcarnright]

Thank you, Jack. Obviously, I would want to come out no poorer than I am going in, so - I would want at the very least to break even and companies within the US, such as AT&T, to be "taught" not to bill for porno to minors via the internet. I understand the outcome is uncertain, but I don't think this type thing has been challenged, and I think it's high time it IS challenged.

At the very most, I would want money.

What else can I say?

I've spent the past 5 years working on the internet doing graphics design (primarily), and I've worked hard to make it a good, clean place. I've even instructed people with pornographic sites wanting graphics about how to set up systems where proof of age is required, and explained the necessity of not posting sheerly pornographic images outside the "minor firewall".

It is not a shock to me that a 14 year old would want to view porno materials. What *is* a shock, however, is that although illegal via the internet in the US, a US company can perform the billing services, profit from it, and get away with it.

This is a total injustice, in my opinion.

 

[Jack Mevorach, Esq.]

OK. Consult local counsel.

 

[tcarnright]

Jack - please help. Do I consult in Tennessee, or do I locate attorneys in the state of incorporation of AT&T?

PS - for ALL onlookers... I have no attorneys in Tennessee. I have no attorneys at all. If you know of attorneys in Tennessee willing to take on this case, please respond or e-mail me. Many thanks.

[Edited by tcarnright on 01-05-2001 at 08:01 PM]

 

[tcarnright]

"Again, Your Honor,

This has nothing to do with the ability of our client to obtain programs to prohibit entry to certain URL's, nor to educate his/her child(ren) to not view such URL's.

What it DOES have to do with is the US law... that minors in the United States of America will not be allowed to view pornographic materials online via the internet.

The mere fact that offshore viewing is available to US minors is a shame, but the obvious fact that a major US corporation is profiting from such viewing, because they are profiting from the billing, is an injustice. It is totally against the US law, because the minor(s) could NOT view without the billing via the internet."



[Edited by tcarnright on 01-05-2001 at 09:42 PM]

 

[djdj]

HOW'S this for a profiteering motive:

ALL of your local TV stations air those I'm Mandy,suzie, dating,hot 1-900 call me ads....

The TV station SPLITS the PROFITS generated by that 1-900 telephone # which is aired ONLY on that TV station....with the porn company

just so you people can have 24 hour television!

No kidding.....its been going on for at least 10 years and no one has caught on!

[Edited by djdj on 01-08-2001 at 11:58 AM]

 

[tcarnright]

WOW - color me "looking the other way"!!! You're right - I just never viewed it from that angle. The only difference in the two? The TV one - you "just pick up the phone" and "hear" pornography; the internet one, you tune in for I suppose the equivalent of the Playboy channel, or a XXX rental movie.

I believe there is probably no way out of this one - except, of course, having the charges dropped. Looks like long distance companies can continue to have major income in the porno market, while appearing innocent second parties...

 

[AttyNKY]

While I don't think we want AT&T being held liable for the conduct of its customers (for LOTS of really good privacy reasons), there is actually another problem here. I recently helped some friends who received a $900 phone bill from AT&T for the same kinds of calls that you describe. Upon investigation, I discovered that the calls were being placed by the computer after a particular web site link was clicked. Understand that no other action on the part of the user was required. The link downloaded an autodial script in the background, disabled the modem dialing tone, and then dialed the site in the background while providing a distracting and misleading "wait" message on the screen. In other words, my friend did not know that he was being disconnected from his ISP and that a new number was being dialed. The whole process took less than a minute. When he first called AT&T, they basically said that the calls had been made, that they'd place a block on numbers to that area code (somewhere outside the US), and that he was liable for the charges. When I called them, they said that they would have removed the charges if asked. I asked, and they did. As for pursuing further action, don't do it. It will be very expensive, and you'll get to answer lots of embarrassing questions about why a 14 year old was given unsupervised access to a computer and the Internet by someone - in the words of the attorneys you'd face - "who should have understood the risk and known better."

 

[tcarnright]

ANGRY ANGRY ANGRY!!!

I have just gotten off the telephone with "Patrice" (last name refused) with AT&T Billing, who refused to remove the charges. I asked to speak with her supervisor "Jason" (last name refused), who also REFUSED to remove the charges. I then asked for HIS supervisor "Barbel Graham" (at least she had a last name), but she was not "in". I asked for her telephone number to call back direct (telephone number refused). I asked for him to have her telephone me, and if I wasn't in, to call back (since I can't have her number). He said no guarantee she'd call back if I wasn't in.

I finally asked him if AT&T was the primary carrier for my son's line, as I thought MCI had all our accounts. He verified that AT&T is NOT our long distance carrier, and again, REFUSED to remove any charges.

Advice?????

By the way, here is the link to the site that explains the current "scam" that my son fell into:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/clarkhoward/hottopics/porn_charges.html

And HERE is the link to AT&T's rebuttal of sorts, which makes them feel secure in not removing any charges:

http://www.att.com/consumertips/adult.html



[Edited by tcarnright on 01-23-2001 at 12:00 PM]

 

[djdj]

Your phone company has dispute arbitrators on duty, call them...it in your phone book at the beginning, or in your monthly pamplets we all throw out,

also go to http://www.zonelabs.com and download zonealarm its free look on the left side for "FREE"... its a personal firewall, which should stop these types of thngs from happening again...

OR at least a pop up screen will notify you wether to continue or not....

 

[tcarnright]

Thank you, djdj. After getting nowhere with AT&T on getting the charges removed, I *did* follow the advice from the first link above (the one that tells about the "fraud ring") and filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.

I then telephoned my local service, BellSouth, and explained everything in detail, telling them that we didn't feel liable for those charges and were contesting them. IF there are arbitrators available with BellSouth, I certainly wasn't made aware of it. The contact merely said it was awful, she felt badly, and would mark that particular portion of our billing as "under dispute".

For others that perhaps misunderstand my feelings here, I'd like to try to clarify *one more time*! It is my understanding that if you are in the United States and operate a porn site, you must have a built in firewall that requires PROOF (such as a drivers license number or credit card number) of being age-appropriate/legal for the site. This site is offshore (so they say, some writings claim it is stateside and only the billing appear offshore) and IF it has a disclaimer, I wouldn't know, because AT&T refuses to release the URL of the site (and you *know* they know it, or they wouldn't have posted the page linked above).

My gripe is that they are profiting from this, they are aware of it, they know the numbers (the first lady, Patrice, quickly told me yesterday that it was an adult entertainment number), they know it's a background operation, but they continue to allow the site to bill through them and do nothing about the lacking safety precaution for minors.

Now, I will look into the software that gives you a warning if something "wierd" goes on in the background. Years ago, drug stores sold Playboy and Penthouse, but they had to place them out of reach of the minors. The kids still got their hands on them (what 14-yr old DIDN'T see them or have one or more under their bed???).

My complaint is not that pornography exists (it always has), but that this is a scam sucking in minors who never read fine print, believe everything on the internet is free unless they point-blank ask you for a credit card, and are basically "reading their dad's or big brother's current day-and-age" Playboy. And then the parent is supposed to pay hundreds to thousands of dollars for a scam that goes on in the background that a minor had no clue of?

We have a VERY high technology group of youngsters out there, and placing internet nannies and the like is not my idea of the way to teach them how to use the tools. Instruction, however, is critical. Believe you me, my son has received MORE than his share of adequate instruction after this event.

 

[djdj]

You really should download your own personal firewall, and zone alarm is very very good for being FREE!

Also Att and MCI are just looking the other way on this

It works this way, MCI bills the porn company like 35 cents a minute for the 900 calls, the porn comapny chagre 42.95 3.95 4.95 a minute BUT half the people dispute their biils called charge backs, by rights the porn company can sue you for the disputed bill, but they never do, baddddd publicity.

Then ATT bills YOU for the charges and keeps 9% as a billing fee, now ATT gets to keep 9% on all the charges billed even if the people do not pay, so in essence with half the people not paying ATT is getting 18% of the porn money collected. verrry profitable indeed!

But they have to keep up appearaneces and try to intimidate you to collect, its in the contract!