Bug Sends Lost-Phone Seekers To Same Wrong Address

netbuzz writes "A mysterious GPS-tracking glitch has brought a parade of lost-phone seekers — and police officers — to the front door of a single beleaguered homeowner in Las Vegas. Each of the unexpected visitors – Sprint customers all — has arrived absolutely convinced that the man has their phone. Not so, police confirm. The same thing happened in New Orleans in 2011 and Sprint got sued. Says the Las Vegas man: 'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.''"

Comments

Would a yard-sign help?

[mekkab]

Something along the lines of "Yes, the tracker says your Phone is here. No, it is not. Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx" Lo-tech, but effective.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, not very effective since they don't have their phone.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[maccodemonkey]

According to TFA there is now a sign on his house to that effect.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

First, rage is taking over at this point. They're missing their precious shiny. And, as far as a computer's told them, you have it. Thus, what would normally be impotent rage is now focused rage: They now "know" that you've got their precious, precious shiny! Do you seriously expect them to stop and read a lowly yard sign as they advance on your home with crowbars and torches? Even worse if that yard sign is contradicting the word of an all-knowing, completely logical, infallible computer? A computer just like their missing pet shiny?

Second, as others have pointed out, they don't have their phones. They can't call Sprint.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[oddjob1244]

Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx

Telling people, who are looking for their lost phone, to call a number, might not be the most effective tactic. =)

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Mr_Silver]

Something along the lines of "Yes, the tracker says your Phone is here. No, it is not. Please call SPRINT at 1-800-xxx-xxxx" Lo-tech, but effective.

It's not a great picture, but he appears to have a sign next to his front door saying pretty much that.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[arth1]

It's not a great picture, but

I found a better picture.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Filthy Hobbits stole my precious!

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[icebike]

According to TFA there is now a sign on his house to that effect.

If I was stealing cell phones, I'd put that sign up too.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[icebike]

Because we all know that everybody has access to exactly one phone in this world.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

what's wrong with rubbing their nose in their lack of phone security?

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Mr. Slippery]

Telling people, who are looking for their lost phone, to call a number, might not be the most effective tactic. =)

And that, kids, is why your elders have land lines. Now get off my lawn.

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, that worked great in the Olympic opening show ... ... A sends a text "I've got your phone" ...B replys (sans phone) "where can i meet ya?"

Not sure exactly how it worked, but...

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[almitydave]

"I'm sorry, but your cell phone is in another castle!"

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I really had your phone I would have disabled GPS long before I allowed it anywhere near my home address."

Re:Would a yard-sign help?

[BonzaiThePenguin]

In that case, people who really don't have the phone can put up another sign explaining that the first sign isn't there to trick them, because they really seriously don't have their phone. Problem solved.

i would sue

[alen]

it has been over a year and sprint can't fix the problem

a nice letter to their legal department may move things along

Re:i would sue

[plover]

He could offer to move to a nicer house in a nicer part of town, and sell his house to Sprint. Better, he could offer to sell his house to AT&T and let them open a ATT Wireless store in his house - after being screwed by Sprint, perhaps their frustrated customers would be looking for a change.

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, too complicated.

He should start actually stealing phones.

Re:i would sue

[vlm]

I'm guessing the reason why it tracks to his house is he's the closest resident to a tower, so if GPS nav fails, it picks the strongest tower?

So they've already got an unmanned facility across the street or whatever. Put a sign up there, put a manned store there, whatever.

Re:i would sue

[Lumpy]

Better is that Sprint buys him a brand new house where ever he chooses. It's their fault they OWE him at least that because they are not capable of fixing the problem

Re:i would sue

[arth1]

As far as I can tell, the problem is the problem of educating your users. The position given is a triangulation starting point, with an error margin of hundreds of feet in all directions. It may very well be the best starting point they have, and thus correct for its purpose and not a bug.
What it isn't is a promise that the phone will be at that point, and I highly doubt that Sprint claims this either.
The last time I saw a cell phone locator, it listed a margin of error in yards, as well as a disclaimer that this was based on last reception.

Re:i would sue

[alen]

close

i read this somewhere else yesterday and its actually the fault of Clark County. Seems they made a mistake and gave the cell phone tower his address in their records.

still sprint's fault for not putting a some kind of fix in

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea actually. Every time the police tracks a phone to him they will just say "Oh no, not that bug again".

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

They OWE him a new home? I mean, sure, they bear responsibility here and ought to make up for it, but if all it took to get a new home was suffering a few idiots now and again, I know a lot of people who would willingly sign up for that.

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget the legal term, but there is a legal precedent for compelling an entity to purchase a property at full market value (as if it didn't have the problem) if the entity did something that significantly diminished the value of the home. A friend of mine, for example, lived in a neighborhood where the city engineers screwed up the design of the sewer system. The city happily paid for the cleanup each time it backed up into their home (yuck!) but they were able to compel the city to buy the home at full market value since nobody in their right mind would want to live there with a history of such a problem (even after the city fixed the issue).

Re:i would sue

[icebike]

Wait, cell towers have nothing to do with GPS, other than supplying almanac data. This Almanac data helps the phone locate the satellites faster.

The only time the address of the cell tower would come into play is if the owner or the thief shut off the GPS.

End users can't get the location of their cell phone without installing some software ahead of time, Such as Lookout or Find My IPhone.

Further, If the owner turns their GPS off, or the thief turns it off, those apps would only be able to report a rough triangulation of the last known position IF ANYTHING at all.

Neither Sprint nor Clark County can be responsible here, the company making the App is at fault if it is reporting a location that was based ONLY on the last tower it saw, without making this clear to the owner checking the web for their phone's location.

Re:i would sue

[icebike]

The position given is a triangulation starting point, with an error margin of hundreds of feet in all directions

Nobody uses triangulation from towers anymore, certainly not end-users.
And Sprint won't tell you where your phone is. Even if you are the rightful owner of record. Liability reasons. They might tell the police, but not the owner.

Phones these days all have GPS receivers in them that get their position from GSP satellites.
Owners have to use self installed applications to retrieve the phone location remotely.

But if the user turns off the GPS, (and in Vegas you could see why they might), then the best the applications can do is
report the last tower(s) the phone saw.

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

close

i read this somewhere else yesterday and its actually the fault of Clark County. Seems they made a mistake and gave the cell phone tower his address in their records.

still sprint's fault for not putting a some kind of fix in

Er, unless I'm misreading something here, the "some kind of fix" you speak of sounds like a 30-second fix to correct the address of a cell tower.

If that is the case, then perhaps everyone involved should be fired for incompetency.

Re:i would sue

[stenvar]

Wait, cell towers have nothing to do with GPS

Except that most people don't know the difference between the different location technologies and just call them all "GPS".

The only time the address of the cell tower would come into play is if the owner or the thief shut off the GPS.

Well, gosh, might a thief have any reason to do that... let me think about that.

Neither Sprint nor Clark County can be responsible here,

Sprint has their own location service; that's probably involved here.

And for government records to list things at your address that aren't there is a problem, whether it's a nightclub, a waste processing plant, or a cell tower.

Re:i would sue

[fermion]

So your saying he lives next door to a chronic cell phones thief. Are you saying the las vegas police are not competent enough to check next door? Seems if there was a ring of cell phone thieves, and they knew the general location, they would have some incentive to take them down.

Re:i would sue

[Lumpy]

The GPS receiver in modern (made in the last 2 years) phones is drastically better than the junk in phones before that. Even my year old Nexus HSPA get's a very good location lock while in the office on the 1st floor all the time. Where as the garbage that was my Droid II could barely get a GPS lock on a cloudy day.

Re:i would sue

[mattack2]

since nobody in their right mind would want to live there with a history of such a problem (even after the city fixed the issue).

Do you mean fixed it *permanently*? If so, then that might be a way to buy a house at a nice discount. If it truly was fixed permanently and properly cleaned up, why not buy it?

Re:i would sue

[AK Marc]

Except that most people don't know the difference between the different location technologies and just call them all "GPS".

The confusion is not just among those who don't know better. It's my global position, from a system. Those who want to refer to "The GPS" say things like "the GPS positioning system". Some of the initial disambiguation failed miserably because they tried to do things like "radio GPS" for radio-tower GPS, to differentiate it from the GPS satellites that use radio. Wait, that's not so clear either. Sat-GPS and tower-GPS would probably work better for people to understand, or maybe GPS will return to specific use when "location services" takes off to replace the generic global position language.

Re:i would sue

[treeves]

So if they had not made the mistake, and things were working the way they are supposed to, all these people looking for their lost/stolen cell phones would end up at a cell tower? Sounds like a great plan.

Re:i would sue

[SolitaryMan]

He could offer to move to a nicer house in a nicer part of town, and sell his house to Sprint. Better, he could offer to sell his house to AT&T and let them open a ATT Wireless store in his house - after being screwed by Sprint, perhaps their frustrated customers would be looking for a change.

Because ATT is the carrier people turn to when they are looking for a good service.

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded? Let us both see if we can find the answer in one of the lines you posted....

"The only time the address of the cell tower would come into play is if the owner or the thief shut off the GPS."

I wonder what might have caused sprints "find my phone" system to provide the address of the cell tower.

Re:i would sue

[Anonymous Coward]

Find My IPhone app does not need to be installed on lost device ahead of time. You can
locate your iphone/ipad via apple web site. This app can be installed on some other idevice and be used to locate your lost device.

Re:i would sue

[AmiMoJo]

End users can't get the location of their cell phone without installing some software ahead of time

You can on Android. Check out Plan B, a free app that you can install remotely from Google Play after your phone has gone missing.

Sucks to be him

[kenh]

While frustrating for him, from the outside looking in, it's kinda funny. No matter what he does to assert his innocence, it will appear as lies to the owner of the missing phone...

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

At least to people who don't think first.
If he actually had their phone, and knew about it, would be be so stupid as to not turn it off?

Re:Sucks to be him

[hattig]

It's funny except that it's taking a lot of his time, it must be extremely stressful, the fact that people turn up at any time must be affecting his sleep, his mental state, and so on.

And that's before someone turning up possibly gets violent.

And their costs to get there. Why are they going? Because the police refuse to deal with stolen phone cases even where there is a GPS signal, so people go out on their own or with mates to reclaim their property.

Quite clearly this problem needs a solution very soon before something bad happens.

Re:Sucks to be him

[berashith]

For a long time I had a deadbeat using my phone number while obtaining lines of credit. The collectors would start calling and asking for her, and there was nothing that I could say to them to convince them that I did not know her, she did not live at my house, had never lived at my house, etc. It looks like lies no matter what, and these arent people who are willing to actually follow the laws about harrasment. They bothered me enough that I was ready to hunt her down for them.

Re:Sucks to be him

[h4rr4r]

The police doing their job seems to be the best solution. This seems pretty common though. A friend once reported a theft from a vehicle and the police were annoyed he made them fill out a report when he did not have insurance for this. They literally did not even want to collect basic information that could be used to monitor the number of crimes occurring much less attempt to catch the perpetrators.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if they break the laws for harassment you can get thousands of dollars out of them.

Hell, there are guys who deliberately take out, say, twenty buck of loans, get it sold to one of those collectors, and make their living off of suing debt collectors who violate the law.

Re:Sucks to be him

[VAXcat]

The same thing happened to me, and the anti harassment laws were useless to help. Here's why - the anti harassment laws only protect the person they are looking for. Since you are not the person they are looking for, they can call your number as often as they like - you can't request they stop, since you aren't the person with the debt. Only the person they are trying to collect from has any protections under the law. Calls to the police and the state Attorney general's office yielded no help at all. Begging and pleading, reason and logic, they fell on deaf ears - these people were going to call three times a day and there was no way to stop them. I even tried imitating the person they were looking for, in order to invoke the law telling them to stop calling, but my deep voice couldn't produce a realistic woman's voice (the deadbeat was female). I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell them to stop calling you. Either they stop or you get thousands from them. Talk to a lawyer.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell them, "That person doesn't work here anymore." They are less likely to call and harass a business.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the AC, don't do their job for them. Document everything, sue them, and then they might be more careful next time.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Savage-Rabbit]

While frustrating for him, from the outside looking in, it's kinda funny. No matter what he does to assert his innocence, it will appear as lies to the owner of the missing phone...

It's really funny until some nutter with a gun, a short temper and a generous interpretation of stand-your-ground rights comes looking for his stolen phone.

Re:Sucks to be him

[geekoid]

Probably less want and more man power issue.
and the vast amount of 'stolen phones' are lost phones.
You see this same thing with wallets as well.
Interesting story: in 1989 there was a string of pickpockets in Reno. So the police started keeping certain areas under surveillance.
There were no pickpockets. There where people leaving the casino, literally through their wallet away and often injuring there face in some manner.
Upon questioning these people, it turned out they didn't want to tell their spouse they lost all their money in the casino.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Ambvai]

I had this problem when I first got my Google Voice number before. I ended up redirecting the number to the front office of the collection agency. After three months, I never got a call from them again.

Re:Sucks to be him

[s0nicfreak]

Yes, actually, it happens quite often that someone steals or finds a phone and then does not turn it off. Why bother to take it if all you're going to use it for is a paperweight?

Re:Sucks to be him

[MightyYar]

Well, we do give law enforcement hell when crime doesn't improve... can't really fault them for following the incentive not to report. I'm not sure what the proper incentive structure should be, but I bet the smarty-smarts here could come up with something better. For instance, perhaps a commission that follows up on some percentage of 911 calls.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have asked for an address to send a cease and desist letter to. If they continue to call after getting that you can sue. On top of that if it was a cell phone they were calling they can be fined $5000 per attempt. You needed a better lawyer.

Re:Sucks to be him

[pauls2272]

No. Your wrong. The max you can get is controlled by the FTC. The max is quite small - like $500. Then Good Luck ever collecting that even after you "win".

This is assuming you can get them to 1. Identify themselves, 2. Give you a real address (not a PO box) so you can spend $50+ on a server to serve them after you file suit in small claims court. Most would hang up once I asked for them to identify themselves and give me a real address.

Then there are the larger companies that not only spoof the caller id but use a record-a-call wanting you to call back and give a incident number to. When you do that, the debt collector will claim they are no longer bound by the FDCPA ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) because THEY didn't call you, you called THEM.

I had the exact situation the OP had. I moved, got a new number and was then inundated with phone calls from collectors. Even telling them that this was my new number didn't really help. Debt Collection was a "growth industry" in the 90s. There are lists of deadbeats that are produced monthly that you can buy and start calling in your own "startup collection" business. So I was constantly getting new collection agencies calling me about the deadbeat.

The only way I got them to stop, was when I switch phone providers (I went from Cox to AT&T), I LISTED my number. Now my number was published and no longer appearing as the deadbeats number in the newest Deadbeat lists. The number of collection calls I received dramatically dropped. From getting 2-3 per week, I've got maybe 2 all last year.

Oh, I also filed a large number of complaints with the FTC - I'm sure this did nothing as I never heard 1 thing from the FTC about any of my complaints.

Re:Sucks to be him

[sumdumass]

It would depend on how sadistic he is. He might get off on seeing the look of frustration and despair in strangers eyes. He might get a power trip from knowing there really isn't anything that could be done- sort of like why some criminals return to the scene of a crime to watch the cleanup.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does provide some protection for this. You would need to send a certified mail/with written receipt Cease and Desist, and possibly debt validation demand that they substantiate involvement with the debt.

After they ignore your demands for 30 days, you then provide both your state's Attorney General and the FTC with copies of communication (it helps to have also logged illegal debt collection attempts with the FTC online).

You can sue, but your Attorney General may also do so on your behalf. Mine did. Got some money in a big settlement, though the same company has been nailed on this before.

Re:Sucks to be him

[VAXcat]

Err, I think you missed the whole point...a cease and desist order can only be done by the debtor. I wasn't the debtor, so I had no rights in the matter.

Re:Sucks to be him

[YodasEvilTwin]

Are you seriously betting against the stupidity of thieves?

Re:Sucks to be him

[mark-t]

Whether you are the debtor or not, collection agencies are required, by law, to honor all C&D requests that are submitted to them, in writing. After they receive the C&D, they are permitted to contact you only once more, and the purpose of that communication is to advise you of their next course of action. If they do not respect the C&D, contact the FTC and your state Attorney General, and advise them that the collection agency has broken the law.

If the agency refuses to give the information necessary for you to send them a C&D in writing, then this falls under the same category as a caller who refuses to identify himself, and if such calls persist without such identification, then it qualifies as full-on telephone harassment. The police can be notified in this case.

Re:Sucks to be him

[berashith]

exactly. I even considered my own public shaming campaign, but then I would be breaking the laws by publicizing the debtors obligations, and they could sue me!

Re:Sucks to be him

[pauls2272]

Certified mail to PO boxes is worthless and a waste of money. You can spend the money to do it, but the form is just deposited in the PO Box and they won't go to the window to actually get the certified mail.

None of the collection agencies that called me ever gave me a real address. Most hung up when I asked for one, others insisted that the PO box was all that was required by the FTC.

Re:Sucks to be him

[berashith]

a couple of times I called back the number they left on my voicemail. I did this if I had nothing to do that evening. I would try to find out who they were and what their address was so I could make things official, but they never would give any information that could give me any legal standing. I basically trolled them by wasting their time as I would let these calls go until they got sick of me and hung up, and then I would just call back. Didnt do anything to stop them, but it could eat into the small profit they were going to get from any payments.

Re:Sucks to be him

[number11]

Are you seriously betting against the stupidity of thieves?

I dunno, those insurance industry and Wall St. types made out pretty good.

Oh, you mean blue-collar thieves.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AmiMoJo]

Sounds like a good area for pickpockets to target. People going to the casino with plenty of cash on them and a police force that will do it's best not to investigate their crimes.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Google Voice. You can keep your number, and still give these idiots the 'doo doo doo'.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AmiMoJo]

I set up a 9.99/minute premium phone line and give that out to my creditors. They soon stop harassing me.

Re:Sucks to be him

[pauls2272]

Yeah, I did that too. But the vast majority of the callers work from home- I even heard babies crying in the background a couple times.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same way that the debtor is the only one with standing to sue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act only the creditor has obligations under it. Your publicizing the debtor's credit problems would not subject you to jurisdiction under the FDCPA. IANAL and all that.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Todd Knarr]

That would be incorrect. See Section 806 of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692d, which begins "A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.". There's also a kicker in section 805(b), which prohibits a debt collection from communicating with any third party without the consumer's consent except for the specific purposes described in section 804 on locating the actual consumer. So yes, the FDCPA provides remedies and protections for people other than the consumer.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Bob9113]

I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....

Nice! I am totally stealing that solution. Thanks!

Re:Sucks to be him

[Golddess]

That.. does not seem to make sense. If I am harassing you for any other reason, surely you'd have some legal recourse against me, right?

Re:Sucks to be him

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Did you try to get help from a house rep or a senator?

Re:Sucks to be him

[RatherBeAnonymous]

I finally had to forward my calls to a non-working number for a week. The "doo-doo-DOO you have reached a number that is not in service" message they got when they called convinced them I had changed my phone number and they couldn't call me anymore....

I have a similar problem with my cell phone number, but my phone lets me forward specific callers straight to voicemail. Collections agencies never leave voicemail.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether you are the debtor or not, collection agencies are required, by law, to honor all C&D requests that are submitted to them, in writing. After they receive the C&D, they are permitted to contact you only once more, and the purpose of that communication is to advise you of their next course of action. If they do not respect the C&D, contact the FTC and your state Attorney General, and advise them that the collection agency has broken the law.

I had the same problem as the OP, and it doesn't help.

They call up and ask if you are John Q. Debtor. If you say you're not who they're looking for, they hang up, and call back the next day do the same thing. They don't care how often you say "wrong number" or "not here." It's only 30 seconds of their time; they're not losing anything by trying.

If you try to get them to give you their business name and/or address (to send them a C/D) they'll ignore you and repeat the question, "Are you John Q. Debtor?" If you say "no," they hang up immediately (and try again the next day.)

On the other hand, if you do claim to be the debtor, then they've just gotten a valid number and will call you all the more often. And they'll log the number into their database and sell it to other debt collectors, many of whom are also anxious to reach John Q. Debtor. You could then, as the "debtor," demand their business name and address, but unless you're willing to misrepresent yourself as John Q. Debtor and send a fraudulent C/D on his behalf, you can't do anything with that knowledge. (You could send one in your own name, but it would have no legal effect, since they were never calling you anyway. They will continue to call your number since you just gave them verbal confirmation that John Q. Debtor can be reached there!)

Re:Sucks to be him

[taustin]

The laws that protect the debtor don't protect the debt collector, either. To quote Major League, "This is the outlet you've been looking for." You say say literally anything to them, and they can't do a damned thing about it without providing court-admissable evidence of their own crimes to the cops. So take your frustrations out on them. Call them names, question their intelligence, their parentage, question their species and what their mother mated with. Hell, tell them you're masturabting while you're talking to them. Take out all your frustrations on them. They'll make a note in your file that calling you is a losing game.

Free bonus hint: A debt collector who is calling you on the phone is a joke, no matter how much the debt, no matter what they threaten to do, even if you are the one that owes them money. If they were serious, you'd get a letter. The ones that call on the phone are trying to get a couple hundred bucks before they sell the debt off to another scam artist. They literally won't let you pay it off, more often than not. They are con artists. And they know it. So don't feel bad about abusing them. They, personally and individually, deserve whatever abuse you heap on them.

Re:Sucks to be him

[BattleApple]

Once someone came into the parking lot where I work, smashed my window and took my gps unit. I didn't have insurance either. I was pretty impressed with the response from the police though. They even sent a detective to collect a blood sample where the guy cut himself when he broke the window. While we were at my car, they got a call from the police in the next town, about 5 miles away, and they had caught some guys going through another car in a Walmart parking lot and they had a bag full of GPS units.
I identified my unit at the police station, then they had to hold it for evidence.. for 3 and a half @#$&% YEARS!! Court systems sucks.. the cops were pretty cool though

Re:Sucks to be him

[taustin]

That simply isn't true. Only the debtor can send a C&D under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. But anybody can send a C&D for any reason to any one at any time. Anti-harassment laws have nothing to do ith FDCPA.

The difficulty is that debt collectors who call on the phone will always be out of state, and you have to sue them in their location, which means small claims it out. You'll have to hire a lawyer, pay thousands of bucks in legal fees you have no hope of recovering, and probably not be able to collect the actual judgement because most debt collectors have nothing to sieze anyway.

Better to just convince them they're wasting their time. Make it clear that a) you're not afraid of them, because you know how powerless they are, b) you're going to waste as much of their time as you possibly can, thus costing them money, and c) you're going to be the biggest abusive prick you can possibly be over the phone, because they can't do anything about it.

You might also start screening your calls with an answering machine that says "All calls will be recorded. By staying on the line to talk to a live person, you consent to being recorded." They hate court-admissible evidence.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I went on a police ride-along once. Pretty fun job IMO, I would have done it if I didn't have eyesight issues. Anyways, some of the BS they have to put up with is just that: BS.

One incident we went to was some lady who had some Italian man profess his love to her, and they got engaged two days later. He couldn't afford a ring, so she bought the ring, an expensive one too. He says he needs to take it to a jeweler to do some sort of adjustment, and then disappears with it for good. She doesn't know his real name, only what he told her what it was, and a vague description of what he looks like. Not a whole lot of information to go after, but her and the rest of the public expect the police to actually be able to do something about it.

Another incident was an alarm on somebody's home security system. The officer told me that 99% of the time they are false alarms. Nonetheless, him and a few other officers had to go through the regular routine of pistols drawn, slicing the pie, and all of that jazz (since the owner wasn't home - also ever since columbine, regular cops now have to go through at least some SWAT training and engage a potential hostile situation accordingly, whereas before they would dispatch special officers to do that.) Huge waste of time, but it is obligatory anyways.

Resources are finite, and the police are constantly busy. They can't be arsed to take every little issue seriously. Some people wonder why the police will take a long time to show up at the scene of an accident when there is no injury involved, but will show up quickly if there is fighting or if somebody is injured. If it is an emergency, they'll drop something else they are doing (which is every bit as deserving of their attention) to handle the emergency instead.

Here's what I mean by that: Any one incident that the police officer has to deal with that requires any formal documentation requires about an hour worth of paperwork to do, even if the incident itself only lasted about a few minutes. Paperwork being figurative, because it is all done on a computer they have in their car; so you can imagine just how much stuff they have to write and detail. Take that false alarm for example. I used to think that a police car parked at the side of the road was just a cop watching for people speeding. Not so. That is typically a cop sitting there doing his paperwork. You could fly past at 60 and he wouldn't notice you.

I've been pulled over all of four times in my life, and all four times the officers had a perfectly valid reason to give me a ticket but didn't because they really didn't want to deal with the hassle of doing so.

One time I got pulled over for passing over three lanes while making a right turn when I got off work. The officer pulled me over because he thought I might have been robbing the store, until he saw me wearing the uniform (he had this "oh" look on his face when he saw that.) He asked me for my license and registration, and I didn't have my registration (another ticket there.) He told me not to worry about it and sent me on my way. Easily something the state could have made a $300 profit on, but he didn't want to bother. And it's pretty obvious why: when I pulled out, there was no traffic for miles, so it wasn't exactly an unsafe maneuver that he was prepared to split hairs over.

Another officer pulled me over for one of my headlights not working. Again, easy ticket, but chose not to write it up. I told him I was aware of it and was waiting for one of the headlights to arrive via mail (which was true.) He just wanted to make sure I was aware of it and that it was being dealt with.

I had an expired plate and was driving to get something to eat on new years evening. Cop pulled me over and asked where I was going. I gave him my license and registration, he said my plates were invalid (huge fine for that) but let me go because he was looking for drunk drivers, and didn't want to spend the time writing paperwork on me when he could have been looking for drunk drivers. He just told me to

Re:Sucks to be him

[drachensun]

I dont think it matters. If you can show you sent it, its not your problem if they refuse to accept it. They are the ones in the collections business and that comes with legal obligations.

Re:Sucks to be him

[ThatsNotPudding]

While frustrating for him, from the outside looking in, it's kinda funny. No matter what he does to assert his innocence, it will appear as lies to the owner of the missing phone...

Just like falsely accusing someone of pedophilia in the public square... STAY COMPLIANT, CITIZEN OR WE WILL DESTROY YOU.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Raistlin77]

Sounds like a good area for pickpockets to target. People going to the casino with plenty of cash on them and a police force that will do it's best not to investigate their crimes.

I think this bit pretty much puts the kibosh on that idea.

Upon questioning these people, it turned out they didn't want to tell their spouse they lost all their money in the casino.

No cash to steal, unless you are going to rob the casino.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always done this, and use sexist and racist slurs. Never occurred to me that it could be illegal. I'll continue. Good idea on the phone sex, though.

Re:Sucks to be him

[okooolo]

interesting approach. How?

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

That simply isn't true. Only the debtor can send a C&D under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. But anybody can send a C&D for any reason to any one at any time. Anti-harassment laws have nothing to do ith FDCPA.

The difficulty is that debt collectors who call on the phone will always be out of state, and you have to sue them in their location, which means small claims it out. You'll have to hire a lawyer, pay thousands of bucks in legal fees you have no hope of recovering, and probably not be able to collect the actual judgement because most debt collectors have nothing to sieze anyway.

Better to just convince them they're wasting their time. Make it clear that a) you're not afraid of them, because you know how powerless they are, b) you're going to waste as much of their time as you possibly can, thus costing them money, and c) you're going to be the biggest abusive prick you can possibly be over the phone, because they can't do anything about it.

You might also start screening your calls with an answering machine that says "All calls will be recorded. By staying on the line to talk to a live person, you consent to being recorded." They hate court-admissible evidence.

It's harder than that. To send a C&D, you have to have an address.They won't give you one. They won't identify themselves to you unless you admit to being the debtor, and they'll use spoofed caller ID.

You can try to berate or play games with them over the phone, but that wastes your time as much as it does theirs. Their time is worth minimum wage. Yours is probably not. You lose.

You can screen your calls, but that inconveniences both you and legitimate callers. You lose.

The only solution (the one I used) is to get a new number.

Re:Sucks to be him

[X0563511]

Makes me question why they need the physical unit.

Inspect it, take photos, download storage. Document document document.

Then give the fucking thing back!

Re:Sucks to be him

[Holi]

You really think the Casinos would not put an end to pickpockets on their turf? They don't like competition from amateurs.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Attorney General refuses to prosecute, who can say that the law is, de facto, a law.

Re:Sucks to be him

[mark-t]

...if you do claim to be the debtor

Lying to them is stupid... and it completely negates your ability to seek legal remedies. Which you have. Really. I'm not lying here.

If you try to get them to give you their business name and/or address (to send them a C/D) they'll ignore you

This, as I said above, falls under the same category as a caller who refuses to identify himself, which, in the case of repeated calls and the caller's consistent refusal to identify him or herself, is a specific category of telephone harassment, and is *definitely* against the law.

I may not be a lawyer, but I do happen to know a thing or two about collection agencies, and many of the laws that govern them.

Re:Sucks to be him

[X0563511]

... and I bet citing that to them over the phone will make them real nervous. I used to work with a collection agency. I recall their supervisors bitching about having to research and handle those C&Ds all the time.

They do work...

(we were the telco provider for their office, so... hopefully that means I'm "clean")

Re:Sucks to be him

[BattleApple]

I was thinking the same thing. Shouldn't pictures and the serial # should be enough? Maybe it has to do with the police having to cover their asses

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you do claim to be the debtor

Lying to them is stupid...

It's stupid, but only for the reason I said: if you claim to be the debtor, they'll (obviously) treat you as the debtor. I'm just covering all the possible options.

and it completely negates your ability to seek legal remedies. Which you have. Really. I'm not lying here.

No, you're not lying, just naive, or being impractically technical, I can't tell which.

If you try to get them to give you their business name and/or address (to send them a C/D) they'll ignore you

This, as I said above, falls under the same category as a caller who refuses to identify himself, which, in the case of repeated calls and the caller's consistent refusal to identify him or herself, is a specific category of telephone harassment, and is *definitely* against the law.

Yes, and you can do jack-shit about it. You don't have an address, you don't have a business name, and you probably don't have a real phone number, either. What are you going to do?

Re:Sucks to be him

[Rich0]

Can you actually do this stuff if you aren't the person they claim owes the debt?

If they say YOU owe them money you can do all that stuff. However, if they say somebody else owes them money I don't see how you asking them to prove it will do any good.

Re:Sucks to be him

[hypergreatthing]

The only problem you don't explain is the following:
Once they receive the C&D in writing, they themselves cannot call back. So what do they do?
They resell it. And the process happens all over again.
And IANAL but i believe this is all perfectly legal and in fact encouraged in their scummy little world.
So lets say you're me and follow what you're supposed to do and write a C&D letter.
2 months later, calls calls and more calls from a different place.
Another letter sent.
1 month later, lots more calls.
About 3 more letters i just gave up. I got my number changed. I just find it ridiculous how this absurd game works.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Nimey]

Oh god, bad memories. I worked at a loan servicer for car loans. We had this automatic phone dialer that was the biggest piece of shit since brontosauri died out; the thing would be fed a list of phone numbers to call, then when someone picked up it'd get routed to one of us.

The problem is that if we'd get a payment the thing had no /idea/ and we might call people three or four times in a day until someone kicked it. It's been nearly ten years now and I'm still astounded we were never prosecuted or sued.

Re:Sucks to be him

[yurtinus]

You guys are looking at this all wrong. I assume they're calling in the evening, around 5 or 6. There's nothing good on TV then. We're slashdotters, so it's not like we've got dinner dates to go to or anything. So, why not get some smalltalk practice in and make some friends? "Oh yeah, Sherry McStealerFace again... She's not here 'cause she's using my phone number to open fraudulent credit cards. But enough about her, how's the weather out there in Cheboygan? Do you guys get much golfing in? Someday I'll need to make the trip out to visit. Say hi to the missus for me, hope third grade goes well for little Billy. Lookin' forward to your call tomorrow!"

Seriously, angry people have no sense of imagination.

Re:Sucks to be him

[mhotchin]

*going to* the casino. The lost money was transported there first is the theory.

Re:Sucks to be him

[mark-t]

You don't have an address, you don't have a business name, and you probably don't have a real phone number, either. What are you going to do?

Exactly the same thing you do if a stranger keeps calling your place and harassing you. Give whatever details you *DO* have to the police. Permit them to subpoena phone records from the phone company about the recent calls to your number, and let them investigate. Unless the collection agency is calling you from a pay phone, they *will* be caught.

Under absolutely no circumstances would any collection agency that is under federal jurisdiction be able to continue to get away with doing what you're describing unless the people who are wrongfully getting called are simply too lazy or apathetic to exercise their legal rights... and it's those people that empower the disreputable collection agencies that try to pull this sort of bullshit to keep doing it.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I just ask them what they are wearing, and start making heavy breathing and other strange sounds. The more they scream, the more I laugh.
Occasionally at work this has gotten a couple strange looks, right up until hanging up and I simply say "harassing debt collector". At best I get a laugh, and at worse a knowing smile.
I've never once had any bad consequences from this.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Kittenman]

Yes, actually, it happens quite often that someone steals or finds a phone and then does not turn it off. Why bother to take it if all you're going to use it for is a paperweight?

I did the reverse once - I stole a paperweight and used it as a phone. Curse them, they tracked me down....

Re:Sucks to be him

[stenvar]

Why don't you say "I admit it. I'm the person you're looking for. Now stop calling me."

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

True - but I would presume that the door the poor, poverty stricken losers exit through, is also the same door than the naive money-laden fools enter through?

If true, then it still seems a valid target, no?

Re:Sucks to be him

[eth1]

No. Your wrong. The max you can get is controlled by the FTC. The max is quite small - like $500. Then Good Luck ever collecting that even after you "win".

Just sell it to a competing debt collector :)

Re:Sucks to be him

[Penguinisto]

...well, until some perp gets a competent lawyer (either during the trial or any of the appeals), who demands access to the thing for his own analysis on it. Fail to do that, and suddenly there's a reason for mistrial.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Committing 'crimes' that are damn near actively encouraged by your legislators doesn't exactly require intelligence.

Even stupid fuckers can be opportunistic and greedy.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You really think the Casinos would not put an end to pickpockets on their turf? They don't like competition from amateurs.

They don't do a thing unless you make a big stink and the thieves are stupid enough to get caught with the items on them. There are a bunch of threads on the city-data.com las vegas boards about how casino security is there only to stop people from stealing from the casino and how various people had stuff stolen with minimal response. Like casino security wouldn't even look at their own video footage.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't even need someone giving out false numbers. I had one credit agency try calling me for months on end, because someone had a similar but not quite the same name. They never gave information that I could use to figure out who they were, and were trying all sorts of tricks trying to get me to admit to being the person they were finding. They even had some old woman at one point that sounds like a confused grandmother or old relative trying to find someone call, except they would hang up as soon as I said something like, "I could hear the switches and transfers taking place for 30+ seconds before you called and it sounds like you are in a call center."

My all time "favorite" was when I got a new number once, a couple months later a debt collection company started calling for some random name. That one I was able to get information from since they liked to use automated systems and recordings that had their name at least. Turns out it was a collection agency that exclusively works with Verizon. So they were going after a person because they had not paid their cell phone bills... by calling the cell phone number after it had been disconnected and given to someone else. They eventually stopped, although the attorney general in their state was only mildly helpful, with the office adding my complain to a stack of several hundred for the same company. I think the company probably changed names before the office got around to making a case against them.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Penguinisto]

This, right here.

I had exactly two instances of this.

The first one was looking for some woman. I simply asked to speak to the supervisor, explained that I had just got the phone number, and that was that.

The second had some asshat of a debt collection company. After trying to convince them I wasn't that guy, and the chick on the other end not transferring me to a supervisor, I finally told them the following: "Put up or shut up - take me to court - I fucking dare you to sue me." I never heard from them again.

I like the recording thing you mentioned, though :)

Re:Sucks to be him

[ffflala]

I've found that the most effective way to get these kinds of wrong-person debt collection calls to stop is to tell the collector that they have to validate the debt. (It helps to read through the entire FDCPA, so you're familiar with the details.)

This is useful because of the way these kinds of bottom-feeder debt collection agencies work. They buy packages of debts from various companies for pennies on the dollar. The agency gets to keep any money they collect from these accounts. The cheapest past due accounts will usually not have much detail: the more likely an account will be successfully collected upon, the more expensive it is. Validating a debt --which they are legally obligated to do upon request-- requires enough time and effort on their part to make most accounts unprofitable, even when they have the right person. It usually makes more sense for them to not bother further, and to move on to the next debt on the list.

And even if they *do* validate the debt, they'll have handily furnished you with proof that the debt is not yours.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Penguinisto]

As a bonus, you might even collect enough money to pay them back!

Re:Sucks to be him

[mark-t]

Once they receive the C&D in writing, they themselves cannot call back.

Actually, they can contact you, but only once more, and *ONLY* for the purpose of advising you what their next course of action is. Anything else constitutes harassment.

They resell it. And the process happens all over again.

Yes.. this happens. Unfortunately all too often. They get away with it only because people being called don't know their rights. Legally, all C&D details are supposed to be transferred to whomever is taking up the duties of collection. Presumably to initiate legal proceedings.

And IANAL but i believe this is all perfectly legal and in fact encouraged in their scummy little world.

Unfortunately, as you've noticed, a lot of collection companies seem to conveniently ignore what they are supposed to do, by law. Call the FTC on those guys and they'll pay a sizable fine, particularly if it's not the first time they've been ratted on for this.

If they are really reluctant to try to pursue legal action against the debtor (highly likely for small debts), then you might have to wait out the period where the debt is sold from agency to agency, as you call the FTC for each and every one. This can take several months, unfortunately... but unfortunately, there's nothing you can do to actually *prevent* people from breaking the law when they are intent on it. You can only make sure that they at least pay the appropriate penalty when they do. Calling the FTC on companies that do this sort of thing can at least help discourage the practice.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have an address, you don't have a business name, and you probably don't have a real phone number, either. What are you going to do?

Exactly the same thing you do if a stranger keeps calling your place and harassing you. Give whatever details you *DO* have to the police. Permit them to subpoena phone records from the phone company about the recent calls to your number, and let them investigate. Unless the collection agency is calling you from a pay phone, they *will* be caught.

Under absolutely no circumstances would any collection agency that is under federal jurisdiction be able to continue to get away with doing what you're describing unless the people who are wrongfully getting called are simply too lazy or apathetic to exercise their legal rights... and it's those people that empower the disreputable collection agencies that try to pull this sort of bullshit to keep doing it.

I don't know where you live, but where I live (big city in a red state) neither the police nor the state A/G will do anything for something like telephone harassment (unless the caller is a stalker or otherwise making threats of violence.) No way would they ever subpoena phone records for a few annoying phone calls that (A) aren't really costing me any money, and (B) aren't a credible threat against my life or property. They'll take a report if you come in [taking two hours of your day to drive downtown, and six dollars for parking], but they'll roll their eyes at you and make it damned clear that it will go nowhere after you leave the building.

You can try reporting it to the FTC, but all I've ever gotten back is a form letter thanking me and asking for any additional specifics I could give (which, of course, I didn't have.)

Re:Sucks to be him

[Guppy]

The same thing happened to me, and the anti harassment laws were useless to help. Here's why - the anti harassment laws only protect the person they are looking for. Since you are not the person they are looking for, they can call your number as often as they like - you can't request they stop, since you aren't the person with the debt.

Hmm... in that case, since it is a call of a commercial nature, and you do not have a pre-existing business relationship with them (since you are in no way related to the actual debtor), can you go after them through the anti-telemarketer laws?

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have some amazing luck, or are stacked up top like a nudy magazine model. Dear Lord you have had some good luck.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to forward your number. You can get rid of most of the calls by putting that sound on your voice mail announcement. I used to get automated calls from USAA at 5am each morning. I spent weeks trying to get hold of someone who could stop the calls. Everyone I talked to there was very nice, but no one I talked to could help. All it took was one doo-doo-DOO sound to get their automated system to mark my number as unreachable to get them to stop.

Re:Sucks to be him

[dhomstad]

^ I like this comment :D

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

If the theif doesn't plea, they want to be able to wave it around in court. Having the actual thing, rather than just a photo of it, is so much more convincing for a jury.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

There is almost no paperwork for the cops for tickets. The only time I got out of a ticket was when I was (seriously) driving a car to inspection, which is required before registration (also expired). If the cop wrote me up, he's required to tow the car. So off I went with no tickets. Though I live in a place now where you aren't required by law to tow your car to an inspection if it is already expired.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

The collection laws are such that if you say "I do not know who you are talking about, they must have lied. Do not call here again" and they do, you can have them fined. The anti-harassment laws regarding collections are very strict, mainly because so many collectors have acted evilly.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

The second had some asshat of a debt collection company. After trying to convince them I wasn't that guy, and the chick on the other end not transferring me to a supervisor, I finally told them the following: "Put up or shut up - take me to court - I fucking dare you to sue me." I never heard from them again.

I tried that once, and I was the person they were looking for. It worked then too. The cost of actually collecting it was more than the $500 they say I owed (I didn't, but hat doesn't matter to the collectors).

Lets say you buy a phone from AT&T (wasn't AT&T, or even a phone, but I'm changing it to protect the guilty). They have a clause that if you move to a location without service, that they'll waive the cancellation charge. You move and cancel. They try to collecct because they didn't read the reason you cancel. The guy you get on the phone says he understands, and you get a $0 bill showing the debt cleared. 5 years later (I was in college at the time, and lost the paper in the frequent moves), I start getting collection notices. I contest them. AT&T says that I still owe the $500 to the collections agent, and so it is upheld (stays on my credit record too). I keep arguing with the collections agents. The best thing to do if you aren't paying (whether it's your debt or not) is to never hang up. Just say "I'm not going to pay it" and give an unarguable reason like "because I don't owe it" and keep repeating yourself for hours. They will eventually tire and move on to one of the other 10,000 on their list. But not answering or hanging up will guarantee you a call back. The calls stopped when I spend an hour on the phone with one explaining that I don't fee I owe it, so I'll never pay it. I don't care if they are offering $50 payment to clear a $500 debt. I'm not giving you $0.05. Try to be as boring and unemotional as possible. Put something on TV and zone out. There's nothing they can do to you, other than sue you, and for $500, it'll cost them more than that to win in court, and even then, they have to collect, which they know how hard that can be.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

They call at all times of the day. Including 8:00 am on the weekend.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess it depends on where you are. I received a ticket I was unhappy with and chose to contest it. The officer had written several pages of notes in their notepad which the prosecutor provided to me. I did win, however, that was mostly because the officer gave me the ticket based on hearsay and not based on what she saw.

Now, for parking tickets, what you see is ALL the paperwork done. They punch it into their handheld unit and go to the next one.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, Sherry McStealerFace again... She's not here

*click*

If you're having trouble with one of these companies, don't say if the person is there or not. The caller can't hang up then.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

This, as I said above, falls under the same category as a caller who refuses to identify himself, which, in the case of repeated calls and the caller's consistent refusal to identify him or herself, is a specific category of telephone harassment, and is *definitely* against the law.

There's a large group of people designed to enforce C&D orders against collections agencies. There's a large group of people trying their best to avoid getting tied up in petty crimes - your local police, who likely have no ability to do much against the agency 10 states away calling you. I've known a woman who had a restraining order against her ex, who had a habit of putting her in the hospital, and he was calling and harassing her in violation of a restraining order (in addition to the harassment being illegal itself). The cops didn't ever investigate, despite having a home address for him and recordings of threatening messages on her answering machine.

I hardly think you'll get any joy from reporting a collections for generic harassment, no matter how "illegal" you think it is. I think you'd be better off doing the ACs method. Ask their identity. If they hang up if you ask before you confirm you are who they are looking for, then lie to confirm you are who they are looking for, get their information to "send a check to" then send a C&D to that address.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

Yes.. this happens. Unfortunately all too often. They get away with it only because people being called don't know their rights. Legally, all C&D details are supposed to be transferred to whomever is taking up the duties of collection. Presumably to initiate legal proceedings.

What isn't linked in law is that the people notified to stop calling (whether do not call lists, or collections) are not required to notify the source. So what are your rights if Company A contracts company B to collect and Company B is notified of the C&D? With do-not-call requests, they can't on-sell the list, but the person that sold it to them can on-sell it such that you can *never* get off the list, no matter how many times you ask, because it's impossible to contact (or even know who) the person that owns the master list.

The fix is that you should be able to contact the original creditor and they'd be required to cascade the C&D to all collections agencies in the chain.

I didn't actually know it worked that way. I had someone mistakenly resurrect a cleared debt and submit it to collections without ever sending me a bill for it, so I wasn't going to pay.something I didn't owe. I don't know who sold it to whom, but C&D didn't work for me then. The one I'd C&D would honor it, but the debt itself generated many more contacts, none from the original creditor. I gave up with C&D, and would just talk to them until they understood that I wasn't going to pay, so their choice was to waste their time and money harassing me, or take me to court. They elected to write me off. After 10 years and they couldn't even threaten to leave it on my credit report, the calls stopped, there was nothing they could do to me.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

For me, I called back and they refused to identify themselves until I gave the "reference number". Obviously, they didn't know who they were supposed to be until someone told them.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

Yes. The moment they call you with the purposes of collecting a debt, they trigger all the associated laws, even if they have the wrong number. You are as protected as the person they are trying to collect from.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

I tried that and they said it came back valid (and it stayed on my credit record). It was an invalid error by a company I had done business with, so their old records show I owe it, even if I don't, so they operate under that assumption. They don't have to validate the original debt, but just verify that the company I owe believes that I owe. Though I only tried it when it was relatively fresh, and not after it was sold 10+ times and they may not have even known the original company anymore. I don't know what goes with the file when the debt is resold.

Re:Sucks to be him

[mdielmann]

Resources are finite, and the police are constantly busy. They can't be arsed to take every little issue seriously. Some people wonder why the police will take a long time to show up at the scene of an accident when there is no injury involved, but will show up quickly if there is fighting or if somebody is injured. If it is an emergency, they'll drop something else they are doing (which is every bit as deserving of their attention) to handle the emergency instead.

(Emphasis mine.)

No, they are not. That's why, when they have to choose one over the other, they go to the more serious situation. Sucks that they have to choose, but they usually choose based on a reasonable basis.

Re:Sucks to be him

[kaatochacha]

You could always hire them to collect from themselves...

Re:Sucks to be him

[ffflala]

What a pain; you have my sympathies. Did they send you a copy of the validation, and did it otherwise satisfy the FDCPA validation requirements?

FDCPA Â 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing --
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.
(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.
(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

BZZZZT! Thanks for playing, but you're wrong.

I had the same problem when we got our new number for our business. I'd get 20 calls/day for the deadbeat that used to have the number. There are only laws in place to protect the DEADBEAT, not any innocent person who happens to get the number next. My lawyer was unable to use any of the laws in place to protect DEADBEATS to collect any damages.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

No, it did not meet those requirements. But it was so long ago, and I simply didn't pay, so it's all over now, and not worth worrying about. Simply put, my takeaway is that they do not know, or care to follow, the laws that pertain to collections. My favorite (the one I know means they've lost) is when they start sending letters warning me they can sue me for recovery (usually on the letterhead of a lawyer). Not a notice of impending lawsuit, but an implication they could and might.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

Casinos are also under tighter surveillance than almost any other public venue, so catching them would be easy.

Re:Sucks to be him

[NicBenjamin]

How?

They won't tell you their name. They won't tell you who owns the debt. All you know is a) a phone number, and b) the name they have on file for the debtor.

Unless you subpoena the phone companies' records you don't know who to sue. Subpoenas are not cheap, so unless you're a millionaire who willing to piss money away on principle...

Re:Sucks to be him

[NicBenjamin]

How do you know an address yo send it to?

Re:Sucks to be him

[NicBenjamin]

The trick is figuring out who to have fined...

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you shouldn't give any consideration to liberals' "we're all safe, crime is going down" non-sense when it comes to debating gun control.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AK Marc]

Tell them you want to pay by check. Get a name and address.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I just realized how stupidly I worded that. What I meant to say is that most of the time, these "emergencies" aren't really that. For example, the false burglar alarms.

Re:Sucks to be him

[AlphaWolf_HK]

As another poster stated, it probably varies by jurisdiction. For "cover your ass" sakes as well as to be able to properly prosecute (for both civil and criminal parties,) they document EVERYTHING everybody says and does where I live. I know because I've seen it. If they don't do this where you live, I imagine they are more likely to have a beef with people recording videos of them because they don't like documentation.

Re:Sucks to be him

[NicBenjamin]

Tell them you want to pay by check. Get a name and address.

That sounds somewhat plausible.

But given how easy it is for debt collectors to change their company name, and the amount of work required to get the information, I'd be very surprised to find out anyone actually managed to do it.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

You are missing the part where their boss's boss gets upset about the reduced property values due to the number of crime reports and admonishes the officers. In petty theft from a vehicle cases it is best to ask the police if it is possible to advise rather than report. The information still gets to the police but doesn't affect the insurance rates and property values.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be one of those people who vote for higher taxes! Very rare to meet one, so I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you and the those like you for your selflessness and society mindedness.

Nobody else seems to understand that the police are a finite resource paid for by our taxes and, as such, they don't give a shit about the easily replaced shiny.

Re:Sucks to be him

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fucked up, but sounds like you saw the best side of it, hats off. However, I have been arrested in the past for marijuana and at court, the only evidence against me were pictures taken. We're talking 1 joint. Shame that they couldn't have done the same for you.

Re:Sucks to be him

[h4rr4r]

I have when it was needed. Last time was for a school.

I have no problem paying for services our society needs.

Re:Sucks to be him

[BattleApple]

I was definitely lucky.. the cop said that kind of thing almost never happens.
That's ridiculous that they could bust you based on a picture.. how can they know it's not just a hand rolled cigarette? Thankfully, it's finally been decriminalized here

Business Opportunity

[PPH]

Open an Apple store there. Sell iPhones. The people showing up are inevitably short a phone.

I'm surprised Apple hasn't patented this yet.

Re:Business Opportunity

[HaZardman27]

The joke's on you, asshole. The app is Find My iPhone that is sending these people to his home.

Re:Business Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

iWhoosh!

I don't get it

[arth1]

Why are these people showing up at his door anyhow?
Isn't that the job of the police, and isn't vigilantism illegal even in Las Vegas?

Re:I don't get it

[berashith]

you think the police care?

Re:I don't get it

[h4rr4r]

Is it vigilantism for me to knock on your door and peacefully ask if you have seen my phone?

To me it seems no different than when religious folks or girl scouts knock on my door. Well other than I don't have your phone, am not interested in your myths, and would like one box of thin mints and one box of samosas.

Re:I don't get it

[firex726]

My guess is people show up initially to accuse him, then get the police involved later when he invariably professes in his innocence; at which time the Police hopefully backup his claim.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

you think the police care?

Threatening people at home is a dangerous pass time. It will not get your phone back if a thief took it, and might get you shot either way.

Re:I don't get it

[Cro Magnon]

And, if the police don't care, people aren't likely to care that vigilantism is illegal.

Re:I don't get it

[spire3661]

Why do you think it is illegal to knock on someone's door to talk to them? That is NOT vigilantism, thats called BEING A MAN. I dont need the police to talk to another man about an issue, I only need them if we cant resolve it as men. When you grow up, you will understand.

Re:I don't get it

[Wookact]

Yes, and the angry people are going to say thank you and walk away. Completely believing your story. These people are not like your average girl scout. They are mad, and they want their damn phone back. They will not be walking away when you give them your polite response. You thinking so, means you haven't thought this through.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Women can't knock on doors?

Re:I don't get it

[Abstrackt]

There's nothing wrong with if if you're reasonable. But you know all those stories about people driving off roads because their GPS told them to? I don't think those people will believe the guy who says he doesn't have their phone when technology clearly says he does.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post shows you also have a lot of growing up to do. It's worth it though, because you get to sleep with ladies.

Yes, I know, they like "bad boys", but you're not one of those, you're a retard.

Re:I don't get it

[Ksevio]

The police also show up apparently, though in cases where the 911 GPS points to his house for domestic violence calls, not missing phones.

Re:I don't get it

[Cro Magnon]

The odds of someone who stole a phone lying is high. Of course, the odds of tech lying can be pretty high too, especially for Sprint phones or Apple Maps.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you're being A MAN on my property, I will kindly shut the door on you, take your license plate, and report trespassing and harassment.

Re:I don't get it

[brkello]

Is it vigilantism? No. But it is a horrible idea. You have no idea how crazy the person is.

Re:I don't get it

[dougmc]

My guess is people show up initially to accuse him, then get the police involved later when he invariably professes in his innocence; at which time the Police hopefully backup his claim.

Yes, but some people skip the police step entirely and will just assume the guy is lying and beat him up. Or worse. Or wait until he's not home and break in to steal their phone back (after all, it'll say that it's still there.)

It's not just a matter of having to explain to a lot of people -- it's a matter of a lot of people being absolutely convinced that you're lying and you've stolen from them -- the evidence is right there -- and it's a dangerous combination.

Assuming this is all correct, guy needs to sue.

Re:I don't get it

[dougmc]

thats called BEING A MAN

Women can do it too, you know, so maybe it needs a new name.

Re:I don't get it

[geekoid]

really? ignoring the sign he posted, then knocking on someone door at 3AM becasue your crappy software popped up his address is being a man?
And what other answer do you think you will get besides 'No, I don't have you phone' Do you think the thief will just hand it over?

What if a woman wants to do it, does that count as being a man?

How about: 'A civilized person goes to the house, and notes the sign then leaves?'

vigilantism is an individual or group who undertakes law enforcement without legal authority. So yes, it is vigilantism.
IN a civilized society, you accuse someone of a crime, and they defend there innocence. This man was constantly approached and forced to PROVE his innocence by vigilante

Re:I don't get it

[arth1]

Is it vigilantism for me to knock on your door and peacefully ask if you have seen my phone?

Read the original article.
This is clearly not what is happening.

And even if you should ask politely and during polite hours, unlike the people this man has encountered, you would be taking the law into your own hands and accusing him of lying if you rang his doorbell over this despite the clear note he has put up outside his home.

Part of the problem is that people use technology they don't understand. Sprint isn't pointing out his home as the address where the phone is. It's a triangulation starting point, with an error margin of several hundred feet in all directions.

tl;dr: The real victim isn't the yobo who lost his phone.

Re:I don't get it

[spire3661]

Knocking on someone's door, asking them if they have your phone is neither trespassing nor harassment on first contact. You are certainly in your rights to tell me to leave, and to call the police, but no crime has been committed if i obey your command to leave the property. If this were not the case, i would have Jehovah's Witness's arrested every month.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a Goddamn Adult

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry dude, but you are the one who needs to grow up. If you think you can knock on any random door and accuse someone of a crime with no repercussions ever, you haven't met enough people to have a viable opinion. Maybe when you get to college and your mommy stops protecting you from the bad people. Then come back and talk.

Re:I don't get it

[spire3661]

That is a lovely straw man you have there, please pardon me while i set it ablaze.

#1 The sign is irrelevant and is not a legal barrier i have to cross.

#2 each individual that went there had no idea the others also went. If the same people went back more then once after being informed, THAT is harassment.

#3 Going to someone's house to ask them questions is perfectly legal and not 'law enforcement'. Liberty is all the legal authority i need to do such an act.

#4 The guy has not needed to prove anything since the police believe he is telling the truth and thus are not charging him. He IS innocent, but that is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

Re:I don't get it

[sjames]

They report the location of their phone to the police, get blown off, and conclude they';re on their own.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

He lives in Saudi Arabia.

Re:I don't get it

[Jason Levine]

And it works both ways, too.

For the person going to the house: You don't know if this "phone thief" (whether or not they actually have your phone) is an elderly lady who wouldn't hurt a fly, or an escaped felon who enjoys torturing people who show up at his door before killing them.

For the person at the house: You don't know if this "my phone was stolen" person is going to politely ask, believe you, and then leave or get belligerent and whip out a gun demanding to know where his *@%!# phone is.

Besides, are these people really expecting the "phone thief" to answer the door and say "Oh, yeah. I stole your phone. Here it is back again. Sorry about that."? Whether the person answering is a phone thief or not, he's going to deny it until the person leaves. It's not like the person at the door has the right to search the alleged phone thief's house looking for their phone.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, if I've got some asshole trying to "be a man" showing up at my door accusing me of stealing shit shit, I'm not going to be civil about it. You might get my drink in your face or my spouse might shoot you. I mean, if I were this guy, I'd be answering the door with my partner having their gun trained on the individual. Make your accusation and move along. Otherwise, how quick are you on the draw? We've already got ours drawn.

If there's two of them, then get two guns.

6 guys? Maybe it was one guy with six guns? Really big fucking dude.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an ADULT. There's more to being an adult than just age.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The police take not doing their job VERY seriously...they do not like being shown how it is not done.

Re:I don't get it

[h4rr4r]

Read the article?

Are you new here? You UID is too low to make these kinds of mistakes.

Re:I don't get it

[mjwalshe]

bit dangerous I recall some one telling me about a couple of british xpats working to Texas Instruments in the states who went out for a drink got lost and knocked on some ones door to ask directions and one guy ended up blown away by some old coot with a shotgun

Re:I don't get it

[stenvar]

Is it vigilantism for me to knock on your door and peacefully ask if you have seen my phone?

No, but it is probably trespassing if there are "no trespassing" signs.

Re:I don't get it

[eth1]

Yes, and the angry people are going to say thank you and walk away. Completely believing your story.

These people are not like your average girl scout. They are mad, and they want their damn phone back. They will not be walking away when you give them your polite response. You thinking so, means you haven't thought this through.

I'll tell them I don't have their phone. If they don't leave, I take out MY phone and start the video. Then I'll tell them to leave. If they don't, I call the police and have them arrested for criminal trespass.

That said, I'd be more suspicious if they did just leave. "My phone tracker said my phone was here" sounds like a good excuse for being there, when in reality they'd have kicked in the door if no one answered.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother had his phone stolen, he tracked it down to a bikie head quarters. He asked politely for his phone back and the head of group promised him he would receive it back with an apology, the next day he got exactly that, apparently they were not too happy with a member bringing stolen goods back to their headquarters, would hate to have been him.

Re:I don't get it

[stephanruby]

Why are these people showing up at his door anyhow? Isn't that the job of the police, and isn't vigilantism illegal even in Las Vegas?

And what if you just lost your phone at a conference and it wasn't stolen -- just picked up? And the ringer is off, or the battery is low/dead? What then? Do you really need to get the police involved for every little thing?

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and when he finally snaps and blows your head off because he hasn't gotten any sleep for a month I guess your family (if any) will just have to deal with that as well. I would say going to someone's house at 2/3AM and banging on their door just so you can talk with them is harassment.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

...and would like one box of thin mints and one box of samosas.

My EXACT order two days ago whey they came to the door!

Re:I don't get it

[mark_reh]

If the right person's phone has gone missing they do.

Re:I don't get it

[LMariachi]

It would be awesome if Girl Scouts sold samosas. Much better than those cookies.

Re:I don't get it

[AK Marc]

Nah, it's not trespassing to walk past a "no trespassing" sign. In most cases, someone got confused about what trespassing is, and though they were putting up something to keep people out. Much like people that put up the signs that just say "posted".

Re:I don't get it

[AK Marc]

You get religious knockers every month? That's a lot. And yes, you can keep them away. No soliciting signs and such, and if they don't respect those, then call the police on them for trespassing.

Re:I don't get it

[stenvar]

Yes, in the US, it is trespassing to ignore a clearly visible "no trespassing" sign. It is also trespassing if the property owner or his agent tells you to leave and you refuse.

If you don't know what "trespassing" means, that's your problem; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Re:I don't get it

[AK Marc]

Yes, in the US, it is trespassing to ignore a clearly visible "no trespassing" sign.

It's not. For one "the US" is 50 separate states with 50 different definitions of and laws about trespassing. For another, a single posted sign, with no other indications, is not sufficient to define where you shouldn't be trespassing. Are you 50 feet within the land when you see the sign? Is it at the boundary? Is it facing inwards to the land you shouldn't be trespassing on, outward, or at some angle? You can't know, so it has no legal meaning. If you disagree, please identify the state you are in so that I can glance at the laws there in an attempt to educate you.

It is also trespassing if the property owner or his agent tells you to leave and you refuse.

Not always, and your absolutes make you look silly and very very wrong. If the owner of my rented apartment tells me I'm 6 months late on rent so he's throwing me out and tells me to get off his land, he's breaking the law, not me. I can throw him out of the apartment he owns, and he can't throw me out of the apartment he owns.

So yes, if you ignore all the exceptions and don't look closely, you may be confused with someone who is correct. But if you actually know what's going on, you are wrong.

If you don't know what "trespassing" means, that's your problem; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

You are the one saying that it's "probably" trespassing to walk up to a door with a "no trespassing" sign on it and knock. What does "probably" mean? Did you add that in as a weasel word when someone proved you wrong? Or are you the one that doesn't know the law, and uses words like "probably" to hide the fact that you don't know? If you knew the answer, why do you need a qualifier? Ignorance of the law is no defense. Excuse isn't a legal term. You are missing every point on your sloppiness. Ignorance of the law should be an excuse because law is written faster than it's possible for someone to read it.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

If the owner of my rented apartment tells me I'm 6 months late on rent so he's throwing me out and tells me to get off his land, he's breaking the law

That's no exception. As long as there is a valid rental agreement, it's legally your property, not his. Non-payment does not invalidate your rental agreement or your property rights.

For another, a single posted sign, with no other indications, is not sufficient to define where you shouldn't be trespassing.

That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that if you ignore a clearly posted sign, you meet the general legal definition of "trespassing", and you probably would be in violation with your state laws (but that depends on your state).

Or are you the one that doesn't know the law, and uses words like "probably" to hide the fact that you don't know?

I think your argumentativeness is your attempt to hide that you don't know.

Re:I don't get it

[AK Marc]

What, posted so many rants you got blocked for the day and had to go AC?

That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that if you ignore a clearly posted sign, you meet the general legal definition of "trespassing", and you probably would be in violation with your state laws (but that depends on your state).

Given your revisions so far, I should take "clearly posted" to mean "meets your local definition" as there are different standards for posting everywhere. Even if that's not what you said. At *most* that's the same as telling the person that they are trespassing. As citizen's arrests only apply for felonies, and trespass isn't, the owner can't physically kick them off, nor hold them for the police. So "notice" is not very legally binding. I'm not sure why you are so focused on getting it called "trespassing" when that doesn't mean much.

I think your argumentativeness is your attempt to hide that you don't know.

I just don't want anyone out there to listen to you. You are giving bad legal advice.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

These people are not like your average girl scout. They are mad, and they want their damn phone back. They will not be walking away when you give them your polite response.

Actually, they sound exactly like how your average girl scout would behave.

Re:I don't get it

[Kalriath]

Read an article? On a website owned by the founders of Righthaven? Fuck that.

Re:Not for the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, thanks for pointing out the contents of the summary.

Re:We need more guns

[knarf]

If everybody had a gun, this would not be a problem. ;)

If everyone had a gnu, this would not be a problem.

These are not the (an)droids you are looking for

[Anonymous Coward]

Ba da bing

A better response

[cellocgw]

"These aren't the GPS coordinates you are looking for."

(Well, that's better than, say "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of people looking for lost phones")

Re:A better response

[IcyNeko]

Just imagine if the Military contracted targeting systems with Sprint? All our guided-weaponry would bombard some random address, probably a good, wholesome family of 5.

Re:A better response

[VAXcat]

All your phones are belong to us (remember how funny this would have been 10 years ago?)

Re:A better response

[Anonymous Coward]

Try different languages.
Ihr Telefon ist nicht hier!
El teléfono no está aquí!
Bin du, bine do Wahhh!
equals
Your phone is not here!

Re:A better response

[jfdavis668]

Maybe we can use a Beowulf cluster to find lost phones. Or else find people who are looking for lost phones.

Re:A better response

[SailorSpork]

But not nearly as funny as "I for one welcome our new irate horde of lost phone seeking Overlords..."

Re:A better response

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the Chinese Embasy. Chinese Embasy Bombing

Re:A better response

[vlm]

All our guided-weaponry would bombard some random address, probably a good, wholesome family of 5.

Yeah as if that doesn't happen all the time already

Re:A better response

[jfdavis668]

You know what you doing

Re:A better response

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just outed Sprint as the nav provider for the US gov. Standby for your disappearing act assistance.

Re:A better response

[mbone]

Isn't that more or less what is happening now?

Re: Not for the first time

[Dupple]

I skimmed the submission, it rang a bell, I searched it, submission on front page, I pasted and Wham! Instant tit head!

Thems the breaks

For a sign to be effective...

[Press2ToContinue]

you would have to read it. I guess your idea sucks because he has put up a sign already and you didn't read enough to know it. Bright, you are not.

Re:For a sign to be effective...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have to read two links deep... the article does not say this.

Re:For a sign to be effective...

[Anonymous Coward]

More assertiveness might get the message across.

"NO I DON'T HAVE YOUR FUCKING PHONE. PISS OFF."

In letters a meter tall.

New business plan!

[frank_adrian314159]

I'd start stealing phones. How would Sprint know the difference?

Re:New business plan!

[Ksevio]

Or just ebay a bunch of broken phones and leave them in a basket by the door.

Re:New business plan!

[93 Escort Wagon]

Or, better yet, someone else could steal them and start using this guy's crawl space as a holding area, without his knowledge.

Re:New business plan!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Me FTFY...

1. Steal Phones
2. How would Sprint know the difference?
3. ???
4. PROFIT !

See, this is /. you need to use the correct posting format.

Re:New business plan!

[Anonymous Coward]

New pet theory: That's what actually happened.

so lets see for you

[RobertLTux]

Your sign should

1 have a pentacle (assumes you are not a JC type person)
2 state solicitors will be shot/eaten/sacrificed
3 request that 1 case of thin mints and 1 case of samosas be delivered (does the GSA have an EStore??)

Good for GPS

[Murdoch5]

And this is what happens when you don't know how to design a working GPS

Re:Good for GPS

[hawguy]

And this is what happens when you don't know how to design a working GPS

I don't think it's a problem with GPS itself, I think the problem is that the stolen phones are not able to use GPS - like a phone is stolen and whoever took it is keeping it in his kitchen cabinet. The phone can't see any GPS satellites so it relies on a cell tower fix. If it can only see one tower (and maybe this guy has the nearest address to the tower), the phone is claiming that it's at this guy's house.

I suspect that whoever is harassing the guy is ignoring the large circle in his positioning app that shows the range of the positioning fix (or the "Find my phone" app itself is not revealing that it only located the phone to within a 1000 ft radius).

Ill Advised

[sycodon]

I would be ill advised for anyone tracking a phone to go to the address and accuse the occupants of having it.

There are many possible outcomes, most are less than optimal.

Re:Ill Advised

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the same types of people that could give you trouble for accusing them of stealing your phone could also give you trouble if they think you stole their phone. And I wonder if some of them would be egged on if they saw a sign, if they thought something along the lines of, "How did that guy know I was coming to find my phone unless he actually had my phone?" or other similar trains of thought.

Re:Ill Advised

[AK Marc]

That's a false dichotomy. The law should protect the homeowner getting attacked by hooligans, but a lost teen is not "aggressive" or "trespassing" and certainly not in the "attacking hooligans" category. We can protect both, but lying idiots like you would prefer dead teens to any requirement that you attempt to resolve the misunderstanding before shooting unarmed people standing near your home.

Re:Ill Advised

[Anonymous Coward]

but it practice the hapless teen is not protected.

Re:Ill Advised

[stenvar]

We can protect both, but lying idiots like you would prefer dead teens to any requirement that you attempt to resolve the misunderstanding before shooting unarmed people standing near your home.

That's not the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about a situation where the homeowner posts a sign telling people to stay off his property, then tells them to leave, and they become argumentative and refuse to leave. There is no further "misunderstanding" to resolve beyond "get off my property" and the person refusing. Yes, I think in that case, the homeowner should have a right to shoot to kill. And there should be no burden on the homeowner to determine whether the other person is armed or dangerous, or inquire into their psychological state or linguistic ability, because that is impractical.

I would hope homeowners would exercise that right carefully, but legally, that's the balance I would like to see. If you fear that sort of thing happening to you, don't wander onto other people's private property.

And personally, I hate guns, don't own one, and I would never shoot an intruder (or anybody else). But that is immaterial as to what I think the law should be.

Re:Ill Advised

[AK Marc]

That's not the situation we're talking about here. We're talking about a situation where the homeowner posts a sign telling people to stay off his property, then tells them to leave, and they become argumentative and refuse to leave. There is no further "misunderstanding" to resolve beyond "get off my property" and the person refusing. Yes, I think in that case, the homeowner should have a right to shoot to kill. And there should be no burden on the homeowner to determine whether the other person is armed or dangerous, or inquire into their psychological state or linguistic ability, because that is impractical.

Trespass is not a loss. Shut your door, lock it. You have no risk of losing items or safety from them standing outside yelling at you. If it happens more than once, then Sprint should provide a 24/7 security for you.

A single warning followed by lethal force seems absurd. If your life or property is under no risk (Actual current, not future supposed), then there's no reason to use any force at all. In a more practical sense, they aren't trespassing until a police officer asks them to leave. It is very very rare when a cop who responds will arrest someone for trespassing just for standing on the wrong side of some imaginary line, unless they refuse to obey the police officer's direction to move.

Someone under actual reasonable fear for their life or property should be able to defend themselves, but shouting "go away" at a person knocking at your door doesn't give you the right to shoot them if they don't move away fast enough for you. Killing someone should be a last resort, not a first one.

Re:Ill Advised

[stenvar]

In a more practical sense, they aren't trespassing until a police officer asks them to leave.

The law is clear on this. Here is Texas state law (others are similar):

30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he: (1) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or (2) received notice to depart but failed to do so. (b) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body. (2) "Notice" means: (A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner; (B) fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders or to contain livestock; (C) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden; (D) the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property, provided that the marks are: [... it goes on ...]

These laws are valid and widely enforced and carry steep fines and jail terms. Penalties are enhanced in many circumstances, such if you carry guns or use force to enter. If there is a sign "no trespass", don't enter. If someone tells you to leave private property, leave immediately. If you don't, you face steep fines or jail time. People can even detain you until the police arrive.

A single warning followed by lethal force seems absurd. If your life or property is under no risk

It's absurd in some circumstances, not in others. If people ignore clear "no trespassing" signs posted around your private home and refuse to leave when told to do so, you probably have good reason to believe that your life is at risk. It's not an automatic license to kill, but courts will generally side with the homeowner.

Re:Ill Advised

[AK Marc]

Here is Texas state law (others are similar):

I asked for you to identify where you are, and instead you quoted law without indicating your location. From that, I can assume you shopped law for the 1/50 that you think best agreed with you. Lets have a look

"Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry is forbidden;

So, if "no trespassing" is posted on the house (and in the real case here, there is no legal "no trespassing" sign, just a sign explaining they don't need to knock), that means they are only trespassing if their entire body enters the house in question.

If people ignore clear "no trespassing" signs posted around your private home and refuse to leave when told to do so, you probably have good reason to believe that your life is at risk. It's not an automatic license to kill, but courts will generally side with the homeowner.

Anyone who posts "no trespassing" around their home designed to block people from walking up to the front door is likely a nutter. Only people with guns looking to kill bother to post no trespassing. So I don't disagree with your assessment of risk, but someone getting killed who caused no harm seems a little excessive to me. If there was a crash outside your door, and nobody had a phone (or the crash was so serious everyone with one broke or lost it), and someone comes to knock on your door to ask for help, should they be executed for trying to get help for injured people?

Re:Ill Advised

[stenvar]

From that, I can assume you shopped law for the 1/50 that you think best agreed with you. Lets have a look

No, I just picked the first law I found. I've lived in a half dozen states and they are all roughly the same. Tell you what: why don't you show me a state law under which entering someone's property is legal despite clear signage or an order to leave.

that means they are only trespassing if their entire body enters the house in question.

I don't know what signs he actually posted or not. But he could certainly post a sign at the fence, and anybody entering his property (not just his house) would be guilty of trespass. Even if he doesn't post anything, all he has to tell them is "leave my property now".

If there was a crash outside your door, and nobody had a phone (or the crash was so serious everyone with one broke or lost it), and someone comes to knock on your door to ask for help, should they be executed for trying to get help for injured people?

Legally, people are under no obligation to help in most places in the US even in the situation you describe. I might well refuse to help if the people look dangerous or if I know there are escaped convicts in the area. In reality, almost everybody helps other people in an emergency and behaves calmly when faced with trespass. Giving people the right to make a choice on their own doesn't mean they are going to go around "executing" people. What kind of twisted world do you live in in which you assume, that unless people are restrained by law, they are all going to turn into mass murdering maniacs?

Re:Ill Advised

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very very rare when a cop who responds will arrest someone for trespassing just for standing on the wrong side of some imaginary line

Unless it's outside an abortion clinic.

Re:Ill Advised

[AK Marc]

What kind of twisted world do you live in in which you assume, that unless people are restrained by law, they are all going to turn into mass murdering maniacs?

That's the world you live in, where you want to encourage owners to shoot first if someone knocks.

Re:Ill Advised

[stenvar]

Nope, sorry, you're the guy who's paranoid here. Your reasoning has been that if were no law prohibiting homeowners from shooting trespassers who refuse to leave, even innocent people seeking help after an accident would be "executed".

On the other hand, I'm happy to give homeowners a lot of discretion in the use of deadly force in response to clear trespassing violations because I trust people to use it responsibly and because avoid such situations is easy. Most people will exercise that discretion like I do, by not even buying a gun.

I note you still haven't provided an example of a state where violating a "no trespassing" sign or refusing to comply with a homeowner's order to leave is not considered trespassing.

Re:Ill Advised

[dakohli]

Modded incorrectly. Posting to resolve.

Re:Ill Advised

[AK Marc]

Your reasoning has been that if were no law prohibiting homeowners from shooting trespassers who refuse to leave, even innocent people seeking help after an accident would be "executed".

That law exists now. You are the one advocating change to encourage shootings that aren't currently legal.

Re:Ill Advised

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who posts "no trespassing" around their home designed to block people from walking up to the front door is likely a nutter. Only people with guns looking to kill bother to post no trespassing. So I don't disagree with your assessment of risk, but someone getting killed who caused no harm seems a little excessive to me. If there was a crash outside your door, and nobody had a phone (or the crash was so serious everyone with one broke or lost it), and someone comes to knock on your door to ask for help, should they be executed for trying to get help for injured people?

Yes, they should have gone to the neighbors and not ignored the well documented wishes of the home owner. Otherwise you are giving criminals another run around the rights of land owners.

Re:We need more guns

[Anonymous Coward]

And if everyone had a nug, this would not be a problem.

Re:We need more guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead, there would just be a much funnier problem.

They don't mention the types of phones

[93 Escort Wagon]

So I conclude this hasn't involved an iPhone. Otherwise at least one of the stories would've worded it as "iPhone owners and a few random others", because news writers seem to think that's the only phone that'll draw readers.

Re:They don't mention the types of phones

[HaZardman27]

Like this?

Re:They don't mention the types of phones

[mark_reh]

Somehow I just KNEW it had to be an iPhone problem.

Pffft!

Jenny?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet his phone number is 867-5309 too.

Re:Jenny?

[Macgrrl]

Heh. I started singing that in my head after I read your comment.

Violation of Apple design patent

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a clear violation of Apple design patent on mapping application with "rounded" (read inaccurate) directions.

"please call Sprint"

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a problem with my DSL once, called the service provider, and the service representative said
"Get online and go to our troubleshooting website"
I changed providers.

It's a brilliant carrier-switching deterrent!

[IcyNeko]

I wonder if this is what Sprint does when people want to leave them for another carrier. Or are considering leaving.

Hand Out News Copy

[dcollins]

'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.''"

I suppose keeping some copies of this news article by the door and handing them out might help a bit.

Re:Hand Out News Copy

[Jason Levine]

It would be annoying if you just had to say "I don't have your phone" over and over, but I'm guessing that some people aren't going to his door in a calm and rational frame of mind. They're probably threatening him and yelling at him to give them their phones back. Even if none of them have gotten violent yet, he's got to live with the worry that, inevitably, one person will. If it was me, I'd be telling Sprint they'd better fix the problem or they'd hear from my lawyers.

Re:We need more guns

[Anonymous Coward]

And if everyone had a ugn, this would not be a problem.

The linked to article sucks. Here is a better one.

[ScottMcD]

The linked to article sucks. Here is a better one with much more detail.

http://llodo.com/lost-phone-dont-blame-wayne-dobson.html

Not a bug, a feature

[Anonymous Coward]

What are some location options when A-GPS fails? Ask Qualcomm.

so I find a phone in the road

[Anonymous Coward]

while cycling to work I find a phone in the road. someone obviously left it on top of the car.

Get to work and call a number in the address book, say I found the phone and they should contact whoever callerID is so they can get it back.

minutes later an angry person calls ranting about me calling people from their phone.

Opps, phone just fell in the trash. Good luck finding it.

Re:so I find a phone in the road

[kimvette]

I lost my iPhone once. The person who picked it up did this and tracked me down before I even knew it was missing, so I didn't even get to use the findmyiphone feature. I didn't berate her, I thanked her and bought her a starbucks gift card as a thank you. :-)

Some people are so uncivilized. I'm sorry that happened to you - and I'd probably have shitcanned the phone after that response too.

Re:so I find a phone in the road

[AK Marc]

Did you call "Home" or ICE? Or did you just call Jenny? Calling the person in their contact list who is cutest is offensive. Calling one of th known owner numbers (home and ICE being the common ones now, unless you also call the number yourself and listen for the message to see if there's a last name and calling people with the matching name in the contact list) would be the only acceptable way of contacting the owner.

Though harassing an unknown holder of your phone is a generally bad idea.

Re:We need more guns

[asylumx]

If everyone had NGU, this would be a bigger problem.

Once Sprint tracks down the problem

[Boawk]

They should change the default address to 1060 W. Addison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsHjW8rBRk0

Re:Once Sprint tracks down the problem

[tilante]

I suggest changing it to 1600 Pennsylvania St., Washington, DC. This will solve the problem in that (a) the people living there have very good protection, and don't have to worry about a random nut who won't believe they don't have his/her phone, (b) it will become national news, so everyone even vaguely informed will soon know that if your phone locator shows it's there, don't believe it, and (c) it should provide for a new, entertaining conspiracy theory for nutters to go on about, all on how Obama is stealing phones and using his power as President to cover it up.

Time to start stealing phones

[ddd0004]

No way this guy is going to get caught now.

That's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be incorrect. See Section 806 of the FDCPA, 15 USC 1692d, which begins "A debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt.". There's also a kicker in section 805(b), which prohibits a debt collection from communicating with any third party without the consumer's consent except for the specific purposes described in section 804 on locating the actual consumer. So yes, the FDCPA provides remedies and protections for people other than the consumer.

That's actually the source of the problem. Legally, they can't talk to anyone about anything unless that person is the debtor. So the first thing they ask is, "Are you XXXX?"

You say "no," they immediately hang up, because they can't talk to anyone else about XXXX's debts. But they call back the next day and ask again.

You say "yes," they've just confirmed your number is a valid number for XXXX and will keep calling. You have to demand in writing that they stop, but that would require you to send a fraudulent letter in XXXX's name. Even so, they'll simply log that XXXX can be reached at your number, and sell that number to other debt collectors.

You hang up, they call you back the next day and ask again.

You try to be clever and demand their business address instead of answering yes or no, they simply repeat, "Are you XXXX? Are you XXXX? Are you XXXX?"

Trust me, there is no way out of that catch-22.

Re:That's the problem

[Todd Knarr]

Yep, but if they continue to call knowing that the debtor isn't there, they're in violation of various sections of the FDCPA. It's not usually hard to track the phone number back to a collections agency, they're not real good at hiding themselves. And once I know that, I respond to their question with "Is this $NAMEOFCOLLECTIONAGENCY?". That puts them in a bind and how they answer doesn't change the substance of my next statement, only it's phrasing: "The person XXXXX you are trying to contact does not live here and can't be contacted through this number. If you continue to call this number I will consider it harassment and a violation of the FDCPA.". Then I hang up. If I'm really annoyed and anticipating actually doing anything to them, I'd print out a quick little letter and spend a few bucks on registered mail, return receipt requested to their office. But if they really aren't calling for me or anyone here, usually just being firm gets them to stop, because they don't want the hassle and expense of sending someone to small-claims court and they really don't want the hassle of dealing with a default judgement if they don't. Judges may be unsympathetic to people trying to get free money via FDCPA/TCPA complaints, but it's easy to frame the complaint instead as an aggrieved uninvolved party who just wants the phone calls to stop who's faced with a company that just won't accept the truth.

If you're female, filing the harassing-calls paperwork might produce interesting results. Female getting calls at all hours, faked caller ID information, dead air (robodialer trying to find an agent to hand the call to) or a male who won't identify themselves (agent instructed not to give out information), you're getting creeped out by it (you probably are), that should get the incident routed over to Vice as a potential stalker.

Re:That's the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, but if they continue to call knowing that the debtor isn't there, they're in violation of various sections of the FDCPA. It's not usually hard to track the phone number back to a collections agency, they're not real good at hiding themselves. And once I know that, I respond to their question with "Is this $NAMEOFCOLLECTIONAGENCY?".

If you have a (even remotely) valid Caller ID, then you can do that. Or if you have the cooperation of the police or The Phone Company, that works too.

The ones that are douchey enough to play the game are usually savvy enough not to send a valid Caller ID or otherwise reveal anything about who they are or who they're collecting for. Hell, for all I know, there may be no legitimate debt involved; I wouldn't put it past those assholes.

Re:We need more guns

[i kan reed]

Yes, this poor man would be dead.

Relevant XKCD

[ryzvonusef]

http://xkcd.com/1105/

Re:Relevant XKCD

[Wookact]

There is an XKCD for everything.

Unfortunately it can be a long time on evidence

[Sycraft-fu]

Had the same kind of thing happen with a laptop at work. It got stolen from the guy's car. It had Computrace on it so we called them up and had it fired up. After a fair bit of time the police were ready and used the info to go and arrest the people (who of course had a bunch of stolen goods). They then had to hang on to the laptop for like 9 months as evidence even though it was a pretty clear and quick, by court standards, case.

Thing is not only does it take some time for the prosecution to get everything ready (make sure they aren't missing anything and so on) but defense attorneys quite often wish to delay things to distance their client from the event, and to have time to try and negotiate a better plea. As such it can take a lot of time, even when things are straight forward.

no, it's easy

[Anonymous Coward]

"'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.'''

No, it's easy: "My neighbor steals phones all the time. Maybe you should try his house"

Re:no, it's easy

[sco08y]

"'It's very difficult to say, 'I don't have your phone,' in any other way other than, 'I don't have your phone.'''

No, it's easy: "My neighbor steals phones all the time. Maybe you should try his house"

Why pick on your neighbor?

Find the address of a Sprint exec, claim he knows where their phone is, and it might actually get fixed.

Seriously /.?

[Anonymous Coward]

Skip the blog post and go to the actual at http://www.lvrj.com/news/if-you-lose-your-cellphone-don-t-blame-wayne-dobson-186670171.html.

Re:Seriously /.?

[Kalriath]

I'd rather give ad revenue to bottom feeding blog scraper scumbags than the bottom feeding copyright troll scumbags that founded Righthaven, thanks.

Why is this Sprint's problem?

[RightSaidFred99]

Unless Sprint gave them the app (they didn't) or the information to get to the house (they didn't), it has nothing to do with Sprint.

Re:Why is this Sprint's problem?

[csnydermvpsoft]

If I'm understanding it correctly, it's not an app on the phone - it's Sprint's network locating the phone (similar to how 911 geolocation works). The phone doesn't even have to be a smartphone.

Re:We need more guns

[yurtinus]

yeah, but do you know how hard it is to get a wildebeest in Vegas?

Move along...

[Anonymous Coward]

*waves hand at stranger*
This is not the smartphone you are looking for you.

Move along....

Action direct rather Re:i would sue

[mjwalshe]

So the tower has an unfortunate coming together at night with an angle grinder - action direct :-) btw i am joking

Not the first time

[csnydermvpsoft]

This problem has also occurred in Grand Rapids, MI, also with Sprint. The most notable manifestation of this problem occurred while police were chasing a mass murderer a couple of years ago, and ended up at the wrong house:

The homeowner, Jeff DeVries, married with two children, said neighbors called him at work, saying police were outside his home, guns drawn. He called police, who told him to come to the scene.

Once he got there they went into the house and found only the dog, in its crate. His wife was at work and his kids were at daycare.

The homeowner said there appears to be a network problem with Sprint. He said that for the last two months, people have been stopping by his home to say that they were told their phone was there. He had been trying to resolve it with the company, but to no avail.

Re:Not the first time

[R3d M3rcury]

So, important safety tip: If you're going to be a criminal, use Sprint.

Re: Not for the first time

[isorox]

I skimmed the submission, it rang a bell, I searched it, submission on front page, I pasted and Wham! Instant tit head!

Thems the breaks

That's terrible, reading anything in the submission should be a crime. We managed to ban articles back in 2005, but skimming submissions is far to close to "informed"

Re: Not for the first time

[InsectOverlord]

It isn't even the second time, as others have pointed out.

Considering the problem appears to be about a rough cell tower-based location being reported as a GPS-accurate location, I only find it interesting that this doesn't happen far more often.

Nothing New Under the Sun

[romons]

Once, a local tire company had a huge tire sale, and printed my phone number instead of theirs as the contact. I was getting phone numbers for (the now defunct) "Mark Morris Tires" for months. Fortunately, they didn't come after me looking for stolen tires. The punchline is that they actually did it twice, reusing the art for the prior ad a year later, after I had called them and complained!

Bounty Justice?

[JimsonJ]

Even if he did, what are the people expecting when they show up at his door? "Uhhhh, ya sorry, you got me. I have your phone".