Calling a real estate robocaller back(philly.com)
philly.com
Calling a real estate robocaller back
https://www.philly.com/business/robocall-scam-philadelphia-home-buying-selling-20190430.html
126 comments
Yup. I've had this happen on my Verizon business phone. I called Verizon and was told the only recourse was to change my number, but of course the rep acknowledged the spammers could spoof any new number I received just as easily. So Verizon's only answer was basically "Deal with it."
Verizon’s scumbag lawyer was appointed as head of the FCC and promptly rolled regulation on robo-calls.
You got it backwards?
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-help-block-ill...
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-rules-help-block-ill...
No, he was against regulation and now that robocalls are the #1 FCC complaint, they’re telling telecoms to fix the problem. For example: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/ajit-pai-celebra...
> Scammers have this popular trick of spoofing the caller ID for a number local to you.
I recently moved to a different state and kept my old phone number. When someone calls using that old area code, it's immediately obvious that it's a robocall. I have no ties to that area code, therefore no reason to answer. I usually Spokeo the suspicious numbers afterwards because I'm curious who it is.
A few months back I tracked down the PII of a number that called me, so I texted them back. Here is our short, interesting conversation: https://imgur.com/a/4V2ugw9 (phone numbers and contact list names have been redacted)
I recently moved to a different state and kept my old phone number. When someone calls using that old area code, it's immediately obvious that it's a robocall. I have no ties to that area code, therefore no reason to answer. I usually Spokeo the suspicious numbers afterwards because I'm curious who it is.
A few months back I tracked down the PII of a number that called me, so I texted them back. Here is our short, interesting conversation: https://imgur.com/a/4V2ugw9 (phone numbers and contact list names have been redacted)
I’m totally ignorant here, so I’m sure there’s a good reason: why is secure caller id so hard?
The telephone network was designed with total trust for “network operators” who essentially have “root” to do anything.
This worked OK when the only operators were the various national phone monopolies (Cap’n Crunch notwithstanding), but today that level of access is much easier to get and abuse, and is difficult to trace.
There are efforts to bolt-on security to the telephone network but it’s really hard.
I think it’s more likely that (over the next handful of decades) the phone network fades into obscurity as more voice calls are connected over data links which offer much improved security models.
This worked OK when the only operators were the various national phone monopolies (Cap’n Crunch notwithstanding), but today that level of access is much easier to get and abuse, and is difficult to trace.
There are efforts to bolt-on security to the telephone network but it’s really hard.
I think it’s more likely that (over the next handful of decades) the phone network fades into obscurity as more voice calls are connected over data links which offer much improved security models.
> Cap’n Crunch notwithstanding
I assume you mean Captain Crunch, not the breakfast cereal... :-)
I assume you mean Captain Crunch, not the breakfast cereal... :-)
He probably does mean the cereal, since it had the whistle that gave Captain Crunch (AKA John Draper) his name.
It's being worked on - there's a standard called STIR/SHAKEN which uses certs to verify calls. I worked on this on my last contract. It's pretty easy to implement as a prototype - I've done it myself - but integrating it into the entire legacy phone network is another matter entirely.
Here's an article about it: https://www.howtogeek.com/402141/how-phone-companies-are-fin...
Here's an article about it: https://www.howtogeek.com/402141/how-phone-companies-are-fin...
Because there's no financial incentive to fix it.
The architecture of business telecom is really flexible. Customer PBXes have wide latitude to make their own routing decisions, and numbers are shared across arbitrarily complex multi-site, multi-provider topologies.
What your neighborhood grocery store buys from the phone company is just a pool of voice circuits, probably fewer than its extensions and even its DIDs. There is no simple circuit-number mapping like in residential telecom.
Designing federated AuthN/AuthZ for this is not simple; getting it rolled out across all the participating equipment (with many owners and service lifetimes of 15+ years) is basically never gonna happen.
What your neighborhood grocery store buys from the phone company is just a pool of voice circuits, probably fewer than its extensions and even its DIDs. There is no simple circuit-number mapping like in residential telecom.
Designing federated AuthN/AuthZ for this is not simple; getting it rolled out across all the participating equipment (with many owners and service lifetimes of 15+ years) is basically never gonna happen.
There's an idea for a dystopian comedy skit somewhere in this:
> Will’s so busy leaving messages all over town that he never answers the phone when you call him back...Sometimes calls were forwarded to a host of people who went by “Pat.” They said they worked for PATLive, an answering service firm that takes calls for businesses when they’re busy or closed. Pats were taking messages for “Steven’s Office” in Alexandria, Virginia.
> Asked why there were several Pats, a Pat said: “We’re all Pat.”
> “We all go by Pat to keep it easy,” said Pat. “But we do have some Pats in the office.”
> Will’s so busy leaving messages all over town that he never answers the phone when you call him back...Sometimes calls were forwarded to a host of people who went by “Pat.” They said they worked for PATLive, an answering service firm that takes calls for businesses when they’re busy or closed. Pats were taking messages for “Steven’s Office” in Alexandria, Virginia.
> Asked why there were several Pats, a Pat said: “We’re all Pat.”
> “We all go by Pat to keep it easy,” said Pat. “But we do have some Pats in the office.”
I read their "how it works" and other pages, and the sales pitch isn't bad. They should be more selective about clients though. https://www.patlive.com
Am I the only one who thinks this is bullshit? How is PATLive not also complicit in the crimes they're looking for "Will" to prosecute in?
I get so tired of these B2B service providers who get caught up doing borderline illegal shit and then just shrug their shoulders and say "not our responsibility." Everybody has these clauses doing the ass covering so they can sell services to anyone who knocks and they're never held responsible because of some bullshit contract.
WHY is that allowed? You're doing business with an individual/organization that is breaking the law, and you know it, or you would know it if you cared to look. That's gotta be at least worth a charge of negligence?
I'm just saying the "Will"s of the modern era would have a much harder time if the call centers, teleco providers, internet hosters, etc. were held responsible when they were found to be operating in cahoots with a scammer and I don't understand why they aren't.
Vet your fucking clients. And if you don't wanna do that, then shut your doors.
I get so tired of these B2B service providers who get caught up doing borderline illegal shit and then just shrug their shoulders and say "not our responsibility." Everybody has these clauses doing the ass covering so they can sell services to anyone who knocks and they're never held responsible because of some bullshit contract.
WHY is that allowed? You're doing business with an individual/organization that is breaking the law, and you know it, or you would know it if you cared to look. That's gotta be at least worth a charge of negligence?
I'm just saying the "Will"s of the modern era would have a much harder time if the call centers, teleco providers, internet hosters, etc. were held responsible when they were found to be operating in cahoots with a scammer and I don't understand why they aren't.
Vet your fucking clients. And if you don't wanna do that, then shut your doors.
I'm just puzzled about how law enforcment is apparently at a dead end. Why can't PATLive be subpoenaed to provide information about one of their clients who's breaking the law?
On a related note - I've had the opposite experience but it wasn't with telecom related services - it was cloud services. A friend of mine started a business that focuses on the highly anticipated luxury clothing and sneaker releases. He basically does a proxy business that routes traffic through his network so that people can use multiple IPs that aren't banned on those retailers websites so that they can purchase multiple units of these products which are usually restricted to one per customer.
We had a lot of trouble finding a reliable cloud services provider. Even though none of this is illegal at all, a bunch of them have clauses against it in the service agreement. So we avoided those. We figured the ones that didn't have it shouldn't have any problems because nothing was illegal and it's not like we are abusing the cloud services - we're talking about a significant amount of time with nothing on the network (that we pay them for) and then a short burst of traffic that is still low on bandwidth while all the clients are trying to hit the sites up at the same time. But one after another kept cancelling our accounts, citing a violation of the terms of service. We pressed a number of them for an explanation. Many just ignored us. A few outright lied and said they received complaints from ISPs about our IPs sending spam emails. I challenged them on that because nothing of what we did or any of our client did was sending emails. And we tightly controlled the network traffic, ports, etc. So it's simply not possible, they were lying to get rid of us because their terms didn't account for it. To this day, I still can't figure out why all these providers were so against what we were doing. Eventually my friend explained his use case to the CEO of one of the companies and they signed and agreement and were totally fine with everything so I'm really perplexed.
We had a lot of trouble finding a reliable cloud services provider. Even though none of this is illegal at all, a bunch of them have clauses against it in the service agreement. So we avoided those. We figured the ones that didn't have it shouldn't have any problems because nothing was illegal and it's not like we are abusing the cloud services - we're talking about a significant amount of time with nothing on the network (that we pay them for) and then a short burst of traffic that is still low on bandwidth while all the clients are trying to hit the sites up at the same time. But one after another kept cancelling our accounts, citing a violation of the terms of service. We pressed a number of them for an explanation. Many just ignored us. A few outright lied and said they received complaints from ISPs about our IPs sending spam emails. I challenged them on that because nothing of what we did or any of our client did was sending emails. And we tightly controlled the network traffic, ports, etc. So it's simply not possible, they were lying to get rid of us because their terms didn't account for it. To this day, I still can't figure out why all these providers were so against what we were doing. Eventually my friend explained his use case to the CEO of one of the companies and they signed and agreement and were totally fine with everything so I'm really perplexed.
I applaud them. Reseller middlemen buying up the releases so they can profit are awful and inhibiting that activity is a greater good for society. In the ideal world sneakers could only be sold at retail, let the people who actually want to wear them buy them.
yeah internet scalpers suck!
I hate your business helping middlemen scalpers. Middlemen scalpers are just barely different than phone scammers. It may not be technically illegal, but it's a detriment to society.
I'd guess that they don't want major retailers blocking their IP range.
Would taking down patlive really change anything other than shifting the physical call center to India?
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.
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.
Certainly they get a lot of "quit calling me you aholes" type calls. They know what's up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> And how is that different than misuse of a third party service?
Because a purchase of, for example a server, is a one-time deal. The server is then in the hands of the scammer, and can be used for all kinds of ill intent and Dell for example has no way of knowing, and even if they knew, really don't have any recourse to address it.
A third party service, on the other hand, has an ongoing relationship with the scammer, assuredly having access to some form of payment details, some kind of ongoing communication in order to fulfill the service they're contracted to provide, and provide ongoing labor to that end which assists the scammer in, well, scamming.
> You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity.
I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right. That's what a lot of providers do, they provide the services, and even with ample evidence that everything isn't quite on the up and up, they just keep cashing the checks because why wouldn't they? I'm not even saying they're twirling their proverbial mustache here, I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
Because a purchase of, for example a server, is a one-time deal. The server is then in the hands of the scammer, and can be used for all kinds of ill intent and Dell for example has no way of knowing, and even if they knew, really don't have any recourse to address it.
A third party service, on the other hand, has an ongoing relationship with the scammer, assuredly having access to some form of payment details, some kind of ongoing communication in order to fulfill the service they're contracted to provide, and provide ongoing labor to that end which assists the scammer in, well, scamming.
> You seem to assume they aim to provide this service on purpose for illegal activity.
I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right. That's what a lot of providers do, they provide the services, and even with ample evidence that everything isn't quite on the up and up, they just keep cashing the checks because why wouldn't they? I'm not even saying they're twirling their proverbial mustache here, I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
> I'm saying they're not asking questions because the scammers checks are clearing, and I don't think that's right.
Where are you getting the information to assert that as fact? Or even as likely?
> I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
If a company knows it's being used in a crime, then it's an accessory to the crime. We don't mandate ethics, we create laws. In this case, how is the law failing, beyond you asserting some situation is happening without providing any evidence?
Can you actually explain what we know to have been done wrong here, even ethically if not lawfully? All I've seen so far is a lot of accusations about what must be happening, when I see (and have provided) clear examples of how it might not be the case. Or should we just punish people and companies based on assumptions now?
Where are you getting the information to assert that as fact? Or even as likely?
> I'm saying companies are inherently unethical, and only act ethically when mandated to. So let's mandate it.
If a company knows it's being used in a crime, then it's an accessory to the crime. We don't mandate ethics, we create laws. In this case, how is the law failing, beyond you asserting some situation is happening without providing any evidence?
Can you actually explain what we know to have been done wrong here, even ethically if not lawfully? All I've seen so far is a lot of accusations about what must be happening, when I see (and have provided) clear examples of how it might not be the case. Or should we just punish people and companies based on assumptions now?
[deleted]
> Asked why there were several Pats, a Pat said: "We're all Pat."
"His name is Robert Paulson."
"His name is Robert Paulson."
"What, your name's not Pat?"
"No, it's Michael."
"That's going to cause a little confusion."
"No, it's Michael."
"That's going to cause a little confusion."
I just re-read this skit yesterday! Ha ha. "Rule number six: there is NO rule number six..."
I have some friends who answered calls for PATLive a few years ago. I got the impression they didn't spend a lot of effort on vetting clients and responded to abuse in a reactive, rather than proactive manner.
Phone operators follow relatively simple scripts for most clients, taking down information so someone else can call back, but occasionally perform more complex tasks like scheduling appointments. My impression is that most of the clients were small businesses at the time; a few were government agencies.
It's easy for a scammer or robocaller to pass as a legitimate business with a service like that: just don't include any red flags in the script.
Phone operators follow relatively simple scripts for most clients, taking down information so someone else can call back, but occasionally perform more complex tasks like scheduling appointments. My impression is that most of the clients were small businesses at the time; a few were government agencies.
It's easy for a scammer or robocaller to pass as a legitimate business with a service like that: just don't include any red flags in the script.
“Will” doesn’t want to buy your house. Will wants to collect the lead, determine how appealing the property is, and sell the lead to someone local. Will isn’t touching that property with a 10 foot pole. Phil on the other hand, just bought the lead and will make a lowball offer.
Oh, and "Will" on the voicemail isn't Will either. It's a voice actor off of Fiverr that likely has no idea their voice is being used for this scheme.
Oh, and "Will" on the voicemail isn't Will either. It's a voice actor off of Fiverr that likely has no idea their voice is being used for this scheme.
I've had people wanting to "buy" some property you have. Once they get you to agree to sell, then they ask if you can self-finance the sale (i.e., you become the bank and "sell" for nothing and they give you a monthly mortgage payment.) Sounds OK in theory, but you'd need a lot of paperwork/legal to vet the whole deal and you have no idea if the person can even pay until you spend even more on credit checks, etc. And If at some point they stop paying, you have to spend yet more on foreclosure and all the other stuff real banks have to deal with.
>Sounds OK in theory
Sounds terrible in theory!
Sounds terrible in theory!
It’s not if the income stream and high yield rate from a seller financing deal is more important to you (as the maker of the note) than a lump sum of cash. Everyone has different financial requirements, collateral they’re willing to put at risk, etc. You’re using today’s dollars (or assets) to find ways to buy more of tomorrow’s dollars (“investing”).
The paperwork isn’t too difficult to put together either.
The paperwork isn’t too difficult to put together either.
I can't imagine why this ever would make sense. Only scammers would benefit would accept this, because of the lack of clarity in ownership, it's like a deliberate attempt to circumvent normal financial transactions, which only benefits scammers.
It strikes me as the same thing as the fake-check auto purchase scams that infest different on-line auto sales channels.
It strikes me as the same thing as the fake-check auto purchase scams that infest different on-line auto sales channels.
You should read more on seller/owner financing to understand why one would use it in a transaction before dismissing it as a scam. To think only scammers would benefit is an ignorant position to hold if you don't understand why counterparties in a real estate transaction would elect this financing mechanism over conventional financing. Ownership interest is still recorded with the local jurisdiction, so nothing is hidden (although with a land trust, you can hide beneficial interest [it's treated as personal property and handled with trust docs; you could think of it as tracking real estate ownership "off ledger" since it's not recorded with a deed] so people don't know who own a parcel).
You don’t want to be the “Bank” with only one note tying up a large percentage of your capital.
Just ask Donald Trump.
Just ask Donald Trump.
You do if you need the risk adjusted return and can’t get it elsewhere.
I think the issue is diversification. Carrying the note for a buyer can be a decent idea for a developer who owns 100 properties, but probably not if the loan represents 50% of your assets. Calculations like "risk adjusted return" start to fall apart when you get out of continuous statistics and into single-event probabilities ...
I suppose that’s fine if we’re agreeing it’s a last ditch effort
Jack Boggle and others have stated you’re not getting above 5 percent risk adjusted returns in the public markets over the next decade at least. You can realize 7-10% returns making a note seller financing. I would assume we’re already of the understanding a last ditch effort is necessary to obtain necessary returns.
Not with a 20% down payment.
They want to rent, but with foreclosure protection. If they rent and don't pay, you can evict in 2 months. If they do this and don't pay, good luck evicting in 2 years.
I'd ask for 25% down and 20% interest, and write quicker eviction for non-payment into the security instrument, as a separate civil action from a foreclosure.
...and then, I'd re-sell the note to a rich person/company who can afford better lawyers, because I don't really need my assets pinned down like that in one high-risk loan.
...and then, I'd re-sell the note to a rich person/company who can afford better lawyers, because I don't really need my assets pinned down like that in one high-risk loan.
In the UK I get robocallers phoning me about car accidents or triple glazing grants.
I always say "yes", then you get a real person who picks up.
Then I will do the old bait and switch. Start talking about how my car got written off after the great M25 exodus of 2018. That I lost my foot from a low flying scooter delivery driver. The story then becomes more and more ridiculous and eventually they will hang up.
Since opting for this tactic my phone call count has gone down considerably.
I always say "yes", then you get a real person who picks up.
Then I will do the old bait and switch. Start talking about how my car got written off after the great M25 exodus of 2018. That I lost my foot from a low flying scooter delivery driver. The story then becomes more and more ridiculous and eventually they will hang up.
Since opting for this tactic my phone call count has gone down considerably.
I use a fake identity generator (search for “fake name generator”) to play along and give them real-looking details and then ask them for the company’s details for whatever scam they’re shilling.
They’re never telling you that upfront but they’re usually more than happy to say after “closing” (or so they believe) their deal.
At that point I can go after the company in small claims court for calling a number registered on the TPS (equivalent of the do not call list in the US).
They’re never telling you that upfront but they’re usually more than happy to say after “closing” (or so they believe) their deal.
At that point I can go after the company in small claims court for calling a number registered on the TPS (equivalent of the do not call list in the US).
Yep, these are the ones we get. I detest the way in which they say "hello" and leave a pause, expecting you to say something back. At first it made me feel silly for having been tricked into a natural response. Now, we just don't answer the phone anymore...
Even more cruel: say yes, listen to the start of the spiel, then gently lay the phone down. They'll call back not knowing if it was a line malfunction. Now rinse and repeat.
I got some so angry that they threatened to come over and break my face at home. This technique has up to now never failed me.
I got some so angry that they threatened to come over and break my face at home. This technique has up to now never failed me.
I once decided to talk with a "Hi this is Windows your computer wanted me to tell you it has a virus" guy once, and he's going through his script, trying to determine whether I have a Windows box or a Mac by describing whether I have a command key or a win key on my keyboard. My fancy-pants programmer keyboard happens to have neither, but in trying to explain this to him, he got so mad I literally heard him throwing things off his desk, last of which being the phone itself. I assume my family is still cursed, though I never took his physically improbable suggestions.
I got one of those on the rental's land-line while away on vacation once. Since I was on vacation, I decided to have some fun. So I said I had two computers wired to the Internets, and could he please tell me the IP address of the one that had the problem. The answer, of course, was 127.0.0.1, so then I pretended to log in to my imaginary computer. He was magically able to see that I had logged in, and he told me that yes, my computer was definitely infected with a very bad virus.
I played along until I got bored pretending to be a fumbling, bumbling, low-knowledge user, and revealed that I was not really at my computer, or any computer at all, and I was just messing with an obvious scammer for fun. And that induced a spluttering, heavily accented rage-stream of insults, which was also fun. "I am not scam people! You are the scam!"
I played along until I got bored pretending to be a fumbling, bumbling, low-knowledge user, and revealed that I was not really at my computer, or any computer at all, and I was just messing with an obvious scammer for fun. And that induced a spluttering, heavily accented rage-stream of insults, which was also fun. "I am not scam people! You are the scam!"
Forgive me for being out of the loop here, but why is it so hard to make this business unprofitable and easily trackable? For any kind of contracted relations as mentioned in the article (automatic call centers etc), the law enforcement can get a trace. For off-the-shelf temporary SIM cards, make them rate limited and block them when a complaint is filed. Is there something I'm missing here? Given the numbers, this seems like a huge problem, is there simply no incentive to solve it?
The patlive.com service does seem to be the obvious place to track down who their lawbreaking client is. It's a US company, which was probably a mistake. I assume "Will" could have contracted with a service outside the US.
On the plus side, patlive.com charges $1/minute as their cheapest plan. Robodialing them back, with a sufficiently clever script, would be costly for "Will".
On the plus side, patlive.com charges $1/minute as their cheapest plan. Robodialing them back, with a sufficiently clever script, would be costly for "Will".
I looked at PatLive's FAQ and there's no contract required. You pay by Visa, MC, or AMEX. If you can use a reloadable card then they probably don't know who you are.
Since the patlive service and all those 'answering services' that you get are basically faciliating a scam, I'm sure a serious prosecutor could get a court order telling them to pass the information on that they had about the underlying person.
If it was a reloadable card, you can still figure it out with more effort. You threaten to sue them into oblivion as facilitating criminal actions, and you get them to get you on a real phone number with the scammer, and then you track them down that way. You just have to try harder.
A reporter could pursue this by getting a job with that firm and tracking backwards.
If it was a reloadable card, you can still figure it out with more effort. You threaten to sue them into oblivion as facilitating criminal actions, and you get them to get you on a real phone number with the scammer, and then you track them down that way. You just have to try harder.
A reporter could pursue this by getting a job with that firm and tracking backwards.
Foreign telecoms make good money looking the other way on spam. They mix in enough legitimate users that the rest of the world can't just block them without, e.g., also blocking the entire Indian subcontinent.
We may get there. It'll probably take the form of deploying STIR/SHAKEN on the US side and making engagement with anyone who doesn't implement it purely opt-in.
We may get there. It'll probably take the form of deploying STIR/SHAKEN on the US side and making engagement with anyone who doesn't implement it purely opt-in.
I hope telecoms die a slow death like cable (TV) companies. with 5G coming soon, plus this robo-call epidemic of late, maybe that will push a critical mass of people to VOIP and leave this sorry industry (with their silly litany of technical-sounding acronyms) in the dust.
I'm not a facebook fan, but I wouldn't be entirely against "Facebook Phone" (as in, a drop-in replacement for dialing numbers now that works as an appliance, not a shitty "add-on" for fb messenger) if they moved in to disrupt the industry. Of course privacy-be-damned at that point, but it's the lesser of two evils IMO.
I'm not a facebook fan, but I wouldn't be entirely against "Facebook Phone" (as in, a drop-in replacement for dialing numbers now that works as an appliance, not a shitty "add-on" for fb messenger) if they moved in to disrupt the industry. Of course privacy-be-damned at that point, but it's the lesser of two evils IMO.
> maybe that will push a critical mass of people to VOIP and leave this sorry industry
You realize that the vast majority of "robo-calls" are originated from Class 2 Interconnectwd VoIP providers, aka SIP companies like Twilio, Flowroute, SIPSTATION, SIP.US, voip.ms, and the like.
VoIP is the problem, because you can put an extraordinary amount of of volume down a very narrow pipe, with almost zero verification or validation on the technical if you are an active customer with a SIP provider. Becoming an active customer is not very difficult, either.
You realize that the vast majority of "robo-calls" are originated from Class 2 Interconnectwd VoIP providers, aka SIP companies like Twilio, Flowroute, SIPSTATION, SIP.US, voip.ms, and the like.
VoIP is the problem, because you can put an extraordinary amount of of volume down a very narrow pipe, with almost zero verification or validation on the technical if you are an active customer with a SIP provider. Becoming an active customer is not very difficult, either.
true, VoIP allowed this mess to happen, but only because it's one-sided, VoIP vs POTS. My POTS-side doesn't allow me to configure anything. Give the receivers full software control and they could block specifc or all Class 2 providers. "Old people" could set up their system to only accept calls from POTS lines, "hackers" could route "robo-callers" to "robo-answerers" that feigned voice responses like real people, etc.
I suggested FB only because it has fairly strong identity verification and (arguably) spam control. Plus they have the infrastructure to handle the bandwidth of a massive VoIP network.
I suggested FB only because it has fairly strong identity verification and (arguably) spam control. Plus they have the infrastructure to handle the bandwidth of a massive VoIP network.
Be careful what you wish for. Telecom companies have more power than ever and are way more evil than cable tv people.
I want a phone service that automatically charges the caller a small amount ($1-$2). I can waive the charger for known numbers. Each time an unknown caller calls, I get an SMS right after the call to waive the charge for this and all subsequent calls or to proceed with the charge.
perfect application for blockchain: the phone doesn't ring without being on a safelist, or from a key that is obtained from buying $0.50 of some shitcoin. by default, the micropayment goes back to the caller's wallet 5 minutes after the call. but if you press the SPAM button, the blockchain is instructed to hold the payment in the receiver's wallet.
Any given person only needs $2-3 in reserves in their wallet, to make at most 4-5 outgoing calls, before their fees are refunded. Then a nominal fee for the miners.
Any given person only needs $2-3 in reserves in their wallet, to make at most 4-5 outgoing calls, before their fees are refunded. Then a nominal fee for the miners.
Get a 900 number.
And how would you expect to collect on any of that?
I think it's easy, right? Forward your number to a voice that says, "to call me, please type your credit card number on the keypad. a charge of $2 will apply." If they pay, you connect the call. If they don't pay, the call disconnects. Easy.
Nobody will call you, of course, including spammers.
Nobody will call you, of course, including spammers.
Why not just not have a phone line, instead of inexplicably paying for a service to not have a service?
Just block all unknown callers with "should i answer" and change your voice mail to prompt the caller to leave a VM or send a text for an immediate response.
Or just a feature to whitelist numbers, block all others.
I've gotten some helpful calls from neighbors though whose number I didn't have saved.
I've gotten some helpful calls from neighbors though whose number I didn't have saved.
We see that every once in a while with email, where someone decided to sign up for an email list but also wants to charge $1-2 for "unsolicited" delivery.
Just set your phone on permanent DND w/ exceptions. It's literally the same thing, except you're not going through annoying contortions to "stick it to" someone that is probably a robot...
Just set your phone on permanent DND w/ exceptions. It's literally the same thing, except you're not going through annoying contortions to "stick it to" someone that is probably a robot...
Get a phone number from alaska? In bulk, those numbers may be more expensive to call, but probably will be allowed in consumer level minutes or unlimited plans subject to nebulous fair use clauses.
I regularly receive calls from an agent at a reputable (or at least I used to think) brokerage here in Silicon Valley.
They use the typical trick of calling you twice simultaneously, so the second call can go straight to your VM box. The message was boiler plate: "we're looking for a home in your neighborhood for a client, but inventory is very thin as you know so we're wondering if you know anyone who might be open to selling."
The thing is, there were 3 houses for sale on my street at the time, so it was immediately clear this wasn't based on an actual client. I had recently spoken with an agent from this brokerage firm and I sent her a follow-up email to let her know that her colleague's (illegal) shenanigans were undercutting her company's reputation.
They use the typical trick of calling you twice simultaneously, so the second call can go straight to your VM box. The message was boiler plate: "we're looking for a home in your neighborhood for a client, but inventory is very thin as you know so we're wondering if you know anyone who might be open to selling."
The thing is, there were 3 houses for sale on my street at the time, so it was immediately clear this wasn't based on an actual client. I had recently spoken with an agent from this brokerage firm and I sent her a follow-up email to let her know that her colleague's (illegal) shenanigans were undercutting her company's reputation.
An investigative reporter had no luck figuring out who it was. I'm curious if STIR/SHAKEN makes it possible to find the culprits, or if it just drives them to more niche VoIP providers.
It will prevent the robocallers from using local numbers to call you without actually buying/renting said numbers.
Just going to throw out the call/sms blocker I use and love:
https://github.com/kaliturin/BlackList
I have no connection to the software other than being a satisfied user. Yes, it's open source. Yes it's Android only.
Yes, it's SMS app is bare-bones. And the UI is ugly.
That's the tradeoff for this kind of thing. It's a shame there isn't an active development community around it making it so much better.
The basics are all there and they work great. Mainly if the UI was updated, and certain "extras" were added to the SMS app (for me, that'd be emoji/smiley usage and photo upload/download) - it would be perfect. But I'm willing to put up with the "bad" to gain the "good" parts of the app.
https://github.com/kaliturin/BlackList
I have no connection to the software other than being a satisfied user. Yes, it's open source. Yes it's Android only.
Yes, it's SMS app is bare-bones. And the UI is ugly.
That's the tradeoff for this kind of thing. It's a shame there isn't an active development community around it making it so much better.
The basics are all there and they work great. Mainly if the UI was updated, and certain "extras" were added to the SMS app (for me, that'd be emoji/smiley usage and photo upload/download) - it would be perfect. But I'm willing to put up with the "bad" to gain the "good" parts of the app.
There is an effort underway to end spoofing. It is called Caller ID Authentication. See
https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication
I tracked down one of these robocallers once. I'd been getting multiple calls a day from the same number. The number was tied to a business name, which had an old domain name registry in some online index. From there, I was able to find the original domain name purchaser name and phone number. I also found his Facebook page, with poor privacy settings - and a few other details about the guy. So I gave him a call. He was very surprised to get a call - but listened, and accepted that a phone call wasn't where I'd stop if his calls continued. They stopped that day.
Why is it so hard to catch them? Can't the FTC set up a house sale, and when the buyer presents himself at closing, have him arrested? Eventually the buyer needs to be available to close the sale. I suppose it can all be done electronically (I bought property with an electronic closing) but for the demographic they're trying to market from, electronic signatures and document handling may not be easy. Someone will have to meet with them, and there an arrest can be made (for the robocalling).
What many of these real estate investors do is have a phone number on their bandit signs or use in their robodialer voice mails that forwards to the answering service. That phone number might be provided by services like callfire or callrail where you can generate lists of numbers. Some services let you script all actions.
Callfire allows for things like enabling recording on the call forward (potentially illegal) when someone calls it. Then investor themselves or pays a virtual assistant like $3hr to sift through all those calls for any potential leads. You can hear the entire call to patlive if you wanted to. Or they just trust patlive to forward messages as they’re the answering service.
So long as your answering service or where you’re generating your numbers doesn’t blow your cover then you can keep this game up for a long time. That’s what these answering services are trained to do is protect their clients identities. But I doubt that holds up when the FTC comes knocking.
Callfire allows for things like enabling recording on the call forward (potentially illegal) when someone calls it. Then investor themselves or pays a virtual assistant like $3hr to sift through all those calls for any potential leads. You can hear the entire call to patlive if you wanted to. Or they just trust patlive to forward messages as they’re the answering service.
So long as your answering service or where you’re generating your numbers doesn’t blow your cover then you can keep this game up for a long time. That’s what these answering services are trained to do is protect their clients identities. But I doubt that holds up when the FTC comes knocking.
Why are Robocalls so common in the US, but not in other countries?
The U.S. has more rich suckers to prey on.
At first glance this comment might seem shallow, but I think we can unpack it a bit.
1. It’s probably correct? The US is a very large single market
2. From some quarters the US does come across as being fairly laissez-faire
3. The scale of predatory economic activity in an otherwise highly developed economy is(?) unmatched
4. Penalties seem to be a cost of business rather than genuine attempts at deterrent
5. The general appearance of a lack of accountability
But, I’m just looking on from afar, and I’m sure the media advances the hyperbole.
1. It’s probably correct? The US is a very large single market
2. From some quarters the US does come across as being fairly laissez-faire
3. The scale of predatory economic activity in an otherwise highly developed economy is(?) unmatched
4. Penalties seem to be a cost of business rather than genuine attempts at deterrent
5. The general appearance of a lack of accountability
But, I’m just looking on from afar, and I’m sure the media advances the hyperbole.
Because unsolicited calls are not legal in other countries
They're often not legal in the US either, but it isn't enforced. It has more to do with enforcement than it does legality.
[deleted]
Here in the UK they died out about 20 years ago when our Data Protection Act came in to force and stated companies could only call people who had given them prior permission. Calls still happen (either illegally from UK companies or from overseas companies to whom the UK law doesn't apply) but they're much less common.
Naw, they never died out at all. We used to get bombarded with international calls prior to blocking international calls. Now, they just spoof them from an adjacent city - we've had them purportedly from Liverpool and Bristol. Bizarre, but still happening.
[deleted]
American consumerism, access to easy credit, lower financial education, etc..
I'm seriously contemplating cancelling my cell plan. The annoyance I get from robocalls spam (plus monthly cost) is far greater than the utility. Relatives and close friends can always send messages through other services
I believe you can disable incoming calls at the telecom level. Not sure who offers this but I do some phone banking and run into this about 1/100 calls.
Apple really needs a way to enable permanent do not disturb for just phone calls, ie your phone only rings if you are in the contacts.
Apple really needs a way to enable permanent do not disturb for just phone calls, ie your phone only rings if you are in the contacts.
> Apple really needs a way to enable permanent do not disturb for just phone calls, ie your phone only rings if you are in the contacts.
That's a really great feature idea. I hope someone here who works at Apple or Google reads it.
That's a really great feature idea. I hope someone here who works at Apple or Google reads it.
Not sure if this is carrier-specific, but the phones my family uses will receive robocalls, but they come in with the name "Scam Likely." So somewhere, someone is keeping track of the various numbers that are used in a list, and using that to alter the carrier ID information to our benefit.
It doesn't catch all, but it hasn't incorrectly flagged one yet.
It doesn't catch all, but it hasn't incorrectly flagged one yet.
T-Mobile does this, at least. You can also turn an account option on which will just plain block "Scam Likely" calls.
I had a friend collect calling me from jail for 8 days. It kept showing up as Scam Likely, so I wasn't answering. One day I decided to answer it in order to leave an awkward conversation and was shocked to learn what had been going on. I bailed him out that day and vowed never to trust a Scam filter again.
Google does on my phone. Sometimes it will ask me after a call if it was spam.
Works surprisingly well considering it is Google in 2019, but now that I think of it I can see a number of ways they'll mess up this as well ;-)
Works surprisingly well considering it is Google in 2019, but now that I think of it I can see a number of ways they'll mess up this as well ;-)
I use Google's Call Screen service. It answers the call and tells the caller to state their name and reason for calling. The response shows up on my screen as text and I can decide to pick up at any time.
99% of the time, the call just disconnects.
I really wish Google would let me set my phone to ring only for numbers in my address book and give everybody else a busy signal.
99% of the time, the call just disconnects.
I really wish Google would let me set my phone to ring only for numbers in my address book and give everybody else a busy signal.
On android, you can go to settings of the caller app, and enable "filter spam calls". Not exactly the same thing but still... You might have some trouble if you are a fi user.
I am a fi user.
The problem with settings like that is it still lets the call go to voicemail and I don't want to deal dozens of 4 second messages every week.
The problem with settings like that is it still lets the call go to voicemail and I don't want to deal dozens of 4 second messages every week.
[deleted]
Can someone explain why it’s so easy to spoof caller ID? And can someone else explain why spoofing caller ID isn’t a felony worthy of life imprisonment?
The telephony protocol permits owners of a local telephone exchange (any setting with many internal phones) to display a chosen number in the caller-id field. The intent was that outgoing calls would appear to come from the general number of the organization, rather than the individual who actually placed the outgoing call. Unfortunately, when this was designed, no thought was given to the possibility of (now widespread) abuse. One cannot completely blame the original designers: when they did their work, telephony was essentially a closed system controlled by a handful of large telephony companies. The rise of using the internet as a transport medium was not something they could have anticipated: there was no internet back then!
You are probably banned in Google, so there is link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caller_ID_spoofing
Not that this explains it, but IIRC, caller ID information is sent (or was, at one time with land lines) "out of band", in a particular data format, that occurs between the first and second rings.
IIRC, it's done using frequencies that either can't be heard (ie, outside the freq response of the phone), or the sound is "switched off" between rings (quite possibly this, since the "ring" voltage is completely different from the "line-in-use" voltage - so this voltage change can be detected and switch the signaling as needed).
At any rate, it's a known thing, and if you understand how it works, it's possible (well, again, was - for land line phones) to build a box that can inject these signals between the rings so the phone being called will display it. Normally, this is done (IIRC) by the CO, but I think if the info is already there, it doesn't override it.
I might be completely wrong, though; it's been a couple of decades since I last read about how it worked; also, I have no idea how it works in cell-phone land, but likely it hasn't changed because "inertia" and having to support older land-line phones...
IIRC, it's done using frequencies that either can't be heard (ie, outside the freq response of the phone), or the sound is "switched off" between rings (quite possibly this, since the "ring" voltage is completely different from the "line-in-use" voltage - so this voltage change can be detected and switch the signaling as needed).
At any rate, it's a known thing, and if you understand how it works, it's possible (well, again, was - for land line phones) to build a box that can inject these signals between the rings so the phone being called will display it. Normally, this is done (IIRC) by the CO, but I think if the info is already there, it doesn't override it.
I might be completely wrong, though; it's been a couple of decades since I last read about how it worked; also, I have no idea how it works in cell-phone land, but likely it hasn't changed because "inertia" and having to support older land-line phones...
When you have an incoming call ringing on a landline, the ring signal is very much out of band - it's 48 volts, with enough current to drive a solenoid to move a mechanical hammer against a physical bell. (You do not want to be electrically in contact with a phone line when ring comes in!)
The caller ID information comes as a frequency-shift-keyed (FSK) message (I think). As you said, it's between the first and second rings. But you can't hear it, not just because it's not a normal audio tone, but also because the phone is still on hook and isn't playing any audio that comes over the line.
That's regular caller ID, which is type 1. Call waiting caller ID is type 2. It's also an FSK message. (That is, I'm sure that it's an FSK message. I think type 1 is also FSK, but I'm less certain of that.) This comes immediately after the call waiting "beep". It's short enough that I don't think your ear can pick it out of the transition from the beep tone to the regular conversation that the beep interrupted.
I'm not sure whether you could get fake caller ID that you send through a CO. The phone line isn't "off hook" yet, so the CO isn't passing audio. (If you say "hello" into the phone while it's ringing, I don't think that audio goes down the destination phone line either.) But that's only how I think it works; I don't know.
The caller ID information comes as a frequency-shift-keyed (FSK) message (I think). As you said, it's between the first and second rings. But you can't hear it, not just because it's not a normal audio tone, but also because the phone is still on hook and isn't playing any audio that comes over the line.
That's regular caller ID, which is type 1. Call waiting caller ID is type 2. It's also an FSK message. (That is, I'm sure that it's an FSK message. I think type 1 is also FSK, but I'm less certain of that.) This comes immediately after the call waiting "beep". It's short enough that I don't think your ear can pick it out of the transition from the beep tone to the regular conversation that the beep interrupted.
I'm not sure whether you could get fake caller ID that you send through a CO. The phone line isn't "off hook" yet, so the CO isn't passing audio. (If you say "hello" into the phone while it's ringing, I don't think that audio goes down the destination phone line either.) But that's only how I think it works; I don't know.
For legitimate outbound sales, I might be calling from 617-867-5309, but want my caller ID to always show up as the office main number (perhaps 617-867-5300). Or I might want to show my Google Voice (or Twilio or other) number as my number even if I happen to be returning your call from a specific line or phone.
As for felony life sentence, while I'm sure that's facetious for effect (and I chuckled), if you accept any of the above reasons, it seems you also need to allow for inadvertent misconfiguration. Once we broke up the telephony stranglehold (overall a good thing, I think), we allowed a bunch of federated phone systems to start working together, most of whom are good actors.
As for felony life sentence, while I'm sure that's facetious for effect (and I chuckled), if you accept any of the above reasons, it seems you also need to allow for inadvertent misconfiguration. Once we broke up the telephony stranglehold (overall a good thing, I think), we allowed a bunch of federated phone systems to start working together, most of whom are good actors.
Is it just me or does this article end mid-thought?
does everyone has a subscription to Philly? I've never been to the site and wants me to pay to read 1 article
I was able to see the article without any issue. There was a banner telling me I should subscribe, but that was it.
Changing to Firefox worked. It seems Philly is able to work around privacy mode in Safari.
I've noticed that certain newspaper-oriented sites (like the Denver post) ask you to subscribe if it detects you're running in incognito mode.
That said, I viewed this page in incognito on chrome without issue.
That said, I viewed this page in incognito on chrome without issue.
[deleted]
"Hello this is Lenny..."
Scammers have this popular trick of spoofing the caller ID for a number local to you. People are more likely to pick up the call if it's a number that seems familiar to them (like, the first 6 digits are the same as your phone number).
I've known about this trick, but I never really thought about the collateral damage. See ... that number they're faking is a _real_ phone number. And it's someone else's phone number. It's not the scammer's number.
Well my wife's phone number got used. You wouldn't believe the number of people who call scammers back! She was getting hundreds of calls a day; non-stop. Most people were calling back trying to figure out who called them. Some were angry. A few threatened her with violence.
And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. You can't stop someone from spoofing your phone number on Caller ID. You can't stop people from mistakenly calling "you" back. You're just stuck in phone hell. The only solution is to change your phone number ... not really a great option.
It lasted about a week; we resorted to just keeping her phone on Do Not Disturb.
What a nightmare.