BT customers may sue over internet rogue-dialling scam

Discussion in 'Spyware' started by Irish, May 23, 2004.

  1. Leave it diconnected if you must until you see the modem light come on. Plug
    it in overnight and it should report in.

    However, most interactive services are free. Those that aren't will give a
    warning on screen of the cost. Of course it can still be ignored. :)
    Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics), May 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Irish

    Gordon Brown Guest

    I thought it was possible to set a "spend limit" on the Sky box above which
    a PIN code is required? If you set this limit to £0.00, then it will prompt
    you for a PIN each a chargeable service is accessed.
    Gordon Brown, May 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thanks for the suggestion but I don't have a modem light on any of the
    three digiboxes. They each have an on-line light (not on at present).
    Is this the one to watch?
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 26, 2004
  4. I'll check this as the credit limit was set to zero - but I was led to
    believe this limit was only for PPV/movies.
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 26, 2004
  5. Irish

    Mark Evans Guest

    Not that you typically get any form of decent user manual
    with the typical "home PC". It's not even really possible
    to get hold of a decent "service manual" for any version
    of Windows.
    A VCR is a rather single purpose machine. Part of the
    problem here is that a general purpose machine is being
    supplied without it being made clear that it is general
    purpose. Combined with the Windows poor separation between
    "user" and "service" modes.

    But since the calls are the result of equiptment
    connected to the customer side of the line, with
    the consent of the customer it really isn't BT's

    Were these people attempting to sue either whoever
    sold them the computer or Microsoft for failing
    to describe fully what was being supplied then they
    might have some kind of a case.
    Mark Evans, May 26, 2004
  6. Irish

    Mark Evans Guest

    The obvious difference is that cars are recognised
    as potentially dangerous machines. Such that third
    party insurance is mandatory.
    Mark Evans, May 26, 2004
  7. Yes. You will see it light up on occasion as it tries to get a line.
    Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics), May 26, 2004
  8. Irish

    Joe Moore Guest

    Actually, the calls are a result of actions taken
    by the customer whose number is being called, not
    deliberate actions taken by the customer whose computer
    has been hijacked.

    By acting as if it believed the lie that its customer
    deliberately chose to use as "service" by calling the
    number of a known scammer and collecting the money
    on the scammer's behalf, BT deliberately chooses to
    be a partner in the scam.
    If someone physically broke into their home and used their phone
    to call a premium rate number known to only be called by burglars
    from their victims' homes, would you suggest they sue their
    homebuilder? Would you claim that the call (made by someone else
    on someone else's behalf, without the knowledge or consent of the
    telephone owner) is a legitimate target for bill collection by
    BT when BT knows the circumstances of the call?

    Joe Moore, May 26, 2004
  9. Irish

    Jason Guest

    Other Telco's are prepared to take preventative measures
    to stop this happening. Why won't BT?

    For example in Australia, Optus has had the sense to block certain
    groups of number. See,2627,1031_35152-3_6749--View_303,00.html
    "Phone services
    International barred destinations
    Because of an increase in the number of unauthorised call activity and
    modem-jacking incidents Optus has barred all direct dial calls to the
    following destinations:
    Diego Garcia
    Sao Tome & Principe
    If you need to make a call to any these destinations, access to a
    specific number may be able to be restored by contacting Optus."


    Jason, May 27, 2004
  10. Irish

    Doc Guest

    Agreed Jason, us guys in the "colonies" at the bottom of the world wonder
    why the f**k the so-called "major powers" screw up so often. It must be the
    all-pervading DOLLAR or EURO.
    Doc, May 27, 2004
  11. Irish

    Far Canal Guest

    Jason wrote -

    BT operate an 'opt in' system. Nothing is blocked automatically. If a
    customer wants to have certain numbers block - they can, but they have
    to pay for the service.
    Barring dialing to certain countries may be regarded a racist in a
    multi-cultural country like the UK.

    What next - will BT be held responsible for calls to Nigeria by the
    fuckwits who fall for the 419 frauds?
    Far Canal, May 27, 2004
  12. Irish

    Mark Evans Guest

    There is a specific point of "Network Termination".
    The cable and anything connected to one side of
    this is BT's responsibility the cable any anything
    connected to it is the customer's responsibility.
    BT is no more responsible than they would be if someone
    connected an insecure wireless phone and other people
    made calls on the line.
    Mark Evans, May 27, 2004
  13. Irish

    Paul Worsley Guest

    From the BT price list

    "Call Diversion is not available to the following international
    destinations: Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Kuwait, Lebanon, Nigeria,
    Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and the West Indies."


    real is pjw at ntstelcom#co#uk
    Paul Worsley, May 27, 2004
  14. Irish

    Gordon Brown Guest

    "Maybe able to be restored..."? So there is no guarantee of service to these
    blocked countries???
    Gordon Brown, May 27, 2004
  15. Irish

    Far Canal Guest

    Paul Worsley wrote -

    Call Diversion isn't call blocking.
    Far Canal, May 27, 2004
  16. Irish

    Joe Moore Guest

    I will point out that the equipment used to connect the call to the
    phone number being called (that of the hijacker) is on BT's side of
    that "Network Termination". The equipment which is used to allocate a
    portion of the customer's bill specifically to pay for a "service"
    which is known by BT to be a fraud also belongs to BT.
    The difference is that BT knows before it bills or even completes
    calls to the hijackers' premium numbers that they are fraudulent
    calls. They don't know this about calls from insecure wireless phones
    because the called numbers are not known to belong to the people
    committing the fraud.

    Pretending it doesn't know this while collecting a portion of the ill
    gotten gains for itself makes BT an accomplice.

    Joe Moore, May 27, 2004
  17. But the child isn't insured obviously as he's not of driving age so your
    point is irrelevant - he/she cannot be covered on the third party aspect of
    the parents insurance.

    And we're not talking about danger - just the ability to run up costs in one
    way or another
    Graham in Melton, May 27, 2004
  18. Irish

    Gordon Brown Guest

    So where do we draw the line? There has been many documented cases of
    con-artists (kitchen fitters and double glazing companies that do not), so
    is BT committing fraud by connecting customers who call these companies to
    place an order?

    I also understand that the police are aware of certain gangmasters running
    illegal activites (but do not have sufficient evidence to convict), are they
    therefore acting illegally for not arresting these gangmasters?
    Being aware is one thing, having evidence to convict (or shut down) is
    Gordon Brown, May 27, 2004
  19. Irish

    Joe Moore Guest

    No, because BT is not billing its customers on behalf of these
    con-artists and forwarding money to be distributed to these
    con-artists as the sole reward for their con. BT is not merely
    connecting the call here, BT is vouching for the veracity of those
    making the fraudulent claim that the call was made on behalf of the
    owner of the phone. They are not claiming to defrauded home repair
    victims that the work was actually done and demanding payment on
    behalf of the fraudsters.

    The line should be drawn when the phone company knows it's a fraud,
    acts as if it doesn't know it's a fraud, forwards the bill for the
    fraud to its customer, collects the money fraudulently claimed by the
    fraudster( while keeping some for itself), sends the money to the
    known fraudster (without which there would be no payoff for the
    fraud), and continues to get their cut of the fraud when it is
    perpetrated against more of its customers.
    If they're collecting money from innocent third parties on behalf of
    these gangmasters while knowing they're crooks, they should go to jail
    BT is not a government. BT is engaged in a business whereby it depends
    on the trustworthiness of other businesses to provide services to its
    customers. Every time BT makes any external call, it depends on the
    accuracy of the information given it by the company which completes
    the call. If BT knows that some of those companies can't be trusted
    to give accurate information, then it shouldn't connect calls to those
    companies and it shouldn't bill it's customers based on information
    provided by those companies. A claim that a BT customer made a call
    when the call was made without the customer's knowledge or consent,
    is not accurate information and is sufficient grounds for BT to not
    trust such claims in the future from that company. No convictions are

    Joe Moore, May 28, 2004
  20. porn addicts, you mean.

    Phil Thompson, May 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.