JS> My point is that people in general, including myself, have
 JS> little knowledge of the technology behind the devices we use
 JS> every day. You would agree with that? So, I don't understand
 JS> why one would think it obvious that capturing phone input to
 JS> trick another person is ridiculous.
To someone with even a tiny bit of technical knowledge it is rediculous, 
nothing personal, possibly because to us it is almost as basic as knowing how 
to breathe. We all know that it is hard to live if one is underwater for, 
say, one hour. To say it's impossible is wrong, though, because we both know 
that scuba equipment exists that makes it possible. But how would it sound to 
someone who has never heard of underwater diving?
We both know that some sort of apparatus would be necessary. Only in the 
phone scam hoax, I know that something beyond what is available in the hoax 
would be necessary.
 JS> about LD companies tricking people into changing LD service.
 JS> I don't remember all the details but like the guy who named
 JS> his LD company "I Don't Care" or somesuch.
That example is probably an urban legend. Most of the problem lies in 
receiving rebate checks, or in receiving some sort of form that requires the 
customer to check a box or make some indication that a choice has been made. 
The problem is that in making the choice, or endorsing the check, the item is 
worded such that a choice is made that the customer is unaware of. The 
marketer depends on the fact that many people do not read such things 
throughly,
There's also a problem called "slamming" where they fraudlently simply change 
your service, but they can and are fined large amounts when caught.
If something sounds too good to be true, it is.
---
---------------