In which Kate is mildly bad-tempered and vindictive

[kate_schaefer]

I called someone scum the other day. I was probably wrong to do so; all I knew about him for sure was that he was a liar employed by scum to commit scams. Where is the scum-qualifying line drawn?

I am on the National Do Not Call Registry. I received a call with a recorded announcement saying that it was my account manager with a last notice to reduce my rate. Last notice! My account manager! Oh my gosherino!

No business name was given by the recording. I know that I have no accounts with businesses which do business in this manner, so I pressed the number 1 in order to speak to a person and register a complaint. When an operator answered, I asked to speak to a supervisor. The operator asked why, and I said that I was on the Do Not Call Registry. He said that they hadn't called me. Rather than pointing out that I hadn't made my phone ring myself and that the technicality that their robot called me rather than an individual dialing my number did not, in fact, make his statement true rather than a bald lie, I said, Why, you scum.

He hung up. I then dialed *69 to obtain the number, 352-357-4151. After that, I dialed the number and got the not-in-service recording. Maybe I misdialed; maybe the scum scammers are spoofing their number-of-origin. I didn't pursue my research further, but I did file a complaint with the Washington State attorney general's office. I know that they aren't likely to pursue the complaint either, but it will go into a gigando database, whence eventually some overworked functionary will pull a report with X number of complaints against a particular phone number, and then...

Most of the time, when I get robo-calls like this, I just hang up. Maybe one out of every ten, I go to the trouble of getting through to an operator and pointing out that we're on the Do Not Call Registry. Half the time that I get through, I threaten them with the Attorney General. The volume of calls goes down for a while after that.

The one time I waded through phone menus to get to a live person at the AG's office, she suggested this strategy to me. "We don't follow up on the complaints right now, but telling them you're complaining will probably keep that boiler-room from calling you again, and who knows? Maybe someday we'll start prosecuting. They don't know whether or when we will, and we could. We could."

Comments

[ckd]

Lots of Google hits on that number, with similar complaints....

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Ah. Now I feel certain that "scum" was accurate. Thanks. One always wants that odd feeling of vindication for one's bad behavior.

[tinaconnolly.livejournal.com]

Ha. I love the advice from the AG office.

[dsmoen.livejournal.com]

Yeah, no kidding. If we had a mandatory $100,000 fine and 1-year community service without pay for such offenses, they'd happen less often.

[amysisson.livejournal.com]

We can't even get effective sentencing for drunk driving, so I'm thinking we won't get them for things like this.

But we can dream.....

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

In my dreams, I can just reach out and rip their phone lines right out of the wall.

Before the Do Not Call registry, I got tons of calls from people who innocently wanted to clean my non-existent carpeting or sell me vinyl windows which I did not want. I don't get those calls any more. I had assumed that most of the calls I do get were close-to-innocent, legal schemes to sell me loans at unfavorable interest rates, but now I'm thinking a higher percentage than I realized are farther-from-innocent schemes to commit fraud, based on this spoofed phone number.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

$100,000 seems steep to me for simply violating the Do-Not-Call registry, but $200 paid every single time -- $100 to the state, $100 to the called person -- would seem proportionate and effective in shutting this off as a business model. Never gonna happen, though; that "every single time" part would require too much intrusive monitoring of the phone system, a thing I object to even in pursuit of terrorists, much less in pursuit of ordinary fraud.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Yes, she sounded frustrated with her inability to do more, but pleased that she could at least help consumers to strike a tiny blow for themselves.

You are so right!

[farmgirl1146.livejournal.com]

Scum. Scum. Scum. I do much the same as you, but if I get a real person, I make them go over what account they are calling about, and 100% of the time they hang up on me.

Another variety of scum:
Recently, I received a call from someone purporting to be from the DNC, which may be true, soliciting a donation. I told him what I tell everyone, "I do not give donations over the phone. I do not make pledges over the phone. Thank you for calling." One hard and fast rule is never give out your credit card number to anyone who calls you.

Re: You are so right!

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

I don't think political or charity phone calls are scummy (well, most of them, anyway). I don't give them money, and I don't want to be part of such phone campaigns, but they usually are what they say they are. It's the lie, the fraud, that I see as the dividing line between simple irritant and scum.

Re: You are so right!

[farmgirl1146.livejournal.com]

The lie is my point. How does one know that the political call is not fraudulent? I done it, and it is so easy to volunteer and walk out with a list of people. Now days, one can get a list of donors from Huffington Post and other websites, with amounts and names, address, and even employers, in some cases.

[zora-db.livejournal.com]

Are there no fines for calling people on the list?

My favourite trick is ask for their name and home number to call back on, because calling strangers at home is obviously fine, right? See how much they squirm.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

My earlier complaint to the AG's office was about a simple violation of the Do-Not-Call registry, for which I believe there are theoretical fines, but no enforcement device, no funds for personnel to follow up on offenses. Even without an enforcement device, implementation of the Do-Not-Call registry has cut the volume of such calls down to the point where I may get one robo-call every week or two rather than two to five every day.

This allows me to focus my irritation on the few such calls I do get rather than pass them by because of my enlightened detachment. I haven't yet asked an operator for a home number; I focus on asking for a supervisor, because that costs them time and therefore money. A couple years back, there was a time-share resort company that robo-called me several times in one week before I started going through the menu to get to live people and telling them that I would never buy anything from them, but that I would cost them time every time they called if they didn't stop, as much time as I could manage. Amazingly, it took two interactions of that sort before they stopped.

[kip-w.livejournal.com]

I expect when a shovel rings you up, you call it a spade.

Reminds me of the Phone Company ad I imagined, years ago, where the woman gets a call, and within seconds, the caller is starting to insinuate stuff. Her face becomes wise, and she says, "Perhaps I should call you later..." she glances at her phone's screen "...Mister 303-555-1715!"

We cut to a sleazy motel room, bathed in the glow of a red neon sign, where the panicky scumbag is hanging up in a hurry, gasping for breath.

The announcer's voice says, "This wouldn't have happened if you only had AT&T's new Caller ID Blocking service. They'll never know who you are when you use AT&T."

But I guess reality has scooped me, and now they have something that hides their real number. Thanks, AT&T!