More on Premium SMSes

http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html

This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.

---

› See More: More on Premium SMSes

"Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>
> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>
Yep, had the same issue about eight months back with unsolicited ring tones
(up to 3 a day at $6 a pop). I knew quickly as the actual phone was rarely
used. It took three months & around $300 plus before it was ended. The
perpetrators claimed immunity because they weren't based in Australia. They
actually were & had to refund the full amount but it took a heap of effort
on our part!

"Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>
> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.

So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to
receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing even though it
is written in the terms and conditions," he says."


>

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>>
>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>
> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to
> receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing even though
> it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."

According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a child who
has signed up for a service using a parent's phone, technically leaving the
adult responsible."

"Seaman Staines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>>>
>>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>>
>> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to
>> receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing even though
>> it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."
>
> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a child
> who has signed up for a service using a parent's phone, technically
> leaving the adult responsible."
>
In our case NO ONE subscribed to anything. The company when asked to produce
proof of subscription had to admit there never any subscription! This is why
they eventually had to refund the full costs. I suspect it was probably just
a random thing where they called an unknown number. The perpetrator was
totally un-contactable! It was only because of representation & insistence
to Vodafone that it was eventually resolved!

Michael wrote...

> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to
> receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing even though it
> is written in the terms and conditions," he says."

Eh?

"Seaman Staines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>>>
>>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>>
>> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to
>> receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing even though
>> it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."
>
> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a child
> who has signed up for a service using a parent's phone, technically
> leaving the adult responsible."

Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.

So, if your child does something to your mobile, you are responsible.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Seaman Staines" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> "Snapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...654375343.html
>>>>
>>>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>>>
>>> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in
>>> to receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing
>>> even though it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."
>>
>> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a
>> child who has signed up for a service using a parent's phone,
>> technically leaving the adult responsible."

> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.

Wrong, as always.

> So, if your child does something to your mobile, you are responsible.

Wrong, as always.

>>>>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.
>>>>
>>>> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in
>>>> to receive the content once without knowing they are subscribing
>>>> even though it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."
>>>
>>> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a
>>> child who has signed up for a service using a parent's phone,
>>> technically leaving the adult responsible."
>
>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by non-adults.

Better now?

>> So, if your child does something to your mobile, you are responsible.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>> This is what some scam mob tried to put over on me, today.

>>>>> So do you fall into the category of, ""People generally just put in to receive the content once without knowing
>>>>> they are subscribing even though it is written in the terms and conditions," he says."

>>>> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a child who has signed up for a service using a
>>>> parent's phone, technically leaving the adult responsible."

>>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by non-adults.

Wrong, as always.

> Better now?

No one ever is with your stupid pig ignorant drug crazed ****.

>>> So, if your child does something to your mobile, you are responsible.

>> Wrong, as always.

>>>>> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a
>>>>> child who has signed up for a service using a parent's phone,
>>>>> technically leaving the adult responsible."
>
>>>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.
>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by non-adults.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Please explain, Pauline.

Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>>> According to the other talking head, "Often, it turns out to be a child who has signed up for a service using a
>>>>>> parent's phone, technically leaving the adult responsible."

>>>>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by children.

>>>> Wrong, as always.

>>> Postpaid mobiles cannot be connected by non-adults.

>> Wrong, as always.

> Please explain

Nothing to explain. You are just plain wrong, Pauline.

For something that is supposed to be "random" last night I got another call with
a recorded message telling me to hit "six" on the mobile and to join in a
betting competition.

I decided to listen to the entire message. At the end, the voice said, in that
low toned and rapid way that they do at the end of political adverts, "press one
to opt out".

It'll be interesting to see if it slugs me anything. I'll wait and see.

02-8205-0499 is the number in case any of you get a call.

As for this randomness of how these mobs select victims it's a tad too
coincidental that I'd be copping two such calls within a week of each other,
particularly when I don't use my mobile for anything other than calling home,
family or friends when needed.