[zo1]

That's not the tone that the parent poster was responding to. It was the tone that implied that this was some sort of dead-beat, abusive husband/father.

On the AT&T part though, I agree fully. Individuals should not have access to that sort of information.

[superuser2]

It's viscerally disturbing because you are completely powerless against someone like that. You may have changed everything about your life to get away, but just by wanting something as simple and commonplace as a phone, you make yourself vulnerable to him again.

It's like being a fugitive. They have your credit cards. They have your bank accounts. They have people watching everyone you might make contact with. You'd better believe they have your phones. They can cut the power to your house; they can force your alarm company to disarm your security system, they can break down any physical security you have, no matter how strong. They have bigger guns than you, more of them, more people to fire them, and more time. You're going to lose.

We barely trust government with that kind of power, and government in theory has internal controls. Can you imagine being an ex of someone with that kind of power and an anger problem?

This guy's story hit me on roughly the same level as the fact that BTK worked for ADT, installing alarm systems for people who were afraid of BTK.

Whether or not this guy was actually abusive is immaterial; it's the fact that his job at a telecom makes him impossible to hide from.

[GrinningFool]

I assume you refer to the quote: "the bitch forgot I work for AT&T."

Well, maybe. I wouldn't be saying kind things about anyone who disappeared with my kids.

I'm not saying that this wasn't an abusive, dead-beat husband/father. Only that the information we have isn't enough to make that assumption.

"On the AT&T part though, I agree fully. Individuals should not have access to that sort of information."

Me too - but we also don't know if he went through proper procedure to get it... it does seem very unlikely, though.

[CocaKoala]

"He the describes, with pride, the look on her face as he showed up at her new house."

Is that describing a man who's happy he's rescued his children, or happy he's re-established dominance over somebody who attempted to escape?

Is the child-rescuer or the dominator more likely to be an abuser?

[chc]

Why can't somebody be satisfied both with getting back his children and with sticking it to the person who took them in the first place? I think most people would gain some degree of satisfaction from seeing the person who kidnapped their children brought low.

(Admittedly, this is not the narrative I think is more likely, but it doesn't seem like all that remote a possibility either. Vengeful feelings are ugly, whether we consider them justified or not.)

[CocaKoala]

Sure, absolutely that's the sort of thing you would get satisfaction from.

But when you're relating the story to others, are you going to describe that satisfaction at seeing "the bitch" brought low? Or are you going to describe the relief from having your children back? People tend to relate portions of a story which they consider to be important; if this guy is describing to his friend the satisfied feeling of getting one up on her, then that sends some pretty heavy signals about why he broke the law and company policy to find her.

[chc]

Well, maybe. Which part of the story is important is largely a matter of context. If the topic of discussion were his children, yeah, changing the subject to how he got one over on his wife would be kind of disturbing. If the topic were his wife, expressing satisfaction at how he got one over on her when she was at her most "evil" seems pretty normal.