Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Amends Telemarketing Rule To Ban Payment Methods Used By Scammers

Posted by timothy on from the good-luck-with-all-that dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Federal Trade Commission has approved final amendments to its Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), including a change that will help protect consumers from fraud by prohibiting four discrete types of payment methods favored by scammers. The TSR changes will stop telemarketers from dipping directly into consumer bank accounts by using certain kinds of checks and "payment orders" that have been "remotely created" by the telemarketer or seller. In addition, the amendments will bar telemarketers from receiving payments through traditional "cash-to-cash" money transfers – provided by companies like MoneyGram, Western Union, and RIA.

29 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. What changes? by kuzb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What changes is very little. If a telemarketer is honest he'll probably be playing by the rules already - however these people are scammers. They're not going to suddenly start changing the way they operate because the FTC said "stop, or we'll say stop again!". It's not like most of the marks these people are going after will even be aware of such changes.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:What changes? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      If it creates more liability on the part of the scammers, it increases their cost of doing business. That means less of it, and better penalties, right?

    2. Re:What changes? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It does give additional recourse to the consumer if they get scammed. They Scum Scammers may have enough legal prescience to cover a lot of the parts of the scam, such as selling a low quality product as high quality, or just offering some sort of lame service for money. But if they are doing the illegal money transfer it gives them one more thing to get them on.
      You go to jail for breaking the law, you don't go to jail because you are a waste on human society.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re: What changes? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Europe approves!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:What changes? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:What changes? by bjwest · · Score: 1

      It does give additional recourse to the consumer if they get scammed. They Scum Scammers may have enough legal prescience to cover a lot of the parts of the scam, such as selling a low quality product as high quality, or just offering some sort of lame service for money. But if they are doing the illegal money transfer it gives them one more thing to get them on. You go to jail for breaking the law, you don't go to jail because you are a waste on human society.

      You seriously think this will change anything, or cause anyone to go to jail? "Rob", sitting in a call center on some subcontinent somewhere, while not helping you figure out why your Start Menu doesn't pop up when you press the Windows key, is making spoofed-CID calls to you claiming to be a MS representative that has been informed you're computer has a serious problem, and for a quick $20, they can fix it right up for you.

      None of these scammers gives a rats ass about U.S. laws and regulations. They don't apply to them.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    6. Re:What changes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What changes is very little. If a telemarketer is honest he'll probably be playing by the rules already - however these people are scammers. They're not going to suddenly start changing the way they operate because the FTC said "stop, or we'll say stop again!". It's not like most of the marks these people are going after will even be aware of such changes.

      I wondered this myself. Thought about it a bit.
      What changes is if someone now uses these methods, they're guilty. No tedious investigation needed. It lets the FTC go after such scammers trivially while spending more resources on harder scams.

    7. Re:What changes? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It may even make them move offshore.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:What changes? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      "Rob", sitting in a call center on some subcontinent somewhere ... is making spoofed-CID calls to you claiming to be a MS representative that has been informed you're computer has a serious problem, and for a quick $20, they can fix it right up for you.

      You are getting the wrong kind of scammer. My scammers offer to fix my PC for free.

      None of these scammers gives a rats ass about U.S. laws and regulations. They don't apply to them.

      But by asking for payment in one of these illegal-in-the-USA ways, it reveals to anyone who knows that law that they are a crook and hence places another hurdle in their path to a successful scam. No, it won't work 100% of the time, but no law does.

      Personally I would not need to get that far into the phone call to realise it, and nor would you. Especially (like last week) they say my "Windows" has got a virus, when I'm running Linux. [Actally I booted XP in VirtualBox and led them on for 35 minutes]

    9. Re:What changes? by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      And I guess it's just fortuitous (for the state) that they can track all the allowed transactions.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    10. Re:What changes? by kuzb · · Score: 1

      The point is what they're doing is already illegal. Making it more illegal isn't going to convince them to stop, nor will it make them easier to catch.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    11. Re:What changes? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What changes is very little. If a telemarketer is honest he'll probably be playing by the rules already - however these people are scammers. They're not going to suddenly start changing the way they operate because the FTC said "stop, or we'll say stop again!". It's not like most of the marks these people are going after will even be aware of such changes.,

      Well, you can easily run a PSA on "If someone asks you for money via Western Union/etc., it isn't legit, so just hang up".

      And that's likely the point.Because those methods of payment are less trackable and the authorities are helpless to deal with victims because of it. But if you use a credit card, all of a sudden a lot more of the transaction is trackable.

      So first, the marks have one more tool to help identify a scam, and should the scammers try to use a legitimate service, the tracking is a lot better.

  2. Germany should take note by Jack+Malmostoso · · Score: 2

    Here in Germany credit cards are still seen as an exotic and luxurious item, and most transactions are conducted by giving direct access to your bank account. Sign up for a phone plan? Give them your bank account. Sign up for internet? Bank account. Buy on Amazon? You guessed it, bank account.

    An extremely popular payment method is Sofortüberweisung, where you authorize a bank transfer at checkout. I am not sure what would happen if someone would intercept this payment and add a couple of zeroes to the amount, as technically you have authorized the transaction with your two-way authentication.

    1. Re:Germany should take note by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Use two bank accounts, one big, one small, say a few thousand $/Euro. No merchant gets the big account number, only recurring work, retirement transfers into the big account and deposits. 1-2 monthly transfers from big acct to small acct to keep it full.

    2. Re:Germany should take note by aix+tom · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing with this "direct bank access" in Germany is that I can go to my bank inside six weeks after the transfer and just tell them "reverse that transaction" and they just do it no question asked. So no scammer would ever use that to get money.

      In fact, the "scamming" happens more the other way around. People ordering stuff with that direct debit payment, then reverse the payment after five weeks. Then the merchant has to either sue them to get his money, or he can decide do just live with the loss and just black-list them as customers.

    3. Re:Germany should take note by rev0lt · · Score: 1

      Disposable/Virtual VISA cards can be bought at any convenience store anywhere (gas stations, 24/7 stores) - at least in Berlin and Munich. You can even top them with a small amount when you buy them. You can then top them via bank transfer, and the limit is defined by the amount of info about yourself you give the broker. In Portugal, you have MBNet, a free service that will generate one-time usage VISA or Mastercard numbers with a limit amount, debiting it right on your bank account, but disposable VISA cards (eg. for anonymous usage) basically don't exist.

    4. Re:Germany should take note by radiumsoup · · Score: 1

      sounds a lot like credit/debit cards, but with slightly more hassle and lower (maybe?) fees.

    5. Re:Germany should take note by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      It's worse, the entire new European transfer system works the same way. Anyone with a merchant account can plunder Europe wide now.

      We had the chance to move to an explicit authorization system for bank transfers when we created the European system, instead the banks decided to keep the old systems and spread it around Europe for extra easy fraud. Banking is being run by morons, assholes and sociopaths.

    6. Re:Germany should take note by TWX · · Score: 1

      The thing with this "direct bank access" in Germany is that I can go to my bank inside six weeks after the transfer and just tell them "reverse that transaction" and they just do it no question asked. So no scammer would ever use that to get money.

      So what happens when the receiving-account is now empty or has been closed?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  3. One can dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why not ban telemarketers altogether?

    1. Re:One can dream by mi · · Score: 2

      Why not ban telemarketers altogether?

      The First Amendment. A sales pitch is speech...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:One can dream by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      And why should I have to pay for someone else's "free speech"? My only phone is a cell phone, with a plan that has limited minutes per month. The minutes that I paid for should not be wasted by telemarketers! Furthermore, I paid for my phone and my minutes, so ONLY I should get to decide who can call me!!!!

      Your problem is the lunatic USA way of charging some of the call to the receiver (as I understand it). In the UK (and Europe/Rest-of-the-World) the caller pays the whole fee.

    3. Re:One can dream by mi · · Score: 1

      No it isn't protected by the First Amendment. "Commercial Speech" is commercial activity,* and not speech per se. [...] I, I'm too lazy too look them up right now.

      I was not: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/p...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Hooray! by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Given the average adults love for keeping up FTC amendments even more than Kardashians, even senior citizens everywhere will now know this isn't allowed! Upon hearing this amendment, millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and suddenly fell silent. Keep it real FTC!

    1. Re:Hooray! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd already be very surprised if the average answer to the question whether they heard about the FTC wasn't "Is that the new CSI spinoff?"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. land of the ... past by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    "TSR changes will stop telemarketers from dipping directly into consumer bank accounts by using certain kinds of checks and "payment orders" that have been "remotely created" by the telemarketer or seller"

    Well, I'm actually very surprised the U.S. as an economy still stands. WIth credit/debit card security features still in the stone age and quite disturbing news like the above (well, the news is actually good, but the fact it tries to fix ridiculous idiocies this late are anything but) what's surpising is that there is any person at all in the country that has a yet unstolen card number and/or never been successfully schemed out of every penny.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  6. Re:Telemarketing is for cows. by radiumsoup · · Score: 1

    This is a moo point. A cow's opinion just doesn't matter. It's moo.

  7. Re:Why Money Orders? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Restricting who can take directly from another person's bank account makes sense, but restricting who I can mail a physical money order to?

    Please quote where money orders are mentioned in the summary or TFA.
    The article mentions payment orders, and MoneyGram, neither of which are the same thing as money orders.

  8. Great! by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Now that it's illegal these crooks will HAVE to stop using it! Crooks don't want to break any laws do they? I feel so much safer making the things these crooks do illegal!