BJ>> That's too ridiculous to even debunk.
 
 JS> I don't understand why you think so. Whether it's true or
 JS> not, don't you think it is believable. Press 1 for yes, press
 JS> 2 for no. Capturing key input from a phone doesn't sound so
 JS> ridiculous to me.
 BM> That's an example of someone's equipment connected to the phone line
 BM> picking up the touch tones and acting on them. The hoax scheme would
 BM> require that the _PHONE_SYSTEM_ pick them up and act on them, which it
 BM> DOES NOT DO after the number has been dialed. 
 BM> After the number is dialed, the phone system could care less if you
 BM> press 90# or some such sequence. The scheme even has you answering the
 BM> phone, the phone system will not act on tones from your phone then at
 BM> all. Even disabling call waiting, or using 3 way calling, or any other
 BM> action on an incomming call requires that you flash the switchhook and
 BM> therefore access a dial tone to enter the code. 
Perhaps we're now talking about two different things. You are talking about 
the technical feasibilities and I'm talking about perceptions of everyday 
life.
Wish I could recall the date that the DMN had the article in the paper - as 
a reference. The article did not debunk the scheme. I cannot recall if phone
company personnel were quoted as a part of the article.
My point is that people in general, including myself, have little knowledge
of the technology behind the devices we use every day. You would agree with
that? So, I don't understand why one would think it obvious that capturing 
phone input to trick another person is ridiculous.
Sort of along the same line, there has been alot in the news about LD
companies tricking people into changing LD service. I don't remember all the 
details but like the guy who named his LD company "I Don't Care" or somesuch.
And isn't it nice we have places like this that one can bring up things like
this and get some answers.
Jesse
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20 [NR]
---------------