Restricted calls, internet threats, and police.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



I was just looking around at what duties a patrolman is capable of.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



Some police officers may also be trained in special duties, such as counter-terrorism, surveillance, child protection, VIP protection, and investigation techniques into major crime, including fraud, rape, murder and drug trafficking.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
www.ehow.com...



When the notice "Restricted" appears in your caller ID, you have just received a call from a restricted phone number. An individual can block the origination of a phone call by dialing *67 prior to dialing a phone number. If someone doesn't want you to know his identity when he calls you, he can block the number to keep this information a secret. Finding a restricted phone number is rather difficult. But it can be done if you work hard enough at it.



Hmmm.

It seems it is possible.



edit on 4-11-2013 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Oh, I never disbelieved you. I've learned a long time ago not to underestimate the things that people can do. Thanks for the clarification, though.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   


HOW TO USE IT: once you download it and everything is said and done and u geta prank call, press ignore but DONT hang up, trap call with take the number to their center and decode the number taking the *67 out and the other person wiill have no idea because it will still ring...after 5 sec, it will ring again and the number will pop up unblocked!!!!


answers.yahoo.com...

So let me guess.

Everyone used the google function and clicked on the very first link given.

Way to investigate people.

It is possible. There is obviously ways around the restricted label.

So please spare me anymore it's not possible explanations.

It is possible. You just have to do your homework and spend more than 30 seconds using google.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   

EllaMarina
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Oh, I never disbelieved you. I've learned a long time ago not to underestimate the things that people can do. Thanks for the clarification, though.


No problem.

After a little bit of digging I found at least two different sites saying it is possible.

It just seems that people want to click on the first Google link and say they did research.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:58 PM
link   

liejunkie01
reply to post by defcon5
 

I was just looking around at what duties a patrolman is capable of.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Some police officers may also be trained in special duties, such as counter-terrorism, surveillance, child protection, VIP protection, and investigation techniques into major crime, including fraud, rape, murder and drug trafficking.

Yes, and when that happens they get a title change.
Usually that makes them a Detective or puts them on a special unit such as a undercover vice squad. They are then issued a plain car, and don't have to wear a uniform.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

defcon5

liejunkie01
reply to post by defcon5
 

I was just looking around at what duties a patrolman is capable of.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Some police officers may also be trained in special duties, such as counter-terrorism, surveillance, child protection, VIP protection, and investigation techniques into major crime, including fraud, rape, murder and drug trafficking.

Yes, and when that happens they get a title change.
Usually that makes them a Detective or puts them on a special unit such as a undercover vice squad. They are then issued a plain car, and don't have to wear a uniform.


A direct quote from you.




Police will not follow you around doing that type of investigation, they have no need too, and it does nothing but make the person a flight risk.





Text Additionally, if your friend had actually made such a threat, he would not be followed by the police. The police don't have the time or manpower to be following around people undercover for a phone call.


I simply showed you the duties of a police officer that can include,


Some policeofficers may also be trained in special duties, such as counter-terrorism, surveillance, child protection, VIP protection, and investigation techniques into major crime, including fraud, rape, murder and drug trafficking.


After all the definition of a police officer includes,


A police officer (also known as a policeman, police agent, patrolman, cop, policewoman, and constable in some forces, particularly in the United Kingdom[1][2] and other Commonwealth nations) is a warranted employee of a police force. In the United States, "officer" is the formal name of the lowest police rank.


So whether or not a police officer gets a promotion is not the topic.

It is that a simple lowest ranking police officer can do surveillance if he/she is trained at such tasks.
edit on 4-11-2013 by liejunkie01 because: i added the second quote. on my cell phone



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 

At that point you were specifically stating uniformed, identifiable, police. Uniformed (patrol) police are not used for those types of duties.

I also stated:


Undercover officers use surveillance when they want to catch someone “in the act” of committing a crime (like cash changing hands), or when they want to go up the food chain in a group to the top person involved. Something like you mention would be done behind the scenes via logs from the company and phone company, so what purpose would following him serve other then to tip him off and make him hide?

Its not just a promotion it's often also a department or division change; vice, homicide, pawn detective, fraud, etc... You would have no way to know that they were investigating you because they don't use uniformed (patrol) officers. One of my best friends is a detective, he does not wear a uniform (other then for dress ceremonies), he does not drive a patrol car. He wears a suit, and drives a plain unmarked undercover dodge charger. The majority of LEO's I know are patrol officers, and they don't get used to do undercover work or surveillance.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by AmberLeaf
 


Yes you can.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Except *67 is not the only way CLID can show up as Restricted.
It's ok you believe he did it so their is no point in arguing the reality of how phones work, beyond social engineering, with you.
On to the bigger issue.


How does your friend know that the police were specifically trailing or watching him? It's just as likely they were doing something else and the mind , working the way it does, associated his threat and seeing a police car as being them trailing him.

Beyond that though with all the reports of monitoring being out there for the love of god man why would he say something like that?



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I really am sure you do not understand what logic really is. Here let me tell you the logical holes in your story, even though others have already.

(a) Restricted number tracing. If your "friend" was called by a restricted number on a land line or cell phone, there is zero data to use. This is the purpose of a restricted number. As already pointed out a marketer with a fairly common bit of equipment can make any number show up.
(b) Your friend makes a threat of terrorism. In this day and age, the cops would not 'shadow them', they would pull the idiot in, and charge them, with at least wanton stupidity.
(c) You are relaying a story, from someone who is showing poor judgement, and thus is likely to be blowing smoke somewhere it does not belong.

Next you are engaging in a number of logical fallacies in your reply to me. But we will stick with the "shifting of the burden of proof" one that is most apparent. You make the claims to your story being true, thus it is actually down to you to prove it so. Its how such things work. If I say the sky is tartan, and you look up and go "nope it's blue", I making the claim of pladness, must prove it. You are claiming you have evidence that one can do as you have claimed, post it. It is that simple.

Slan leat (don't let that door hit you on the way out)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 


Are you serious?

I posted two sites that say it is possible. The one link is from a telecommunicatios director.

Your logic is seriously flawed.

Thank you for your reply.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

liejunkie01
Are you serious?

I posted two sites that say it is possible. The one link is from a telecommunicatios director.
Your logic is seriously flawed.


The problem is you are assuming that all numbers that show up as restricted are because someone used *76 and that is not the case.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   

opethPA

liejunkie01
Are you serious?

I posted two sites that say it is possible. The one link is from a telecommunicatios director.
Your logic is seriously flawed.


The problem is you are assuming that all numbers that show up as restricted are because someone used *76 and that is not the case.


No the problem is that people think I am lying.

The problem is people said it cannot be done.

The problem is I showed it can be done.

The problem is that people do not do their research before they go on acting like they are right and there is no possible way this could happen.

The problem is that not one single person knows for sure without a doubt that DHS does not use inntimidation tactics to put fear in the citizens.

The problem is that we see in the news, and on this site, every single day how police do not follow protocols, and despite this I get nothing but mockery and negative feedback about hoe this case is not to protocol.

The problem is that all I read here on ATS is how we are in a police state. But when someone gives an example of this everyone throws a fit and basically calls that individual a liar. Seems pretty hypocritical from a bunch of "like minded" individuals.




edit on 5-11-2013 by liejunkie01 because: spelling/grammar



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


I have found several ways around "restricted" numbers. Ironically, sometimes dialing *69 to call it back will indeed reveal numbers on occasion.

Also, I have a call block on my landline. Yes, I still have one of those antiques. I also have a VERY outdated phone company, and they actually leased old long distance lines from AT&T and simply run their local phone company through those leased lines.

Needless to say, there have been countless issues from running their business as such, but some of the more intriguing ones have worked for my benefit. When they finally added the call block feature in around 2006, (I told you, wayyy behind the times, very rural area, we just got DSL in 2009!), the cool part was if you had restricted the call using various features such as dialing to hide the number, call block would add the call to the list. I could then play back my list to edit or remove calls from my list, and lo and behold, there was the number!

Back then, a majority of calls were still land lines, and from most companies and corporations still are. These are easy to reverse lookup in seconds.

Also, if you are getting multiple annoyance calls, and have blocked them, they tend to start resorting to other numbers. Unscrupulous telemarketers have been known to spoof other numbers which may or may not belong to an unwitting third, innocent party. It always a good idea to be certain with whom you are dealing before you place any calls, investagatory, or otherwise.

I do not discount the OP entirely, because there are ways, and it depends on what the definition of "is", is.

It could be that his (the friends') definition of "restricted" meant in name only, and the OP made assumptions. No one asked, so, let's ask. OP, did you clarify with your friend, was restricted name only, or was it the number, as well? So now, we will await the answer.

One more thing to keep in mind, you can pay various online entities to return a name on a reverse lookup number, but once again, you have to have the number. Fees range from 1.99 and up, and can be full reports to a simple text to number, with the charge added to your phone bill. These are to be used with caution, however, as the information is not always reliable. Especially with cell phones, but mainly because shady people change cell numbers as often as their underwear!

ETA: I forgot to mention. If you are receiving calls on a cellphone that someone is dialing a number to hide their identity, *sometimes*, if you have an online web account to check your phone activity, this will reveal the incoming numbers, as well.

edit on 5-11-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 





You are claiming you have evidence that one can do as you have claimed, post it. It is that simple.


This right here friend tells me everything that I need to know about you.

I just went and read every single post I have posted.

Please show me where I have claimed to have evidence.

Thank you for picking out my thread to boast your wonderful knowledge on the matter.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

liejunkie01
The problem is that all I read here on ATS is how we are in a police state. But when someone gives an example of this everyone throws a fit and basically calls that individual a liar. Seems pretty hypocritical from a bunch of "like minded" individuals.


This is web site is predicated on Denying Ignorance not like minded individuals. Clearly some folks think everything is a false flag and some don't.

It also doesn't matter what my qualifications are with phones/dialers/LEC's/Switches/CO's/ANI/CLID or anything else. You are convinced of something and nothing anyone says is going to convince you otherwise so have fun with that.

Additionally your friend claiming to be a killer and threatening some one has nothing to do with a DHS police state and everything to do with your friend being an idiot for making threats like that.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


Not discounting what his friend did was totally insane and over the line. We all get that. However, straight up calling someone a liar, which is what is happening here, without really clarifying the facts, is really unfair.

We do not know the complete answer to one vital piece of information. What did "restricted" mean, and did the OP make a normal human error, and assume it meant entirely restricted? I have had calls show up, for example:

800 Service Name witheld (restricted)

Then, completely show the entire number. I have had many variations, such as, "Name Witheld", with the number, or "Restricted", and no number. So, again, we need to ask the right questions, and have the OP relay back to us the information, before jumping to conclusions.

Also, as I described above, I have found several ways around "hidden" numbers. If you try hard enough, you may just get lucky. It depends on a lot of other circumstances, but it CAN be done.

Simply put, I think some posters may be too quick to jump to conclusions of their own, or making assumptions without having enough information on which to base their arguments.

Practice what ye preach, and Deny Ignorance. There is more than one way to skin a phone call.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Libertygal
Practice what ye preach, and Deny Ignorance. There is more than one way to skin a phone call.


Which is why I said in my first post to him he is leaving out part of the equation because you can't just take a restricted number , go look it up on the Intewebz and come up with info on it.

You can say all you want that if I called you from a restricted number that it's possible to reveal it if you try hard enough. Care to actually try that? Give me a number to call and I ill call it in multiple ways from land lines, cell lines , dialers(manual or predictive, you could pick) plus other things i use on a daily basis and unless I pass digits in the CLID you won't find anything no matter how hard you try or I should say you would only find the info I wanted you to find. In defense of the OP what he\she doesn't know is what caused a number to show up as restricted and that changes this scenario a lot.

As I opened up this response with the OP left out part of the equation and that's fine, Telco reality doesn't matter. Perception is reality and the OP believes what his friend told him/showed him .



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by opethPA
 


Firstly, keep in mind the forum rules for the forum you are in.

Secondly, I revealed, in a post above, multiple ways to reveal a hidden number. It has worked on both private unlisted numbers, as well as dial-to-hide calls.

1. *69 will occasionally reveal the incoming number.

2. If you have a call block feature, such as *64, and can "add last call to your list", then playing back the list to edit, remove, or add calls will very often repeat back even unlisted or hidden numbers. It is a glitch that so far has gone unrepaired where I live.

3. If you have a cellphone that has an online web account, sometimes, dial-to-hide numbers will show on the account incoming call list.

That is three ways you can instantly obtain caller information, again, depending upon circumstances and information on which we need further clarification.

ETA: I also forgot. If I use call tracing, *57, in my area, to trace the last call, it reads the number back and asks me to confirm, are you sure you wish to trace this call. To finalize a trace, you have to have 3 calls, and then file a report with the phone company. Again, this feature has worked to my advantage in the past. This may be something to do with the fact that my phone company has the leased long distance lines, because they tend to blame a lot of flukes out here on out of date, old equipment.

edit on 5-11-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join