, SecurityFocus 2004-12-07
A Las Vegas adult services operator is making a federal case of his longstanding claim that cyber security weaknesses at the local phone company have permitted hackers to hijack calls intended for his stable of in-room entertainers -- reprising a complaint that state regulators rejected in 2002.
Expand all |
Post comment
"attorneys for Sprint of Nevada asked the court last month to dismiss Munoz's new lawsuit, on the grounds that...the former vice king lost his chance to appeal years ago."
Is that actually true? I have no idea what the statutes are regarding this type of case anywhere, let alone in Nevada but if he let his chance for appeal go, his chances of winning the lawsuit are greatly decreased.
"Sprint also sites a PUC tariff that holds Nevada telephone companies immune from liability for errors in delivering phone calls."
If this tariff really exists then its game over unless the court decides to ignore the tariff which would make it extremely easy for Sprint to win an appeal on any ruling.
Sounds to me like Sprint is going to get away with this one.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/10083/29438#29438