Mechanized calls without a live operator are illegal in many areas, but the law doesn't seem to stop them.
This page is divided into two parts:
Note: It is highly unlikely these are being used for
direct sales pitches. (Skip to mechanized call
information used by telemarketing scum)
All law enforcement agencies should authorize personnel to "call trace" (1157 or *57 in North America) all mechanized calls. "Call trace" reports can then be forwarded to the cognizant agency.
(This section also applies to other persons using
"call trace" for other reasons, such as tracing personal
harassment phone calls.)
"Call Trace" is different from caller ID in two respects:
Most law enforcement personnel aren't familiar with "call trace" procedures, since it isn't part of their day-to-day operations. "Call trace" is available in the US and probably most other countries with universal telephone service.
After the call, but before the receipt of another call, dial
1157 or *57 (North American phones). The
local telco (dial tone provider) will charge a fee for this. Generally
it's in the range of $1.00/trace but each jurisdiction is different.
Expect a recording to indicate whether the "call trace" was successful.
In some locations, the procedure may be to initiate the trace during the call. This is an older system, which I believe is completely obsolete.
Cellphone companies may have a flat fee for the report only, but may end
up not charging for the report if "call trace" fees are
regulated locally. Since all cellphone calls are logged, it is not
necessary to dial *57 on a cellphone.
The primary dialtone provider (Regional Bell) will have an information
number to describe "call trace" procedures.
Keep a log of calls, identifying date, time and nature of the call.
After a "call trace" or series of "call traces", the consumer requests a report to be provided to a specified law enforcement agency. It is necessary to first identify a complaint or incident number so the law enforcement agency can match the report to something.
If the "call trace" data is part of another
complaint (e.g., personal harassment), ask that the first agency circle
the particular call and forward it.
Some dialtone providers "require" three traces. This "requirement" may or may not be recognized by law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies are the ones to decide what must be produced and it is unlikely that they will pay attention to the phone company's rules.
As a practical matter isolated personal harassment calls will not be acted upon, so "three calls traces" may be needed for this. Obviously the requirements for complaints about mechanized calls would be different.
From a legal standpoint, a complaint of personal harassment requires
corroborating evidence. Generally this means something to tie a
"call trace" to harassing activity. If the offender
leaves an answering machine message, or if the call is otherwise
legally recorded, this becomes easier. Likewise if there is a
protective order forbidding calls. (In the case of commercial
harassment by telemarketing scum, corroborating evidence would come from
diverse sources.)
You can "hang" a war dialer (or any automated dialer) by simulating a dialtone. Normally the war dialer will be set to go "on hook" after the completion of its detection. Theoretically, this breaks the connection but many times the called party (the victim) can stay on-hook long enough to receive the next call. The war dialer will wait for dialtone and begin with the next call.
If you simulate a dialtone, and if the war dialer doesn't succeed in clearing the line, the war dialer will dial into your simulated dialtone, and keep doing this until it succeeds in clearing the line.
The difficult part is being ready with a simulated dialtone as soon as the auto dialer hangs up.
It is highly unlikely mechanized calls are being used for direct sales
pitches. These machines are used for various "scanning"
purposes, listed below.
Mechanized calls can be attributed to:
(ATs0=true))

site first posted 3 Nov 1996 ~~ This page first posted 16 Oct 02 ~~ rev October 9, 2007 ~~ written in WordPerfect 5.1 ~~ copyright 1996, 2002 by Stan Protigal ~~ Feel free to link to this.