3 ms·

That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assi

That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. It's an answering service for a phone line. Are they supposed to magically know that the people are calling from some robocall and not because it's a semi-large real estate office somewhere? Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to inform them. Then they have a choice to make, investigate whether the accusations are true and decide whether to continue providing service. At that point, they may actually be responsible for something.

tyingq 8y ago
Certainly they get a lot of "quit calling me you aholes" type calls. They know what's up.
- kbenson 8y ago
  So do legitimate services. That doesn't select for illegality, it select for how pissed people are. I bet a bank line gets a lot of irate people being called about their late mortgage payments too. How many of the people that call in do you think calmly explain that this is a telemarkerer, and they are breaking the law, instead of being aggressive or saying "take me off your list" or "I'm on the do-not-call list" and then try to end the conversation? The assumption that both ends of the service are connected actually allows the criminal portion to continue operating for longer, as anger is likely directed at the wrong party, and possibly in an non-constructive manner. And this all assumes people actually take time out to call the number back. How often do you go out of your way to interact with a telemarketer that doesn't have an actual person on the line for the call? My bet is the vast majority of calls are either interested parties or so enraged that understanding what they are actually upset about (and getting them to calm down enough to explain it) is actually rather rare.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    Inbound call centers breathe detailed call flow scripts, metadata, abandon rates, recordings, statistics, etc. I'm quite sure they know which of their clients are legit or not.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      That depends on the type of call center. I imagine an answering service for a business (which is what we're told this is) will likely be a much less defined. For a medical or legal office (which is a common use case, I imagine), the "script" will be to try to suss out if the call is actually an emergency based on client criteria (if the caller presents it as such), and either take a message or use the emergency contact info on the account and relay the info to the client. At least, that's what it's been when I've encountered them. With more free form types of calls, identifying problem accounts might take a little longer. That said, even if it lasts a week or two before a problem account is identified and removed, who is to say that's not plenty of time for the scammers? It's not like there's only a few call answering services around. Just cycle to a new one every week or so. Do I think services exist that cater to illegal and semi-legal activity and try to skirt the line? Yes. I just don't think we should assume that's the case here without evidence, given how trivial it would be to do this with perfectly legitimate services.
FussyZeus 8y ago
> That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, Except if a PO Box was being used for fraud, the person using it would be prosecuted, or at the very least the Post Office would cease providing that service. > or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. Entirely different, that's a misuse of provided products by the purchaser. If you buy gas and use it to commit arson, it's not BP's fault. > Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to inform them. I find it incredibly hard to believe that people aren't informing them, probably at high volumes (audio volumes and quantity volumes) that they don't wish to be called anymore. If I was getting called 3 times a day by some jackwagon wanting to buy my home, the number they'd be giving would definitely be aware of that situation. And, even giving an incredible amount of credit that maybe they didn't know, they now definitely know. What's the over under on them still providing services to "Will"? I'm guessing it's pretty definite they are, because they have no reason to not as long as his checks clear. And that's my point.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Except if a PO Box was being used for fraud, the person using it would be prosecuted, or at the very least the Post Office would cease providing that service. When notified. > Entirely different, that's a misuse of provided products by the purchaser. If you buy gas and use it to commit arson, it's not BP's fault. And how is that different than misuse of a third party service? > I find it incredibly hard to believe that people aren't informing them, probably at high volumes (audio volumes and quantity volumes) that they don't wish to be called anymore. See my other comment to the other reply. Also, I get a lot of calls. After the first time, I generally just hang up after identifying it. I'm not even hearing the number after the first time. Sometimes I'm mad and might want to call in to complain, but I'm not always at leisure to do so. > What's the over under on them still providing services to "Will"? That's not how I interpreted the article. I interpreted it as they were the answering service for one of the target lines that the number forwarded to. For example, scam line forwards to 4-10 real agents in on the scam, one of them has an answering service. Occasionally calls forwarded to that agent forward again to the PAT service. That's not necessarily the same as providing answering service for "Will" if that's the case, and may not be immediately obvious if mixed with some other types of calls. That said, yes, I expect they would investigate and cut ties if notified. Why wouldn't they? You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity. Phone answering services are extremely common. Have you ever called a small medical office during lunch, or after hours at any time? You get an answering service with emergency contact numbers for personnel, in case that's called for. Legitimate businesses do not want to open themselves up to the liability of being complicit in a crime. I'm not sure we've seen anything to indicate the answering service is not a legitimate business being taken advantage of.

tyingq 8y ago

Certainly they get a lot of "quit calling me you aholes" type calls. They know what's up.

kbenson 8y ago
So do legitimate services. That doesn't select for illegality, it select for how pissed people are. I bet a bank line gets a lot of irate people being called about their late mortgage payments too. How many of the people that call in do you think calmly explain that this is a telemarkerer, and they are breaking the law, instead of being aggressive or saying "take me off your list" or "I'm on the do-not-call list" and then try to end the conversation? The assumption that both ends of the service are connected actually allows the criminal portion to continue operating for longer, as anger is likely directed at the wrong party, and possibly in an non-constructive manner. And this all assumes people actually take time out to call the number back. How often do you go out of your way to interact with a telemarketer that doesn't have an actual person on the line for the call? My bet is the vast majority of calls are either interested parties or so enraged that understanding what they are actually upset about (and getting them to calm down enough to explain it) is actually rather rare.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Inbound call centers breathe detailed call flow scripts, metadata, abandon rates, recordings, statistics, etc. I'm quite sure they know which of their clients are legit or not.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    That depends on the type of call center. I imagine an answering service for a business (which is what we're told this is) will likely be a much less defined. For a medical or legal office (which is a common use case, I imagine), the "script" will be to try to suss out if the call is actually an emergency based on client criteria (if the caller presents it as such), and either take a message or use the emergency contact info on the account and relay the info to the client. At least, that's what it's been when I've encountered them. With more free form types of calls, identifying problem accounts might take a little longer. That said, even if it lasts a week or two before a problem account is identified and removed, who is to say that's not plenty of time for the scammers? It's not like there's only a few call answering services around. Just cycle to a new one every week or so. Do I think services exist that cater to illegal and semi-legal activity and try to skirt the line? Yes. I just don't think we should assume that's the case here without evidence, given how trivial it would be to do this with perfectly legitimate services.

FussyZeus 8y ago

> That's like a PO Box location being liable for someone's fraud, Except if a PO Box was being used for fraud, the person using it would be prosecuted, or at the very least the Post Office would cease providing that service. > or even a software or hardware provider, like Microsoft or Dell, being liable for providing assistance in the crime. Entirely different, that's a misuse of provided products by the purchaser. If you buy gas and use it to commit arson, it's not BP's fault. > Perhaps the best way to to let them know is to inform them. I find it incredibly hard to believe that people aren't informing them, probably at high volumes (audio volumes and quantity volumes) that they don't wish to be called anymore. If I was getting called 3 times a day by some jackwagon wanting to buy my home, the number they'd be giving would definitely be aware of that situation. And, even giving an incredible amount of credit that maybe they didn't know, they now definitely know. What's the over under on them still providing services to "Will"? I'm guessing it's pretty definite they are, because they have no reason to not as long as his checks clear. And that's my point.

kbenson 8y ago
> Except if a PO Box was being used for fraud, the person using it would be prosecuted, or at the very least the Post Office would cease providing that service. When notified. > Entirely different, that's a misuse of provided products by the purchaser. If you buy gas and use it to commit arson, it's not BP's fault. And how is that different than misuse of a third party service? > I find it incredibly hard to believe that people aren't informing them, probably at high volumes (audio volumes and quantity volumes) that they don't wish to be called anymore. See my other comment to the other reply. Also, I get a lot of calls. After the first time, I generally just hang up after identifying it. I'm not even hearing the number after the first time. Sometimes I'm mad and might want to call in to complain, but I'm not always at leisure to do so. > What's the over under on them still providing services to "Will"? That's not how I interpreted the article. I interpreted it as they were the answering service for one of the target lines that the number forwarded to. For example, scam line forwards to 4-10 real agents in on the scam, one of them has an answering service. Occasionally calls forwarded to that agent forward again to the PAT service. That's not necessarily the same as providing answering service for "Will" if that's the case, and may not be immediately obvious if mixed with some other types of calls. That said, yes, I expect they would investigate and cut ties if notified. Why wouldn't they? You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity. Phone answering services are extremely common. Have you ever called a small medical office during lunch, or after hours at any time? You get an answering service with emergency contact numbers for personnel, in case that's called for. Legitimate businesses do not want to open themselves up to the liability of being complicit in a crime. I'm not sure we've seen anything to indicate the answering service is not a legitimate business being taken advantage of.