Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday September 15 2018, @05:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the http://www.archersecuritygroup.com/dont-fall-double-digit-phone-scam/ dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

By next year, nearly half of the mobile phone calls we get will be scams, according to a new report from First Orion, a company that provides calls management and protection for T-Mobile, MetroPCs, Virgin Mobile and others.

The percentage of scam calls in US mobile traffic increased from 3.7 percent last year to 29.2 percent this year, and it's predicted to rise to 44.6 percent in 2019, First Orion said in a press release Wednesday.

The most popular method scammers use to try to get people to pick up the phone is called "neighborhood spoofing," where they disguise their numbers with a local prefix so people presume the calls are safe to pick up, First Onion said. Third-party call blocking apps may help protect consumers from known scam numbers, but they can't tell if a scammer hijacks someone's number and uses it for scam calls.

"Year after year, the scam call epidemic bombards consumers at record-breaking levels, surpassing the previous year and scammers increasingly invade our privacy at new extremes," First Orion CEO Charles Morgan said in the press release.

Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/almost-half-of-us-cell-phone-calls-will-be-scams-by-next-year-says-report/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday September 16 2018, @08:25AM

    by anubi (2828) on Sunday September 16 2018, @08:25AM (#735577) Journal

    How much did our Government set as a penalty for copying a song? How much money is involved here? And how common is this so-called "crime"?

    Now the scam costs a lot more to the scamee than a buck or theater ticket. And it was a deliberate deprivation and misrepresentation from the scammer. Should the penalties be in line with what Congress approved for the RIAA? Or should Congress treat a crime against the public to a lesser degree than say a "crime" against the MAFIAA?

    We elected these guys into office to represent us. This is the kind of stuff we need to bring up every time a politician opens up to any questions before elections. Starting off with "to what extent should we hold people responsible for their promises?"... down the line of "Do you think a politician who does not carry out his promises should be treated with the same kind of action that one who renegs on a contract will get?"... and see what kind of response they come up with.

    I noticed many years ago that scammers were sending bogus numbers on caller-ID, and it made me really wonder why in all blue blazes, with all the control phone companies like to have, why they let people self-assign themselves a number to be displayed on caller-id? This is like letting us all make up bogus credit card credentials to pay our telephone bills with. If that got loose, I am quite sure the telcos would pounce on it as fast as they did to knock out blue boxes.

    In the end, we are going to train the populace to not do business with anyone they do not know... so the WalMarts, Amazons, and AliExpress will end up as being seen as trustworthy, and people scared to offer real names and payment credentials for a small thing, as its just not worth the risk that its a scammer.

    I will NOT buy stuff of the internet with nearly the "reckless impulse buying" that I exhibit with cash purchase in a store, for I know that with a cash purchase, what I saw and held in my hand is what I got, and that's the end of it. No surprise finding out that I have agreed to accept further obligations by buying the thing in the first place. Such as what happens on TV ads when they offer a "30 day trial... free shipping! for only $59.95", only to discover the thing is gonna cost $400 to ship back to China when it arrives, and the real price of the thing is $600! The *trial* was $59.95!

    Or when they offer me a "free trial" of some pill then the voiceover slips in very quickly, once, the words "with autodelivery". That's right... take them up on their offer for a supply of diet pills for the low price of only $1.95 shipping for a supply of pills "valued" at $29.95, and you quickly find those bottles and an invoice arriving in your mailbox every month! Now, the onus is on you to get off of their list. Right out of the AOL playbook! And they have an agreement from you, and access to foul up your credit record... over diet pills probably no more effective than taking a dose of grass clippings.

    I really hate to pay for *anything* with banking credentials, especially if they speak businesstalk and lots of fine print. I do not know what future obligations I am agreeing to by giving them any money in the first place. That "motormouth in the background" or fine print flashing on the screen is a sure "tell" that I am likely being scammed, and calling that number on the screen is just as risky as clicking links in unsolicited spam email.

    If a business has to resort to that kind of trickery to get his money, I'd just as soon not get involved in it. By using deliberately misleading language ( I call it "businesstalk"), he's already shown his hand. Its a lot easier to avoid the poo on the sidewalk than it is to clean it off your shoes.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]