> After the first hack, Terpin alleged that an impostor was able to get his phone number from an "insider cooperating with the hacker" without an AT&T store employee requiring him to show valid identification or provide a required password.
If what he's alleging is true, then he certainly has a case against AT&T.
> After the first hack, Terpin alleged that an impostor was able to get his phone number from an "insider cooperating with the hacker" without an AT&T store employee requiring him to show valid identification or provide a required password.
If what he's alleging is true, then he certainly has a case against AT&T.