These kids (like the ones that beat and burned the boxer mix, which Chase Utley and his wife paid to rehab) are monsters and are beyond therapy. I am a dog and cat owner and stories like this break my heart.

I'm just hoping that these kids were playing a sick, sick joke and that Edna is somewhere out there....just lost.

unfortunately stewie, thats not the case because the kids called him on the phone number from Edna's tags; not the one on the missing poster.

This is a heartbreaking story, but what's verizon to do? Not too long ago they were being accused of violating our constitutional rights for harboring "useless information" to provide to the governement.

How is an operator to differentiate between one sob story or another? What would the reaction and subsequent newspaper story be to verizon if the following scenario happened:
-Man calls Verizon screaming that someone just called him and has his dog
-Operator provides the address
-Man goes over and kills his girlfriend who he's abused for years, and it turns out that she just called to say its over.

We would all then be screaming at Verizon for giving up the information so easily.

As previously stated, Verizon was ran through the coals for harboring "useless" information-such as who calls us. Now that they don't do such a thing, tracerouting is far more complicated and takes more time to trace who called the victim.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

Not that I want to start another issue with you, but the first difference that jumped out at me is that the Philly cops have a search warrant. Other situations of which I am vaguely aware seem to be somewhat warrantless, or am I mistaken?

Also, I dunno, they seem to have a pretty easy time of printing who I called on my bills...

__________________
"You're only clever at showing your ignorance." - said immediately after telling a bold-faced lie.
pathologicalesis - 5.28.08

"actually, yes, if what you meant (by asking a rhetroical question to which the obvious answer is 'no') was that no one has actually suggested that"
Nipsey reveals the Holy Grail - 3.10.08

Yes, but Verizon was being attacked for even capturing the information, which is why it now takes so long to do a traceroute. If the cops want information on who you called its fairly easy since it pertains to your billing. But to find out who called you takes much more time since its equivalent to finding a needle in a haystack. With computers the needle can be found, but it takes awhile.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

Dude-

I know you love being the contrarian, but your little scenario has nothing to do with what actually happened. Verizon received a search warrant from the Philadelphia Police Dept. They took twelve days to return the information requested in the warrant. In that time, an animal was killed and police are now less likely to catch the perps.

No one is advocating that Verizon simply give away addresses when individuals call them.

So what the f*** are you talking about?

No, that's not what happened.

Guy loses dog.
Kids call and say they have dog.
After negotiating, the line went dead.
Victim calls 911, and its entered as extortion.
Next morning, the kids call and say they killed the dog.
Whiting-not the cops-call verizon looking for the number.
Whiting talked to 5 people at Verizon. They wouldn't release the info without a warrant.
Cops then got a warrant. Then it took 12 days.

Now the article complains that it took too long and cost too much. The victim wants the process to be faster and cheaper. That would require harboring unneeded information.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

Yes, your timeline is correct. The point is, as you say, the process should be faster and cheaper. It actually should be immediate and free, in my opinion, when the warrant is served. But you're saying it shouldn't because...why?

I apologize if I was not clearer before.

Previously, verizon began harboring who called whom. Then people went bonkers. They quit doing it.

Now, the only information stored is who you called, not who called you. So now, when a warrant must be fullfilled they must do a search across their entire database of every called made in philadelphia to see who called the victim during the specific time. Even in a mainframe enviroment, such a search takes time-and remember, its not the only search going on for law enforcement. Unfortunately the world doesn't work like a 60 min. csi episode.

__________________
Peter Cetera:
Sometimes I just forget
Say things I might regret
It breaks my heart to see you crying

I don't know anything about "people going bonkers", but it seems like people probably had a problem with the way the information was being used, not the fact that they were harboring the information. If they gave it up to the Justice Dept every time Monica Goodling called and wanted some info, then I could see why that would be a problem with the ACLU and associated types.

Anyway, it's really hard to believe that in this day and age, in a mainframe environment, that information takes twelve days to retrieve. Is there any actual data out there about how long these searches take when restricted to one specific city? Are they still running paper tape and punch cards or what?

If it was a higher priority search (LEO shot, etc) would it take less time? I think that's the issue - no one is explaining why it takes so long.

Also-I have T-Mobile, not Verizon, but I see the number of every incoming call on my monthly bill. So I don't quite understand the problem--are there certain numbers that don't show up and thus require a search?