If a Caller Says, 'I Am with the IRS,' He's Not
npr.org
npr.org
Fortunately, I came to the opposite (and correct) conclusion, seeing as how I had received the call 30 seconds after attempting to use my Chase card for a large international purchase online and was able to quickly get that issue sorted. Still, it seems to current state-of-the-art that the rest of the bank is not aware of the phone numbers used by their fraud departments.
Searching for that phone number will (if it's legit) likely point to a contact page on the bank's website.
Then again, I don't get calls very often, so may be I have more patience with calls. Emails? I am probably much less diligent about determining their authenticity.
An sms is so much simpler.
[1] Oddly, on my last phone, with T-mobile, disabling voice mail wasn't possible through their internet account management. I did manage to get my voice mail disabled, but I had to call them and complain until they agreed to disable it.
I was forced to implement this after I started getting several junk calls a day. I don't think I've has a single junk call ring through since I put it in place. Rarely one will leave a prerecorded message. Interestingly, from looking at my call logs the frequency of junk call attempts has also dropped to just a couple a week after about a year with this is place.
Another nice thing about Anveo: their voicemail transcription mostly works compared to the comedy that is Google Voice's transcription.
I really wish that more companies would back the robo dialers with real people who can actually listen/respond to the outgoing message. There's some standards to detect voicemail vs. an actual response, just the same nothing replaces real people with a working mind. For a while I had my outgoing message prefixed with the disconnected tone. That was a fun way of getting off of call lists.
They should put more enforcement effort into catching these people. You record everyone's phone calls and you still can't catch people pretending to be IRS agents?
The phone companies are required to keep call records for at least several years. I tell the IRS investigator that I got such a call, and now they request the records from the phone company.
Once you pick a line in the sand you will not budge over, you have maimed your capacity for reason. So yes, the only principle I could ever hold is an impossible one. Fortunately, I do not hold it.
Yep, I'm flabbergasted. Impersonating a federal officer is a felony, and on top of that, the IRS takes its shit seriously and hates getting screwed with.
It's the same for robodialling. The FCC or anyone could put a major crimp if they wanted to, but no one really digs into complaints very much.
I got audited (joy!) and was notified by a relatively-friendly phone call by the auditing agent.
Now, she was following up on a letter she'd sent first (to an old, invalid address), to which I hadn't replied, so the "we contact you by mail" thing is also correct. But at least in my case, they most definitely (and legitimately) called.
For hilarity: I ended up finding more receipts and getting additional money back so the agent ended up doing me a favor.
An audit can also result in them asking for a paper trail to back up what you claimed. Keep in mind that many of the common items (interest earned, mortgage interest paid, etc) are all filed with the IRS by third parties, via a 1099 or 1098 form. But for some other items that you can claim deductions on, such as business expenses, you will need to provide them a copy of the receipts if they ask. If you can't back it up, they adjust what you owe, and may apply interest / penalties, which you will have to pay. If not, they can do things like garnish wages, freeze bank accounts, etc. But that will come after a court judgement typically.
Keep in mind that some of the items they will go after: If you turn in expenses at work, and they reimburse you for that, the IRS may still require you to retain the receipts to show that it is a valid business expense that you got paid for -- otherwise they can consider that income and tax you on it.
E.g. companies use their 800-number or some kind of central dispatch to ID all their phones.
Google Voice has an option to show the original caller ID on forwarded calls or your own Google Voice number, both seem to be more useful than an ID of whatever box Google used to originate the call to you at the moment.
Basically the caller ID is as useful as the reply-to in e-mail: if you want to get replies then you make sure you fill it with correct information but it's not authenticating the sender by any means.
There will always be holes, but at least this would provide a mechanism for eliminating them. Also, a "green zone" could start in the US and expand outwards, eventually kicking scammers off of VOIP links situated in the US, forcing their costs up.
PS Google has been experimenting with verifying email senders.
If any laws were to be changed I'd mandate a mandatory "This is the number the caller chose to identify oneself with" sticker around caller ID display on any phone witch such a feature.
Just because the service is currently wildly untrustworthy doesn't mean that it should be or is required to be. There IS a market for better authentication and filtration of nuisances that companies like Google seem to be aware of.
So why did we just read the linked article where the IRS (government agency) is warning people about scams but doesn't tell them to report them?
Most non-residential buildings have a PBX which is interfaced with the PSTN (actually, a telco like AT&T) via some "trunking" system. Trunking systems, like SIP (which runs over IP on the regular old internet) and PRI (which runs over a T1), unlike simple analog circuits, carry multiple calls for multiple numbers at the same time.
The telco decides internally which PBX a call will be routed to, then presents the audio stream and signaling data (caller ID, destination phone #) to the PBX, which can do pretty much whatever it wants in response.
In a typical business installation, some numbers might be routed directly as calls to specific people's extensions (we call these DIDs), while others might ring several phones at once (and go to the first person to answer), a call queue, an IVR menu, a prompt to "dial your party's extension number," etc.
Or you could do something exotic, like Twilio.
The PBX is also responsible for connecting outbound calls to the outside world. It sends signaling data (CID, destination phone #) to the telco along with whatever audio it pleases, and the telco responds accordingly.
Hundreds of different phone numbers might route to a PBX. No one except the PBX is in a position to know which one makes sense to send as caller ID.
You might say we should only let PBXes send CID of numbers which are routed to them. But this breaks a use case where a business with many branch offices wants the same caller ID (in at least some cases) on outgoing calls from all its locations. To present the "main" number, you would now be forced to route the call over the internal network (typically a VPN, or else a leased line) to the main location's PBX, then out its trunk. This can get really hairy as you have a lot of load on this device as well as a single point of failure for potentially hundreds of locations.
So to support lots of different branch offices presenting the same CID, we now have to be in the business of maintaining a list of authorized CIDs we can send on a specific trunk line. Could it be done? Absolutely, but it isn't simple and telcos don't seem to think it's worth the effort/overhead. And all it takes is one telco who doesn't implement this requirement to make it worthless. (Just run your call spoofing website off an Asterisk instance trunked to that telco).
It might be nice to have a WHOIS equivalent for telephony - some way to find out the legal name of the entity which pays the bill for receiving calls at a specific number - but no one has gone to the trouble of creating an exhaustive database and forcing telcos to participate in it.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Similarly, some ISPs have implemented egress filtering to reduce abuse. At least a few speedbumps in the way of total anonymity over the phone would make scamming less trivial.
It's worth noting that there is a more reliable piece of data for actually identifying callers: the ANI field. It doesn't show up on caller ID, but if you run your own PBX you might be able to log it. Its used for billing purposes, so it's much harder to spoof.
If you own your own PBX, you can modify Caller ID, but you can't modify ANI.
More info: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_identificati...
The scammers are definitely using a VoIP service around here anyway...
Though my understanding is that ANI isn't blockable by the caller. So if you have a toll-free number, you can see the calling number for callers that have blocked their caller id.
Allowing spoofing caller ID is important so internal landlines don't need to be revealed, and instead they can present you with their main number.
(Not that I've had any large issues, but I've found the agents there to be fairly reasonable for the small stuff I've dealt with.)
Not surprising that they don't have any bad feelings about it.
Turns out there was a similarly-named company not that far away from us, whose CFO had the same last name as me. As soon as I called and gave my SSN he said, wait, do you work for "Cygnus" and I said yes, but we figured what had gone wrong out and he said, "sorry, never mind". Total time on the call: less than 60 seconds. Total time to get through to him? About 30 minutes.
Still, the commissioner's advice was essentially correct: I was surprised to get the call because it wasn't for me. Was the IRS, but not a call for me. Good thing I called back though!
For the numbers that weren't blocked, I tried checking them using Twilio's Lookup service: https://www.twilio.com/lookup
While the numbers are often in my local area code, the Twilio API shows the "Mobile {Network,Country} Code" is typically in South America or Eastern Europe.
How did they get my phone number? I replied to a Craigslist ad a while back that turned out to be a scam :( I wish there was a way to get rid of the calls ...
Love GV been using it for years.
These things are pervasive and they are annoying, they are also impossible to prosecute in the "small" so I'm wondering if there is a case to be made for user provided call tracing. Specifically, if you get a call, you can originate from that same phone a request for trace which returns the origin point of that call. These days with call setup being 100% digital the trace information is available immediately (rather than after some fictional period of time with an open line) so why not provide this as a service to phone subscribers? I'd be willing to pay $10 whenever I triggered the service, and the data is out there so its essentially "free money" for the phone company.
I'd be fine with IRS CID spending $100 to catch $1 of criminal predation on taxpayers, here.
My grandfather tends to fall victim to these types of things - not even always explicit scams like this, but believing hugely inaccurate political websites ( think Obama impeachment conspiracy type BS ), and buying into wonder-products or just the general drivel you see in spammy ads on AOL.
I'm probably going to start by cleaning up his computer some and installing Ad-Block, but most of the links to the websites are coming from his emails - any advice from someone that have dealt with similar scenarios?
It blocks a handful of spam/scam sites but it's mostly for malware, maybe there's another sort of HOSTS file for spammy sites?
Funny story - So finally I told the fake health organization that if they were genuine, they would send my company a letter and paper work. And voila, a few weeks later we get paperwork with misspelled company name from those scammers! I have to give them credit for trying!
Also, the IRS wants their money much much more than they want to send you to jail so they'll work with you and be more than accommodating as long as it means getting paid what their owed.
It's insane, backward thinking.
1. you could get it wrong.
2. that is not the intended use for an API like that.
3. it would be better if you spent your time to report or collect information to help law enforcement catch them.
It might be fun to use the API to hurt them but you're effectively stooping to their level if you did... and in the process remember you're hurting twilio if you do that.
As with fax spam and email spam, these people deserve death. With 7 billion people hanging around the last thing we need is a handful of first-world career criminals.
ELIZA or other natural language responder could be effective too.
It is amusing for us for any of these scammers to call any of our direct extensions.
Scammers cannot contact by letter purportedly?!
And following a link from a scam email has a greater risk of drive by infection, since it is specifically crafted for that and has the user already has convinced being legit: you have to take in account that once the seems legit feeling is active escalating action gradually is likely to succeed.
It's about context and psychology. If one of those link from an officially sounding page had a download this to check if you have been scammed a lot of people would have done just that. In the same way you need to preemptively scare them, so that the message of trust no one really comes across vivid
I pay $40-50/month for the privilege of getting mostly time-wasting phone calls at my office and it's infuriating.