Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Scammers

Old 18th Jan 2019, 14:22
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: North of Watford, South of Watford Gap
Age: 63
Posts: 201
Had a phone message today saying "An arrest warrant has been issued in your name. To talk to your case officer, press 1 now". Do they really think I would be so concerned that I would try to offer money?

Presumably they would try to convince me that the warrant was for an unpaid fine: "Pay the fine and we'll cancel the warrant..."
Innominate is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2019, 22:33
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: south of Cirencester, north of Lyneham
Age: 72
Posts: 1,243
One I have had a lot of recently is "this is your ISP provider. Your IP address ahs bee n compromised and your internet access will be cancelled within 24 hours unless you contact us. Press 8"

But just putting the phone down gets the same message 14 hours later.... I am almost inclined to press 8 and give them a mouthful including a wish for them and their whole family to die in agony from cancer and aids...
radeng is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 04:29
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Search me - I only just got out of bed ....
Age: 74
Posts: 456
On the other side of the globe, but we counted six of these calls within a few hours a few days back - similar lies to those reported by radeng (above). The answering machine is now set to kick in after nine rings, during which we have a chance to look at the calling number. If we don't recognise the number as one we know, we let the technology take over. A genuine caller will leave a message. The scammers don't; indeed they terminate the call within mere seconds of the voice announcement. Over the next days this resulted in a steadily falling number of such calls. We haven't had one now for two days.

I'm still outraged by the sheer audacity of these criminals. One of the female callers a few evening ago virtually demanded that I go straight to my computer. [email protected]!!
FullOppositeRudder is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 08:46
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by FullOppositeRudder View Post
We haven't had one now for two days.
We've had none at all for years now. Not since we got rid of the landline, which was pretty well never used for anything else.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 08:54
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 1,624
I get a steady trickle of e mails which imply that I am engaged in some kind of legitimate business with the sender. Typically, these e mails always include an attachment which, I am told, can either by plans for some building job or financial details for work I have just completed. The sender appears to be a legitimate business and the mail often includes a named person.
A couple of days ago I received one which looked really genuine so I Googled the name of the company and found their website. I telephoned the company, using the number on the website and got a recorded message which said,"If you are calling about an e mail which refers to financial details, it is a scam. Please delete it.". So, for the first time I knew I am not the only person who gets these mails.

What would have happened if I had opened the attachment I have no idea. I am under strict instructions from my internet wise children never to open anything unless I am 150% sure it is genuine. I would love to know what the success rate scammers achieve with such elaborate e mails. I suppose they rely on curiosity getting the better of the victims.
pulse1 is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 09:09
  #66 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,161
My wife has been receiving increasingly threatening, blackmailing emails via her business mail account. All of them had been ignored and deleted. However, the last one was supposedly from a "hit man" who claimed to have been paid to arrange for acid to be thrown in her face unless she paid up within twenty four hours. We had our provider check and were told that many of these emails originated from Russia. The matter is now with the police.

The latest scam email I've seen this week is offering a refund via "The City Council" due to an over-payment. Seeing as we don't actually have a city council and there are spelling mistakes in it, that's another one for an immediate press of the delete button.

By phone these idiots are still trying the "your internet connection is causing a problem" scam. A couple of days ago one chap claimed to be from BT. He appeared to be trying to contact me from the bottom of a well in India. I just told him I don't have a BT connection. He got very flustered and tried to change tack; I put the phone down on him.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 09:44
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
If our politicians - Communications Minister, Foreign Affairs or whoever - had any guts they would call in the Indian/Phllipines Ambassador for a no tea and biscuits interview, during which he would be informed that if these calls did not cease within a month, all calls from their country would be blocked.
The only reason these spivs are able to make so many calls is because of the systems that allow them to make such calls for next to nothing, and to spoof phone numbers.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 10:09
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 743
I got a curious scam email the other day, does anyone know what it's about?

The subject line was "Hi, I'm Emery Dupler" and the total content was (link corrupted);

the sender address was [email protected]. Dharmadesk seems to be a genuine company.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2019, 10:31
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Norwich
Age: 74
Posts: 83
Not had this one for some time. I normally put the phone down

Jackw106 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 13:08
  #70 (permalink)  
Ant
even ants need some lovin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kent, UK.
Posts: 128
There's something I recently discovered there is in common regarding the majority of scam calls coming through on our Virgin Media landline (2 calls today already by mid-morning).

If I try calling back the scam number on the landline I will get a recorded message saying "the number you have dialled has not been recognised", and if I try on my mobile which happens to be on the O2 network there will be a pop up saying "invalid number".
The 2 we had this morning are 0202 6726459 and 0235 5708140, yet despite both being an invalid and unrecognised number (try it yourselves) were nonetheless put through by Virgin Media, who it could be argued are unintentionally complicit in an attempted crime.

So the obvious question which someone out there with some Telco knowledge may be able to answer is this: is there any reasonable way the telcos should be using to screen out these "invalid numbers" which in my experience are often bogus Microsoft or UK Revenue & Customs calls, which as we all know are attempts at theft.

Seems to me there could be a whole lot more that could be done, or am I wrong?
Ant is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 13:25
  #71 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,570
Ant, I suspect it is more subtle than that. They call connects as it comes via a valid connection. What is invalid is the number displayed at your end. There is also the possibility of skipping. Like internet email and web hacking they may have hacked the phone line. You ring back and if course the back doesn't work.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 13:40
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,507
Originally Posted by Ant View Post
The 2 we had this morning are 0202 6726459 and 0235 5708140, yet despite both being an invalid and unrecognised number (try it yourselves) were nonetheless put through by Virgin Media, who it could be argued are unintentionally complicit in an attempted crime.
Those numbers may be unrecognised (i.e. they don't correspond to a subscriber), but they are in a valid UK 11-digit format. It would be difficult for your telco to distinguish between then and genuine numbers.

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 14:00
  #73 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,570
Dave, apart perhaps from a feedback check during the connection?
​​​

On my mobile I get a regular call from a 0113 number. The ring period is never long enough to answer and there is no connection or report if I ring back.

The problem with the random number is there is no clue to the scammer if you try who called me.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 15:48
  #74 (permalink)  
Ant
even ants need some lovin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Kent, UK.
Posts: 128
...a feedback check during the connection...
Pontius Navigator's idea is the sort of thing I had in mind whereby the telco checks the number's validity prior to connection to the consumer, this would delay the connection a little but would screen out some of the scammers.

By the way, shortly after posting earlier this afternoon we recieved the THIRD call in 5 hours that returns as unrecognised or invalid!

Called Virgin who can only suggest changing our landline number (useless against auto diallers trying random numbers) or buying an additional phone which has call blocking features. Might completely dispense with the landline given 99% of our phone use is on our mobiles nowadays. Seems the scammers have the upper hand until such time the phone companies really take action, something I fear they simply don't have interest in doing.
Ant is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 16:01
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,081
Originally Posted by Ant View Post
Pontius Navigator's idea is the sort of thing I had in mind whereby the telco checks the number's validity prior to connection to the consumer, this would delay the connection a little but would screen out some of the scammers.

By the way, shortly after posting earlier this afternoon we recieved the THIRD call in 5 hours that returns as unrecognised or invalid!

..................................
Have you given a thought that you really do have a breeding virus in you computer affecting everybody near you and they are the ones giving out your phone number?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 18:21
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 69
,
Originally Posted by Ant View Post
There's something I recently discovered there is in common regarding the majority of scam calls coming through on our Virgin Media landline (2 calls today already by mid-morning).

If I try calling back the scam number on the landline I will get a recorded message saying "the number you have dialled has not been recognised", and if I try on my mobile which happens to be on the O2 network there will be a pop up saying "invalid number".
The 2 we had this morning are 0202 6726459 and 0235 5708140, yet despite both being an invalid and unrecognised number (try it yourselves) were nonetheless put through by Virgin Media, who it could be argued are unintentionally complicit in an attempted crime.

So the obvious question which someone out there with some Telco knowledge may be able to answer is this: is there any reasonable way the telcos should be using to screen out these "invalid numbers" which in my experience are often bogus Microsoft or UK Revenue & Customs calls, which as we all know are attempts at theft.

Seems to me there could be a whole lot more that could be done, or am I wrong?
I think you’ve raised a very interesting point. I guess you’re thinking along the lines that by allowing the scammers use of the line, the line providers are inadvertently acting as agents for them. I’m no legal expert, but to be guilty of anything, I think Virgin et al would have to be proven to be complicit (benefiting from the crime) which clearly they’re not. However, I assume they might possibly be guilty of negligence because by appearing to do nothing. I’ve looked up the legal definition of negligence and it could apply:

“Any act or omission which falls short of a standard to be expected of “the reasonable man.” For a claim in negligence to succeed, it is necessary to establish that a duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant, that the duty was breached, that the claimant's loss was caused by the breach of duty and that the loss fell within the defendant's scope of duty and was a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty.”

“Negligence occurs when someone injures or causes a loss to another because of their careless or reckless behaviour. In everyday life, negligence could include a lack of care for the consequences of one’s actions or using less care than that of a reasonable person.”

But again, I am interested in, but have no knowledge of the legal system so stand to be corrected by any learned friends!

i was having a similar discussion with a good friend at the weekend who happens to be very senior in a major high street bank. I was expressing my disappointment at the seemingly indifferent approach the financial institutions took to fraud and why they weren’t obviously pursuing these miscreants? He told me that the rate at which the scammers evolve and change their modus operandi meant that it really wasn’t worth the monetary investment investigating and regulary changing the bank systems, Therefore, the banks take a pragmatic view and just set aside funds for these issues. I’ve never quite grasped how stealing 20,000 in cash seems to be a more heinous crime than taking the same amount via computer fraud?
BehindBlueEyes is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 21:21
  #77 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,570
BBE, at one time banks would balance books to a penny. A retired auditor many years ago said they were happy if the balanced within 5,000. It was not cost effective to go beyond that.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2019, 21:40
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,415
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
BBE, at one time banks would balance books to a penny. A retired auditor many years ago said they were happy if the balanced within 5,000. It was not cost effective to go beyond that.
Mrs GtW has just been told by a tax person not to bother to tell them if, when she's finished the sums over a particular set of transactions, she owes less than 100 tax. This surprised me, I wasn't expecting them to care about anything much less than a grand.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 02:36
  #79 (permalink)  
TWT
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: troposphere
Posts: 680
I received an SMS supposedly from the Red Cross today.

It addressed me by name and requested that I give up a few hours of my time to go door to door for them collecting money. I have never had any dealings with the Red Cross.

If it was actually the Red Cross, then they're being very cheeky, if it wasn't then it doesn't matter because the number is now blocked in my phone.
TWT is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2019, 07:36
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: spacetime
Posts: 256
Had a look through all the blocked calls on my mobile and landline and the majority are either 0203 numers or 0161 850 numbers The latter were all attributed to PPI calls. 0203 has no geographiical postcode. There were also a couple from 88888888.
gemma10 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.