Slashdot Mirror


Telemarketer Blows Whistle on Tape-Altering Scam

Recently, Florida-based telemarketing firm Epixtar is frequently accused of cramming an extra $30 onto phone charges of small businesses, yet has proof of legality by recording their calls. Until they laid off some people, one of whom has blown the whistle. The companies' cramming tactics become "legal" by altering those taped recordings to include a quick statement about the $30 charge. MSNBC has the article, including a short audio clip of a sample call.

16 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. That Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Makes my head hurt.

  2. Until they laid some people... by jhoffoss · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    How exactly does a business of any kind "lay" you? I've heard of getting screwed...but never getting laid.

    --
    Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
    1. Re:Until they laid some people... by rune2 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And hell, if getting fired meant getting laid you might actually look forward it! Hot sexy female Boss: "Your fired!" You: "Woohoo!"

    2. Re:Until they laid some people... by thynk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hot sexy female Boss: "Your fired!" You: "Woohoo!"

      Oh dear, I have a fat ugly boss... ::shudder::

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    3. Re:Until they laid some people... by gmhowell · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Big deal; I work in the family business.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  3. Re:"Laid" some people? by Barbarian · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Seems like the ones not getting layed would be the ones to blow the whistle

    Well that really depends on who was playing the "girl", the employer or the employee.

  4. explain this one away by dzym · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    "laid some employees"

    Can't even explain this one away by blaming the submitter of the story, eh, editors? I mean, seeing as you wrote it all. :)

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. dear timothy... by outsider007 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you're about to get laid. and by laid I mean fired.

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  7. Man... by SnakeEyes · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Man, I *hate* it when the people I lay, blow the whistle on me. :)

    --
    Come on, Tinkler, Tink!!
  8. Re:They WHA?! by rf0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They just need to relax and unwind

    Rus

  9. Re:Morality? by enkidu · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    And what is wrong with not wanting guns on the premises? There are lots of ways (even ones that would be no fault of the trained woman) in which an accident could have happened.
    Name one. Would the evil gun jump out of her holster and start shooting people? Gun accidents are almost invariably a case of gun negligence. Following the four basic rules of gun handling (1. Guns are always loaded, 2. Never point a gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy. 3. Keep you finger off the trigger (and out of the trigger guard fer Christ's sake!) until you are on target. 4. Be aware of your target and what lies before and beyond) in addition to a secure holster will always result in NO danger to anyone. The added rules are, of course, that you don't hand a gun to anyone who doesn't know the 4 rules of gun safety and you always completely unload and check your piece before you hand it to anyone who does know the 4 rules of gun safety.
    I respect your right to own a gun, but you have to respect my right to have you leave it outside my house.
    and I respect that right. But my workplace is not your house. If carrying a gun doesn't interfere with my duties, what difference does it make to you? If I am intent on using a gun to commit a crime, will saying "don't bring your gun to work" deter me? And if I am not intent on comitting a crime, wouldn't you prefer to have me armed?
    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  10. Re:Morality? by enkidu · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Boss' Lawyer: I call the plaintiff's lawyer to the stand. So, Mr. Lawyer, do you have a no weapons policy for your company?

    Lawyer: (Smugly)Of course.

    Boss' Lawyer: And this policy is posted at your front door?

    Lawyer: Of course.

    Boss' Lawyer: And next to this sign you have an armed guard who searches all persons who enter your offices?

    Lawyer: No, we don't. We like to have a friendly atmosphere.

    Boss' Lawyer: Then how do you know that all person's who enter your offices are unarmed?

    Lawyer: My clients don't carry guns.

    Boss' Lawyer: So you're 100% certain that all people who have ever entered your offices have been unarmed?

    Lawyer: I can't be 100% sure.

    Boss' Lawyer: Mr. Lawyer, if Ms. Employee had decided to shoot up your offices, how would your policy have prevented her from doing so?

    Lawyer: I guess it couldn't.

    Boss' Lawyer: And could your policy have prevented this crime from occurring at the office it did occur at? Please answer yes or no.

    Lawyer: No.

    Boss' Lawyer: So you're saying that neither your policy nor my client's policy could have altered the events of XX/XX?

    Lawyer: ...

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  11. Re:Morality? by Associate · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's a good thing you're modded funny at this point. It seems to me that you are more paranoid of people with guns than the people with guns. You also seem to imply that people with guns are somehow defacto incompetent.

    I for one have infact carried a gun to work. I did leave it in the car. No need to push my luck. The reason I did is because I work in a town that is notorious for it's lawlessness. Also, at the time, there were some rather unstable individuals working here. One even threatened to shoot up the place. Instead of getting rid of the nut case, they just mothered him along. Since he fell into the big, dumb and stupid catagory a firearm would be the only reasonable means of self defense. I could have used the company issued box cutters, but knife wounds can be so messy.

    Also, your AC status would indicate that either you are on the Left coast or in France.

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  12. Re:Let me guess... by Associate · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You're a moron. :P

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  13. Re:Morality? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    You have a very warped idea of what St. Constantine was up to.

    Go read your history books, just a couple of weeks before the council he had half his own family executed. He was not exactly the nicest of folk.

    Constantine's objectives were purely political. He wanted to unite the empire under a single state religion. It was clear that the rule of Rome could not continue without some stronger cohesive force than the Imperium.

    The deal that the church struck was that it would become the favored state religion in return for complete support for the state.

    "...a year after the Council of Nicea, he (Constantine) sanctioned the confiscation and destruction of all works that challenged orthodox teachings - works by pagan authors that referred to Jesus, as well as works by "heretical" Christians. He also arranged for a fixed income to be allocated to the Church and installed the bishop of Rome in the Lateran Palace

    Constantine himself was not baptised until he was on his deathbed. Before that he was a follower of Sol Invictus. The political stroke of genius lay in realising that he could merge the two religions into one. That is why we have SUNday as the holy day, it was actually the holy day of Sol Invictus first.

    Other transfers from the pagan cults include the Eucharist itself which was described as one of the rites of Bachanalia 200 odd years BC. That caused some problems in the middle ages with the accepted explanation being that this was the work of the devil anticipating Christ.

    We have no idea what the true new testament said. None of the documents that have survived are earlier than about 400AD. Diocletian ordered all documents destroyed in 303AD leaving the field wide open for the editors at Nicea.

    But hey, why bother with the problems of 350AD when half the church still uses the Received version text which is based on Erasmus's hastily thrown together edition of 1515.

    We have no basis whatsoever for any claim wrt the authority of the church or the Empire that was not manufactured by the church in colusion with the state.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/