Slashdot Mirror


FTC Whacks "Rachel From Card Holder Services"

coondoggie writes "Just two weeks after it challenged the public to come up with a better technological way to stop incessant robocalling, the Federal Trade Commission pulled the plug on five mass calling companies it said were allegedly responsible for millions of illegal pre-recorded calls from 'Rachel' and others from 'Cardholder Services.' 'At the FTC, Rachel from Cardholder Services is public enemy number one,' said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz at the announcement of the cases."

39 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. I know that bitch! by conureman · · Score: 5, Funny

    How she got my number is beyond me.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:I know that bitch! by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just hope they take the company owners, strap them to chairs, and force them to watch nothings adverts/infomercials, and while they sleep force them to hear robocall recordings. Do it 24/7/365, a' la A Clockwork Orange.

      What they do with "Rachael" is not my concern. >:(

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:I know that bitch! by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wont happen, all of these complaints are against LLCs, which are basically shell companies.
      If you look at the complaints, many of them are single owner. This means that the LLCs have no money on purpose.
      They will just close them down and open under new names.

    3. Re:I know that bitch! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obama needs to change his campaign slogan to "GM is Alive and Rachel is Dead". He'll win in a landslide.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:I know that bitch! by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      > This means that the LLCs have no money on purpose.
      > They will just close them down and open under new names.

      Look up "piercing the corporate veil". Not to mention that the FTC can refer the cases to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution (the FTC itself has no criminal authority).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    5. Re:I know that bitch! by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wait, this chick's been auto-dialing slashdot readers and she still can't get a date? That's what you call desperate!

    6. Re:I know that bitch! by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      A vote for Obama continues to be a vote for plutocracy.

      Yeah, we should cut out the middle-man, and elect an actual plutocrat instead!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  2. Congratulations, FTC, and thanks! by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Simple as that. Glad to know someone was taking it seriously. And your next impossible mission, should you choose to accept it... "the chimney company."

    1. Re:Congratulations, FTC, and thanks! by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Informative

      How can you spoof the caller ID anyway? I mean shouldn't the telephone company know the caller ID of whoever is initiating the call (to know where to send the invoice for the call)?

      They do know, when the call originates in their network. When it passes off to another network, they only know which network it came from, and who *that network* says it is. The honour system is what keeps ATT and Verizon (and so forth) from passing deliberately bad information between each other (and the threat of pissed off customers). That's how spoofing caller ID works... when you pass off into another network, give them bad information about the identity. If the call originates from a VOIP phone, especially an international VOIP phone, then there isn't much control over what information gets passed to your local carrier. And you can't simply block all VOIP lines, because there are legitimate VOIP carriers in the market, too.

      Obligatory disclaimer: I work for a phone company, though in a different LOB.

    2. Re:Congratulations, FTC, and thanks! by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the telephone company knows trunking information. Remember that, the "Recieving" customer isn't getting billed... so our phone system was never designed to care who initiated the call. All your local switch knows is that the call is coming in on Trunk XYZ from some neighboring phone company... that company got it from somewhere else... and on and on. Caller ID was introduced much later and is just basically extra data tacked onto the call. It was designed not to be all that accurate intentionally. Imagine working at a bank and calling one of your customers. You want the banks phone number to show up, not your desk phone. Now that we're in the situation that we're in, it all looks very short sighted... but remember when all these systems were designed there was no VOIP systems. In order to initiate a call you needed a phone company to do that for you, and they would need to be complicit in your fraud. But now with VOIP services everywhere, with a little bit of knowledge you can do just about anything you want.

    3. Re:Congratulations, FTC, and thanks! by veganboyjosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe it goes something like this:

      1. charge customers for caller ID on incoming calls.
      2. charge customers for the ability to hide their ID on outgoing calls.
      3. charge customers for the ability to "see" hidden ID's on incoming calls.
      4. go to number 2. rinse and repeat.

    4. Re:Congratulations, FTC, and thanks! by PPH · · Score: 4, Informative

      That only works within the local POTS network. If the call originates from a different exchange, they don't know the source number, only the exchange it came from.

      E911 services are not intended to be used across exchanges. When you call 9-1-1, you get routed to the dispatch center local to your exchange.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  3. Halleluja! by chill · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been receiving no less than 3 calls a week for the last 6 months from "Card Services" with this robocall. The numbers were always different, so blocking didn't help.

    Often the calls came in as late as 9:00 p.m., which was seriously annoying.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Halleluja! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a reason the numbers are always different.

      Not many know that caller ID is in no way reliable or secure. If you have a PRI/BRI/digital phone circut/whatever (Pretty much anything but an analog POTS line) you can specify the calling party number however you like. It doesn't even need to be a valid phone number! (It's fun to call your friends with the caller ID number of '666' and speak in a creepy voice)

      Legitimately, this is so you can treat your physical lines as an aggregate pool in a phone system so your user can have the correct caller ID from any outgoing line in the pool.

      Technically, however, it's illegal to spoof your caller ID for the purposes of evading identification. The caller ID number should resolve to something you can call back on. Either that, or it should report as caller ID blocked. (You can request that the phone company block all caller-id blocked calls.)

      Nowadays, the law (correctly, imo) pretty much makes running profitable robocall operations illegal. Since for-profit robocallers are now fly by night illegal operations anyway, they flaunt the caller ID spoofing laws.

    2. Re:Halleluja! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not so fast with the joy of victory there Bubba Chill, I received one of these calls about half an hour ago. Plus TFA says that the FTC filed complaints in court - not that the companies were shut down. So as always, the summary may have embellished the truth a bit in order to make the front page.

      Also, remember what's happening next week? It's an election. One major party (R) and one notable second string party (L) have vowed to reduce federal bureaucracy to that American business will be free to go about the business of American business without interference from burdensome government regulations and oversight. Can you image reducing government regulation and bureaucracy by eliminating the FTC trying to enforce the do not call list? I know, that's an extremely unpopular (and troll-worthy) example of where deregulation could take us but it is an example of how reducing government regulation of business can lead to undesirable (for most consumers) business practices.

    3. Re:Halleluja! by omnichad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well that sounds unnecessarily complex. I have this setup at home via Asterisk: 1) Call comes in 2) Prompt whether they are calling for me (press 1) or my wife (press 2). 3) Caller ID on phones show who the call is for and I don't have to answer my wife's calls. And we get ZERO robo calls. Those calls get hung up on after 3 repeats of the prompt and no button press.

      Really, the robocall blocking was just a bonus. This is how we survived when I was working from home and routed all calls to all phones in the apartment.

    4. Re:Halleluja! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      (It's fun to call your friends with the caller ID number of '666' and speak in a creepy voice)

      But first, get some sulfur hexaflouride.
      It sounds amazing.

    5. Re:Halleluja! by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't try talking to the operators of these calls. They're abusive or they just hang up fast. I once tried to play along, but they told me I wasn't eligible, so they called me again two days later.

      If you're not busy, you can get some entertainment out of stringing them along for as long as you can. Not only does it totally piss them off when they find out that you're screwing with them, but every minute that they spend talking to you is a minute less that they have to potentially make money from scamming someone else.

      If everyone who got these calls would just answer and talk to them for a single minute without giving them any usable information, it would become so unprofitable that they would have to shut down.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  4. My new top issue in the 2012 election by tfocker4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is giving whoever took care of this one billion dollars.

  5. foghorn? by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope the pre-recorded foghorn caller is included. I think it's offering some travel package, but since the first thing you hear is a loud lighthouse foghorn sound, I haven't listened to the pitch for the last several years. They've been attacking my office line about 3 times a year for the past decade, from different caller ID numbers.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:foghorn? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hacked a quick script together to invoke 'mrnumber' (.com) or equiv service when my modem (yes, real modem on real landline) says the callerid (network CID, actually, so I just connect to a tcp port to get broadcasts of the CID).

      the mrnumber crowdsourced website seems to have decent enough go/noGo score so that I can just let the phone ring (let them think there's nothing connected, no person or machine there) or I can answer it if I want.

      its getting to be like email, where you want whitelists and anything not in that list gets a 2nd thought if you even want to let them pass-thru to the voicemail/ans mach.

      I have no solution for cellphones, but I'm not a big cellphone user anyway, so that solves that, for me. landline abuse is not technically hard to solve if you simply let them 'age you out' due to the line never ever being answered when they call. and if they don't give up, well, you still never get bothered. (my scheme will eventually have a hardware relay that passes thru the 2 phone wires or not, so that your phone chain, below, won't even ring or bother you).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  6. Please pierce the corporate veil by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now, assuming we bust all 5 companies and take everything they have, is there any way to go after the owners personally for the frauds they've committed? Or is this going to be yet another instance of the all-too-common business plan:
    1. Set up a scam company.
    2. Scam people.
    3. Government busts the company, forces it into bankruptcy.
    4. Personally, you avoided punishment because it's limited liability.
    5. Profit!
    6. Repeat as many times as you like.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Please pierce the corporate veil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually one of the reasons the corporate veil can be pierced is that it is just being used as a front for illegal behavior. If you have over a certain number it's actually worse because you are subject to additional charged under RICO.

    2. Re:Please pierce the corporate veil by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Informative

      Limited liability only protects you from torts (some private person suing you personally for something your company does.) It doesn't shield you from criminal liability. If your company breaks the law, you are personally responsible, if it was your decision. This is why Bernie Madoff is in jail - his company was defrauding it's investors, but it was his decision to do so.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Please pierce the corporate veil by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take a look at the 5 cases, they are linked to in the article. I like this one:

      Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff v. ELH Consulting, LLC, also d/b/a Proactive Planning Solutions; Purchase Power Solutions, LLC; Allied Corporate Connection, LLC; Complete Financial Strategies, LLC; 3Point14 Consulting, LLC, also d/b/a Elite Planning Group; Key Tech Software Solutions, LLC, also d/b/a Key One Solutions; Emory L. Holley IV a/k/a Jack Holley, individually and as the sole member of ELH Consulting, LLC; Lisa Miller, individually and as the sole member of Allied Corporate Connection, LLC, Complete Financial Strategies, LLC, and Purchase Power Solutions, LLC; Rares Stelea, individually and as the sole member of 3Point14 Consulting, LLC; and Justin Journay, individually and as the sole member of Key Tech Software Solutions, LLC, Defendants.

      Over the 5 cases, in addition to the various corporate entities they name 12 individuals.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  7. But Why FTC??? by solardiesel · · Score: 5, Funny

    She is the only girl that has called me in the last 3 years...

    Forever Alone...

  8. But when, and how, did they "pull the plog"? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No information on when they did this, but I got a call from the outfit just two days ago, so they were still operational on Tuesday.

    Or, is this like so many other things done at the administrative level nowadays? "We shut them down, by sending a strongly worded letter to the post office box listed somewhere!"

    1. Re:But when, and how, did they "pull the plog"? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

      All 5 cases are linked in the article. As to "when", the cases are dated today, the 1st. As to "how", the cases include things like temporary restraining orders, permanent injunctions, and asset freezes that the FTC is requesting from the court.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  9. Yes! by Anon-Admin · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am so fed up of these calls as well as the collection companies trying to collect on debts from 20 years ago.

    I did find a way to get them to pull you from the list.

    1) Set up asterisks phone system.
    2) Record the three tone sound and message that is played when you call a number than no longer exists.
    3) Set the message played to a blocked caller in asterisks to be the recording of the tones with the message that the number no longer exists.
    4) Blacklist every one of those F***ERS

    When the system detects the tone it will remove your number from the list, Even if they have someone check the number it will play the "Has been disconnected or is no longer in service" message.

    It cut my calls down to maybe one a month getting through and I just hit *32 after they get through and add the new number to the black list.

    1. Re:Yes! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have something similar with Google Voice. We moved our landline to it ($20 one time fee and another $20 one time fee to keep our old Google Voice number) and have it redirect calls to our cell phones. With Google Voice, you can mark a number as "spam" which means that, if they call again, they'll get a "This number is no longer in service" message.

      We've have a series of calls that wind up showing up in Google Voice but not ringing our phones. We were puzzled until we realized that there were probably robocalls from either scammers or politicians. (Cue joke about them being one and the same.) Other people probably marked them as spam so Google decided to mark all instances of calls from those numbers as spam. We can see the number that calls, but we don't get bothered with the actual call.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  10. The downside of google voice by StormyWeather · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have noticed most of these calls come disguised via google voice numbers. They change their numbers nonstop, and the majority of the time when you press one to talk to an operator the system is overloaded and just hangs up on you. I knew they were making crazy money when I saw that. If they can't even handle the amount of traffic the robodialer is generating for them, they are obviously being very successful.

  11. Hmmmm -- timing coincidental? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The skeptic in me thinks the FTC knew who these companies were all along. Five companies account for millions of unwanted calls a day, and disregard the DNC list? Seems that an operation like that would be hard to hide. Maybe the political pressure got to be too much and FTC felt they had to act? I'm not complaining, just asking why we had to put up with it for several years before there was any regulatory action.
    "Round up the usual suspects."

  12. The most annoying thing by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The most annoying thing about Cardholder Services is that I know the bank I used to work for actually branded themselves as "Cardmember Services" for customer service, because they had so many cobrands and partners (airlines, hotels, etc - each with their own card branding). Which means that the legitimate bank using that name lent credence to the frauds who followed after.

    I raised a concern about it back when they first started doing it (years ago), but was just a lowly programmer who clearly couldn't understand the intricacies and nuances of branding.

  13. Re:YES! Kill the sluts by gauauu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know how they actually get any "business" -- the last 3 times they've called me, I've tried playing along to see how the scam works. Somewhere along the line, as I'm telling them what my current interest rate is, they always hang up on me. It blows my mind.

    One time, though, I had fun -- my other routine is to try to explain to the poor schmuck on the line (who is probably an underpaid normal person who can't find a better job) that they are working for scammers and probably should find a different job. One lady from "Card Services" started yelling at me about how they weren't scammers, they were a organization that wants to help people and that they never break the law, and that my phone number must not actually be on the do-not-call list if they called me, because they follow the rules. It was hilarious, she carried on for 5 or 10 minutes shouting at me, and she sounded like she actually believed it.

  14. Re:Explains why she never called me back... by webmistressrachel · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you buy her lots of drinks and leave with nothing? Yeah. that was me.

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  15. Re:24/7/365? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Funny

    I assure you that there are far more than .01 hours in 7 years.

  16. Although... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    perhaps there's some vigilante justice out there.

    According the the complaint, one of the companies was run by Christopher L Miano and Dana M Miano, and operated as A+ Financial, out of 10258 S US Highway 1, Port Saint Lucie, FL. The other companies were created and run by Willy Plancher and Valbona Toska, and was in the Longwood/Winter Park/Altamonte Springs, Florida area. Their last known address was 383 Emerson Plaza, Suite 416, Altamonte Springs, FL.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  17. Re:No. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Funny

    Look, we can't afford genuine RIAA Nazgul, OK?

    That kind of evil doesn't come cheap!

  18. Re:No. by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just mention that Rachel might have stolen the recording from a copyrighted source and they will come.