> The message goes on to take a swipe at what appears to be Yahoo employees' preferred mail client, Microsoft Outlook, describing it as 'anachronism of the now defunct 90s PC era, a pre-web program written at a time when NT Server terrorized the data center landscape with the confidence of a T-Rex born to yuppie dinosaur parents who fully bought into the illusion of their son's utter uniqueness because the big-mouthed, tiny-armed monster infant could mimic the gestures of The Itsy-Bitsy Pterodactyl.'
Um, ok... and they're right, if a little too colorful, and it doesn't even mention Office 365, which has all the disadvantages of Outlook plus most the disadvantages of internet-based email (see below).
One can legitimately rag on Outlook, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Yahoo Mail is an adequate replacement. It lags, both in response and in sending/receiving. It requires the internet. It's not well integrated. The phone app is annoying. I've read recently that you now have to have a Plus (paying) account in order to use pop3. Web mail in general is too "mousy". It takes way too long to burn through a bunch of emails and do various disparate things to them. Web mail is cute and colorful, and moderately easy to learn, but it's not efficient. My mom uses Yahoo Mail. So does my wife. It's a good email tool for non-technical people who don't do a lot of email.
Let me repeat that, because I think this is the crux of the issue. Yahoo mail is a good email tool for non-technical people who don't do a lot of email.
My non-work email is from a service that includes pop3 support for 1/10 the yearly cost of an ad-free Yahoo Mail Plus account. I can access it via the generic Android email app or pop the messages to a "fat client" on my home machine, which can easily be operated entirely from the keyboard. A web interface is provided for emergencies, so I can still access email in a browser if I don't have access to my home machine or my phone. I maintain a Yahoo email account because my family uses Yahoo Messenger, but I rarely visit it because the web interface is slow and clumsy.
So yeah, I can see Yahoo employees being stuck between a rock and a hard place -- Outlook and Yahoo Mail, neither of which are optimal. At least with Outlook, they can still read their currently spooled messages if they lose connection to the outside world. Not to mention, carpel tunnel in the mouse hand from trying to do real work in a webmail interface.
Conversely, if the company absolutely, draconically required Yahoo Mail only, and did not allow any other mail tool to be used on pain of dismissal, this may lead to the tool becoming much improved. In a year or three, it might even be adequate for the Enterprise. If Yahoo didn't go under first. Email is kinda important to the business...
I did not mean to insinuate that pros deserve special treatment. I do think that pros are more likely to have the connections and knowledge to pursue the issue. On the other hand, I fully expect that somewhere there's a mom that says "oh, look, there's little Mary in the yellow bikini we bought last week. Wait, that's an ad for a Nexus 5... Henry, call the cops!" And in my opinion, Mom would have a perfect right to do so.
Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy.
...whereas before the Internet, people first paid and only then were shown the photos...?
You know what I mean. If someone is exhibiting photos in a storefront, you would be accused of theft if you took one and walked out. Moreover, photographing art in a gallery is almost always forbidden. (Exceptions are made for public domain art.)
So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)
I definitely wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that would legally prohibit mere saving a picture from a web page. Are you insinuating that there is indeed such a horrible place in the world?
You're taking my words out of context. This is not that hard to understand. I have a website. I sell photos directly from the website. Yes, you can right click and save a (generally smaller, lower quality) copy of a photo I have for sale. I can't stop that and don't really try. But if you sell the photo or use it to draw eyes to a website without my permission, that is theft and I will pursue it.
Moreover, I try to make it easy to do the right thing by keeping my prices reasonable. A digital copy for personal use is typically a couple of bucks. Prints cost a little more, (you're essentially paying for the convenience of having it printed and/or framed for you) and commercial reuse costs significantly more. I allow non-profit reuse for free, if I get a photo credit. If you are the subject of a candid (event, street photo) I will always ask permission first, and I will give you a copy for free if asked.
I have incorporated other people's photos into commercial websites. I always pay for commercial use of the photo, and provide attribution if asked. I expect people to treat me as I treat them.
I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.
Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!
What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.
Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.
You realize that resell vs fair use invalidates most of your argument?
> I'm curious, how do you define "sell" when a website uses your work on a page riddled with ads?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the phrase "directly or indirectly" probably applies. If a content provider takes one of my photos and puts it on a website "riddled with ads", they're at very least getting indirect financial gain from the photo being on the site. (Else, why put it there?)
> Also, should imagery by a "pro" be treated any differently than from an amateur or do the big boys know they're breaking the law and assume you don't give a shit enough to sue?
This is my opinion, but I don't think it makes any difference. For instance, before I turned pro, I happened to be at the scene with my camera during a major flood. (Levee break.) At the time I didn't understand that the photos I took were unique, and this was before sharing photos on the internet was common, so the question never came up. But there's no question that me, as an amateur, owned those photos, and would expect compensation if someone used them for financial gain. (Appearing in a newspaper in conjunction with a news item is financial gain, because it helps sell advertising space.)
This is not an amateur vs pro thing. Merely that a pro is probably more conversant with his rights and how to pursue them, (and with the means to pursue same) because it's part of the skill set. If Facebook/Google uses your photos to attract ad space without compensation, I'd call that theft regardless of whether you offered your photos up for sale or not. (The exception is if you were asked and had consented to have your photos used.) A difference, as you pointed out, is that an amateur is less likely to care.
> Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
AFP was wrong to take the images because they didn't own them. As a professional photographer, I expect to be paid for my work, unless I choose to give it away. (Which I have chosen to do on occasion, usually requiring a photo credit.) Using my work for financial gain without my permission is theft, plain and simple. On the other hand, I photograph events, and I allow a reasonable amount of "fair use", as long as the user does not profit from the work and I get a photo credit.
My website has incorporated into it artwork that it so happens I did not create. And I paid the owner for the right to use those works, because I did not own them. As I treat others, so I expect to be treated. This is not hard to understand. It's not a matter of "the honored institution of copyright" (which is arguably broken) it's a matter of taking something without permission and using it for your own financial gain. If you want pictures of the flood, go out and take your own damned pictures, or pay me for mine. (I haven't photographed a flood since the Feather River, CA levee break in 1986 -- floods are not my thing -- but the point still stands.)
Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)
I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.
Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.
...so this facebook and google thing, where they mine photos and use them as advertisements, is going to get interesting if they use a copyright work from a pro. IANAL, but I don't think a TOS will help them there.
I dunno, it occurs to me that this leads us to a dark place, where any creation of energy is condemned because it has some effect on the environment, without any appreciation of scale. (In this case, the (paltry, in comparison) geothermal energy actually in use by the plant vs the several orders of magnitude higher thermal energy contained within the earth's core.)
It reminds me of a conversation I had several years ago with a Green, regarding fusion power, where I described taking sea water, separating out the deuterium for fuel, heating the water to drive turbines for power, and using a portion of that power to continue the process. (This is probably impractical for several reasons, but it was what I knew at the time and served "for sake of argument".) Her reaction was indignation that I would mine sea water for an isotope and dare to heat water to drive turbines, both of which clearly had an impact on the environment. At that point I realized there would be no solution that would be considered acceptable, and avoided the topic in the future. This was also when I came to realize that regular people often have no sense of scale.
I've tried not to be rude. The last one was a woman, and I asked her politely if her mom knows that she steals money from people for a living? How does her mom feel about that? Is that how she was raised? I have a wife and child, does she think that I deserve to be robbed? Would she like to talk to my daughter? And so forth. She hung up.
One of my reasons for liked my bank is that I actually answered once and the woman on the phone introduced herself and said how they detected suspicious activity on the card. She then asked if I had my card with me and if it was a good time. I said "yes." She said, "Ok, good. Hang up and call the number on the back of your card." I did. One ring and then the automated system said, "Thank you for calling the $BANKNAME card services number. According to our records, you were recently connected with Michelle[obviously different voice] in our fraud prevention department. If you would like to reconnect with Michelle[obviously different voice], please stay on the line. If you would like to hear other options or to speak with a different representative, press star. [pause, then ringing] Fraud prevention, this is Michelle." The nice thing was, in order to dispute the charges, I didn't have to provide any information other than, "No, I've never been to Portland."
I loved having a credit union, until they switched card companies. Now the experience is totally different.
As an aside, the best check I've used is to ask what bank my card is through. Never going to guess that one and on the off chance they do, you can just say, "why does my card say $differentbankname?" Say they must be confused and hang up. You'd better bet that when they call back they will use whatever bank name you told them.
Side note: Your experience is exactly how it should be done.
The "chase bank" scam fell apart early because I don't have a Chase card. Actually, I would rather gouge my eyes out then do business with Chase. But my fear is that at least some of these calls are coming from people who have access to at least some of our personal information. As I said in a different thread, my last call from "The Microsoft" about my machine being "infested with the viruses" asked for me by my full name. This tells me right off the bat that even a voice that seems to know about you is not a good indication that the call is legit. That's why I like your bank's solution (call the number on the card, get autoconnected) is so cool.
That's.... actually, not a bad idea. My only hesitation is that a large number of the people you cold-call will inevitably be the ones who had received calls from scammers and seen through it, or even worse, had been previously crapped on by scammers. I contend there would be a significant chance that your day would consist of three or four police whistles in your ear at high volume. You'd have to provide for that.
When I retire, maybe I'll cold-call people and legitimately fix their computers for free, just to screw with people. (I did something similar in a different field a couple years ago and it worked out pretty well. I was photographing a public event, and a competing photographer tried to scam me (and it worked, partially... I'm still embarrassed for falling for it) in revenge, I started appearing at every event he worked, and shot it for free. In less than a year he was out of business. But that's another story...)
> although we haven't heard that they've selected a strong turnaround manager and set him or her to work on the project -- and you'd think they would have told us if they had.
My guess is, there are some things not even a skilled turnaround manager can fix, and being associated with such a project might be a career-limiting move. A really skilled turnaround manager would recognize this, and decline the opportunity.
I should say, I've really been tempted to keep one of those aerosol air horns (like you're supposed to keep in a boat for emergencies) by the phone. After establishing a scam in progress, a quick blast and then hang up. But I've been told that this is probably illegal.
Agreed they can be legit, but it's sometimes tricky to tell when they are.
The last call I got from "The Microsoft" telling me that my machine was "infested with the viruses", they asked for me by my full correct name. This alarms me. I am now wondering if someone's customer list was hacked and used for social engineering purposes by a scammer.
Not long ago I gat a call from a 1-800 number (I never answer these numbers.) They left a message telling me there was a problem with my credit card, and asking me to call them back and giving my the same number that showed up on call display.
Naturally I googled the number. About half the people were saying it was legit, and half saying a scam. I checked the number against the number on the back of my credit card, and it did not match. I calld the number on my credit card, just to be sure.
It turns out that there was a problem, someone buying show tickets on the east coast while I am on the west coast.
So even the banks are screwed up. They should be telling me to call the number on my card. I wonder what would have happened if I had just ignored the call. I was quite disappointed.
For the record, Royal Bank of Canada.
Agree completely. I've had two legitimate calls from fraud prevention for my credit card, with a number to call back that did not match the number on the back of my card. They really need to stop doing this. It sets consumer expectations that a number you receive in a cold call is legitimate, which is a very dangerous assumption. In both cases, I called the number on the card, got routed to fraud prevention, and took care of it.
In my case, it was a credit union in the pacific northwest.
I do technical support, but people have to come to me. I tell all my customers and potential customers that nobody cold-calls you, tells you they "have noticed" that your machine needs repair, and offers to do same. This is guaranteed to be a scam.
Other indications: A heavily accented voice saying: "Hello, my name is Frank and I am from The Microsoft and I am calling because we have noticed that your computer is infested with the viruses." I'm sorry, not only does nobody make that kind of call, nobody talks like that. (I have a friend who works at "The Microsoft", and he has decided he will henceforth be addressed as "The Frank"....) Like anything else these days, scam call centers are typically low paid foreign nationals with poor communication skills who are following a script. They do it this way because (a) the overhead is very low, and (b) it works, at least, often enough to be profitable.
These scams are not limited to fake tech support. I got a robocall a few weeks ago saying "This is a message from Chase bank. We regret to inform you that your Chase bank card has been frozen. To unlock your card, please press one to be connected to our security department". Obviously the helpful, heavily accented person you get when you press one will helpfully take your card number and identity, "unlock your card" and you'll have been robbed.
...which is similar to the call you'll get from "The Department of Sheriffs" that you'll be immediately arrested if you do not take care of this overdue bill immediately.
It's all the same type of scam. People sitting at card tables patiently calling number after number with the same, pre-written script, secure in the knowledge that there will be enough people who buy it to make their pimp happy and maybe they'll get a place to sleep that night.
Never give personal information to a cold call. Never believe anything you hear from a cold call. If you think it could be legit, conclude the call, look up the *real* number of whatever institution purports to have called you, and call them. Real institutions (even creditors) will understand when you insist on doing this. Do I really have to say, do *not* believe a cold call when they give you a number to call back.
> You know, like cellphones, can't take out the battery either.
Can't take the battery out of your smart phone? There's a secret way to turn it completely off: (a) Grab the ends of your smartphone firmly. (b) Twist as hard as you can.
The store will assist you in turning your smart phone back on. [1]
[1] "Gee, I don't know what happened. I just found it like that. Maybe it exploded. This is covered under warranty, right?"
> You don't "accidentally forget" to feed an animal in your care for days on end.
Um, yeah, it can happen. A family member is clinically depressed, and she goes through periods where she literally does not know how many days have passed since the last time she fed her pets. (Her pets are supposedly for therapy purposes, but that proved to be a two edged sword.) When one of her pets was found nearly dead due to malnutration, (recovered in a vet's care, but it was a close thing) and it was discovered that all of her pets were malnourished, we had to put a process in place where a responsible person supervised her, reminding her to feed her pets and feeding them during her unresponsive periods.
The OP probably did not mean a situation exactly like that, but it was the first thing I thought of as I was reading it.
Slashdot Mirror
> The message goes on to take a swipe at what appears to be Yahoo employees' preferred mail client, Microsoft Outlook, describing it as 'anachronism of the now defunct 90s PC era, a pre-web program written at a time when NT Server terrorized the data center landscape with the confidence of a T-Rex born to yuppie dinosaur parents who fully bought into the illusion of their son's utter uniqueness because the big-mouthed, tiny-armed monster infant could mimic the gestures of The Itsy-Bitsy Pterodactyl.'
Um, ok... and they're right, if a little too colorful, and it doesn't even mention Office 365, which has all the disadvantages of Outlook plus most the disadvantages of internet-based email (see below).
One can legitimately rag on Outlook, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Yahoo Mail is an adequate replacement. It lags, both in response and in sending/receiving. It requires the internet. It's not well integrated. The phone app is annoying. I've read recently that you now have to have a Plus (paying) account in order to use pop3. Web mail in general is too "mousy". It takes way too long to burn through a bunch of emails and do various disparate things to them. Web mail is cute and colorful, and moderately easy to learn, but it's not efficient. My mom uses Yahoo Mail. So does my wife. It's a good email tool for non-technical people who don't do a lot of email.
Let me repeat that, because I think this is the crux of the issue. Yahoo mail is a good email tool for non-technical people who don't do a lot of email.
My non-work email is from a service that includes pop3 support for 1/10 the yearly cost of an ad-free Yahoo Mail Plus account. I can access it via the generic Android email app or pop the messages to a "fat client" on my home machine, which can easily be operated entirely from the keyboard. A web interface is provided for emergencies, so I can still access email in a browser if I don't have access to my home machine or my phone. I maintain a Yahoo email account because my family uses Yahoo Messenger, but I rarely visit it because the web interface is slow and clumsy.
So yeah, I can see Yahoo employees being stuck between a rock and a hard place -- Outlook and Yahoo Mail, neither of which are optimal. At least with Outlook, they can still read their currently spooled messages if they lose connection to the outside world. Not to mention, carpel tunnel in the mouse hand from trying to do real work in a webmail interface.
Conversely, if the company absolutely, draconically required Yahoo Mail only, and did not allow any other mail tool to be used on pain of dismissal, this may lead to the tool becoming much improved. In a year or three, it might even be adequate for the Enterprise. If Yahoo didn't go under first. Email is kinda important to the business...
This.
I did not mean to insinuate that pros deserve special treatment. I do think that pros are more likely to have the connections and knowledge to pursue the issue. On the other hand, I fully expect that somewhere there's a mom that says "oh, look, there's little Mary in the yellow bikini we bought last week. Wait, that's an ad for a Nexus 5... Henry, call the cops!" And in my opinion, Mom would have a perfect right to do so.
Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy.
...whereas before the Internet, people first paid and only then were shown the photos...?
You know what I mean. If someone is exhibiting photos in a storefront, you would be accused of theft if you took one and walked out. Moreover, photographing art in a gallery is almost always forbidden. (Exceptions are made for public domain art.)
So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)
I definitely wouldn't want to live in a jurisdiction that would legally prohibit mere saving a picture from a web page. Are you insinuating that there is indeed such a horrible place in the world?
You're taking my words out of context. This is not that hard to understand. I have a website. I sell photos directly from the website. Yes, you can right click and save a (generally smaller, lower quality) copy of a photo I have for sale. I can't stop that and don't really try. But if you sell the photo or use it to draw eyes to a website without my permission, that is theft and I will pursue it.
Moreover, I try to make it easy to do the right thing by keeping my prices reasonable. A digital copy for personal use is typically a couple of bucks. Prints cost a little more, (you're essentially paying for the convenience of having it printed and/or framed for you) and commercial reuse costs significantly more. I allow non-profit reuse for free, if I get a photo credit. If you are the subject of a candid (event, street photo) I will always ask permission first, and I will give you a copy for free if asked.
I have incorporated other people's photos into commercial websites. I always pay for commercial use of the photo, and provide attribution if asked. I expect people to treat me as I treat them.
Wow, a highly-moderated account of an evil holder of the dreaded copyright — a profiteer on the information, that Wants To Be Free[TM]! On Slashdot!
What's the world coming to? Next we'll start using terms like "theft" and "stealing" when talking about digital photographs, even though you still have your file on your computer, when I do right-click->Save Image on mine.
Well, maybe, it is Ok for you to be doing this by yourself. But the second you decide to delegate the pursuit of thieves to someone else (like PhAA, perhaps?) , then we'll denounce both you and that delegate (MafiAA!!) as "greedy" producers of "trash", which nobody would be buying anyway.
You realize that resell vs fair use invalidates most of your argument?
> I'm curious, how do you define "sell" when a website uses your work on a page riddled with ads?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but the phrase "directly or indirectly" probably applies. If a content provider takes one of my photos and puts it on a website "riddled with ads", they're at very least getting indirect financial gain from the photo being on the site. (Else, why put it there?)
> Also, should imagery by a "pro" be treated any differently than from an amateur or do the big boys know they're breaking the law and assume you don't give a shit enough to sue?
This is my opinion, but I don't think it makes any difference. For instance, before I turned pro, I happened to be at the scene with my camera during a major flood. (Levee break.) At the time I didn't understand that the photos I took were unique, and this was before sharing photos on the internet was common, so the question never came up. But there's no question that me, as an amateur, owned those photos, and would expect compensation if someone used them for financial gain. (Appearing in a newspaper in conjunction with a news item is financial gain, because it helps sell advertising space.)
This is not an amateur vs pro thing. Merely that a pro is probably more conversant with his rights and how to pursue them, (and with the means to pursue same) because it's part of the skill set. If Facebook/Google uses your photos to attract ad space without compensation, I'd call that theft regardless of whether you offered your photos up for sale or not. (The exception is if you were asked and had consented to have your photos used.) A difference, as you pointed out, is that an amateur is less likely to care.
> Was AFP wrong to take the images because it violated the profoundly-honored institution of copyright, which everyone on Slashdot naturally adores (heh), or because they're a rich corporations, and rich corporations are always wrong compared to "working men"?
AFP was wrong to take the images because they didn't own them. As a professional photographer, I expect to be paid for my work, unless I choose to give it away. (Which I have chosen to do on occasion, usually requiring a photo credit.) Using my work for financial gain without my permission is theft, plain and simple. On the other hand, I photograph events, and I allow a reasonable amount of "fair use", as long as the user does not profit from the work and I get a photo credit.
My website has incorporated into it artwork that it so happens I did not create. And I paid the owner for the right to use those works, because I did not own them. As I treat others, so I expect to be treated. This is not hard to understand. It's not a matter of "the honored institution of copyright" (which is arguably broken) it's a matter of taking something without permission and using it for your own financial gain. If you want pictures of the flood, go out and take your own damned pictures, or pay me for mine. (I haven't photographed a flood since the Feather River, CA levee break in 1986 -- floods are not my thing -- but the point still stands.)
Well, speaking as a photographer, the thing about selling photographs on the internet is that you generally have to show people what they're about to buy. So right click and save image is always a possibility. (There are coding ways around this, most of which are trivial to break. That's why the solutions are legal instead of technical.)
I generally have to put up with some amount of "fair use", especially for events, and usually don't make an issue of it, especially if I get a photo credit. But sell one of my photos without my permission and the law will get involved.
Point is, it's possible he knew exactly how the internet works, but with the expectation that he can display his works without having them ripped off, any more than you'd take photos of paintings in a gallery and then sell prints of art you didn't own.
My experience has been that Greens who suggest mass suicide as a solution for environmental impact, never seem to be referring to themselves.
I dunno, it occurs to me that this leads us to a dark place, where any creation of energy is condemned because it has some effect on the environment, without any appreciation of scale. (In this case, the (paltry, in comparison) geothermal energy actually in use by the plant vs the several orders of magnitude higher thermal energy contained within the earth's core.)
It reminds me of a conversation I had several years ago with a Green, regarding fusion power, where I described taking sea water, separating out the deuterium for fuel, heating the water to drive turbines for power, and using a portion of that power to continue the process. (This is probably impractical for several reasons, but it was what I knew at the time and served "for sake of argument".) Her reaction was indignation that I would mine sea water for an isotope and dare to heat water to drive turbines, both of which clearly had an impact on the environment. At that point I realized there would be no solution that would be considered acceptable, and avoided the topic in the future. This was also when I came to realize that regular people often have no sense of scale.
> In short, EvE Online reminds me way too much of real life. And that's what I play videogames to avoid.
I hear you. Same with movies. Wife's choices are inevitably downers. I tell her, if I wanted to be depressed, I'd stay at work.
I've tried not to be rude. The last one was a woman, and I asked her politely if her mom knows that she steals money from people for a living? How does her mom feel about that? Is that how she was raised? I have a wife and child, does she think that I deserve to be robbed? Would she like to talk to my daughter? And so forth. She hung up.
One of my reasons for liked my bank is that I actually answered once and the woman on the phone introduced herself and said how they detected suspicious activity on the card. She then asked if I had my card with me and if it was a good time. I said "yes." She said, "Ok, good. Hang up and call the number on the back of your card." I did. One ring and then the automated system said, "Thank you for calling the $BANKNAME card services number. According to our records, you were recently connected with Michelle[obviously different voice] in our fraud prevention department. If you would like to reconnect with Michelle[obviously different voice], please stay on the line. If you would like to hear other options or to speak with a different representative, press star. [pause, then ringing] Fraud prevention, this is Michelle." The nice thing was, in order to dispute the charges, I didn't have to provide any information other than, "No, I've never been to Portland."
I loved having a credit union, until they switched card companies. Now the experience is totally different.
As an aside, the best check I've used is to ask what bank my card is through. Never going to guess that one and on the off chance they do, you can just say, "why does my card say $differentbankname?" Say they must be confused and hang up. You'd better bet that when they call back they will use whatever bank name you told them.
Side note: Your experience is exactly how it should be done.
The "chase bank" scam fell apart early because I don't have a Chase card. Actually, I would rather gouge my eyes out then do business with Chase. But my fear is that at least some of these calls are coming from people who have access to at least some of our personal information. As I said in a different thread, my last call from "The Microsoft" about my machine being "infested with the viruses" asked for me by my full name. This tells me right off the bat that even a voice that seems to know about you is not a good indication that the call is legit. That's why I like your bank's solution (call the number on the card, get autoconnected) is so cool.
That's.... actually, not a bad idea. My only hesitation is that a large number of the people you cold-call will inevitably be the ones who had received calls from scammers and seen through it, or even worse, had been previously crapped on by scammers. I contend there would be a significant chance that your day would consist of three or four police whistles in your ear at high volume. You'd have to provide for that.
When I retire, maybe I'll cold-call people and legitimately fix their computers for free, just to screw with people. (I did something similar in a different field a couple years ago and it worked out pretty well. I was photographing a public event, and a competing photographer tried to scam me (and it worked, partially... I'm still embarrassed for falling for it) in revenge, I started appearing at every event he worked, and shot it for free. In less than a year he was out of business. But that's another story...)
> although we haven't heard that they've selected a strong turnaround manager and set him or her to work on the project -- and you'd think they would have told us if they had.
My guess is, there are some things not even a skilled turnaround manager can fix, and being associated with such a project might be a career-limiting move. A really skilled turnaround manager would recognize this, and decline the opportunity.
I should say, I've really been tempted to keep one of those aerosol air horns (like you're supposed to keep in a boat for emergencies) by the phone. After establishing a scam in progress, a quick blast and then hang up. But I've been told that this is probably illegal.
The Chase Bank scam call had an incorrect number of digits in the caller ID.
Agreed they can be legit, but it's sometimes tricky to tell when they are.
The last call I got from "The Microsoft" telling me that my machine was "infested with the viruses", they asked for me by my full correct name. This alarms me. I am now wondering if someone's customer list was hacked and used for social engineering purposes by a scammer.
Not long ago I gat a call from a 1-800 number (I never answer these numbers.) They left a message telling me there was a problem with my credit card, and asking me to call them back and giving my the same number that showed up on call display.
Naturally I googled the number. About half the people were saying it was legit, and half saying a scam. I checked the number against the number on the back of my credit card, and it did not match. I calld the number on my credit card, just to be sure.
It turns out that there was a problem, someone buying show tickets on the east coast while I am on the west coast.
So even the banks are screwed up. They should be telling me to call the number on my card. I wonder what would have happened if I had just ignored the call. I was quite disappointed.
For the record, Royal Bank of Canada.
Agree completely. I've had two legitimate calls from fraud prevention for my credit card, with a number to call back that did not match the number on the back of my card. They really need to stop doing this. It sets consumer expectations that a number you receive in a cold call is legitimate, which is a very dangerous assumption. In both cases, I called the number on the card, got routed to fraud prevention, and took care of it.
In my case, it was a credit union in the pacific northwest.
I do technical support, but people have to come to me. I tell all my customers and potential customers that nobody cold-calls you, tells you they "have noticed" that your machine needs repair, and offers to do same. This is guaranteed to be a scam.
Other indications: A heavily accented voice saying: "Hello, my name is Frank and I am from The Microsoft and I am calling because we have noticed that your computer is infested with the viruses." I'm sorry, not only does nobody make that kind of call, nobody talks like that. (I have a friend who works at "The Microsoft", and he has decided he will henceforth be addressed as "The Frank"....) Like anything else these days, scam call centers are typically low paid foreign nationals with poor communication skills who are following a script. They do it this way because (a) the overhead is very low, and (b) it works, at least, often enough to be profitable.
These scams are not limited to fake tech support. I got a robocall a few weeks ago saying "This is a message from Chase bank. We regret to inform you that your Chase bank card has been frozen. To unlock your card, please press one to be connected to our security department". Obviously the helpful, heavily accented person you get when you press one will helpfully take your card number and identity, "unlock your card" and you'll have been robbed.
It's all the same type of scam. People sitting at card tables patiently calling number after number with the same, pre-written script, secure in the knowledge that there will be enough people who buy it to make their pimp happy and maybe they'll get a place to sleep that night.
Never give personal information to a cold call. Never believe anything you hear from a cold call. If you think it could be legit, conclude the call, look up the *real* number of whatever institution purports to have called you, and call them. Real institutions (even creditors) will understand when you insist on doing this. Do I really have to say, do *not* believe a cold call when they give you a number to call back.
Let's be careful out there.
> You know, like cellphones, can't take out the battery either.
Can't take the battery out of your smart phone? There's a secret way to turn it completely off: (a) Grab the ends of your smartphone firmly. (b) Twist as hard as you can.
The store will assist you in turning your smart phone back on. [1]
[1] "Gee, I don't know what happened. I just found it like that. Maybe it exploded. This is covered under warranty, right?"
It's not worth much anymore.
Sorry, I can't go on.
> You don't "accidentally forget" to feed an animal in your care for days on end.
Um, yeah, it can happen. A family member is clinically depressed, and she goes through periods where she literally does not know how many days have passed since the last time she fed her pets. (Her pets are supposedly for therapy purposes, but that proved to be a two edged sword.) When one of her pets was found nearly dead due to malnutration, (recovered in a vet's care, but it was a close thing) and it was discovered that all of her pets were malnourished, we had to put a process in place where a responsible person supervised her, reminding her to feed her pets and feeding them during her unresponsive periods.
The OP probably did not mean a situation exactly like that, but it was the first thing I thought of as I was reading it.