Premium Rate SMS Spammers

In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave {Reply Address In.sig}" <"noone$$"@llondel.org> writes:
> Surely it isn't actually theft until they've left the store? Putting an
> item in a pocket is pretty damning but while they're still on the
> premises they've always got the chance to go pay for it.

The offence is committed the moment you take the item into
your possession intending not to pay for it. That's no
good by itself in court though, so you have to wait until
the person has left the store, or they could try claiming
they were either going to pay for it, or leave it in the
store. Even when caught outside the store, it still has
to be shown the person intended not to pay for it, rather
than failed to pay by accident. At least, this was the law
when I had a Saturday job in a supermarket when I was at
school, it may have changed since.

--
Andrew Gabriel

---

› See More: Premium Rate SMS Spammers

> > Can I ask Jon, do you prosecute shoplifters ? - what basis of proof do
> > you use when they're stopped with your goods in their possession ?
> I've never caught any during my time with Orange, but in my previous
> employment I have been to court twice and been involved in approximately
> 2 dozen arrests.
> It would not be for me to decide weather to prosecute or not, it would
> be down to our security manager, but I suspect we would.
> As for proof, the best way of securing this is to allow the thief to
> leave the store, thereby proving intent to remove the item without
> payment.

Another take, given your defence of the network operators is this:

* A thief walks into your store, picks up your property, and leaves
without paying

* You apprehend the thief

* The thief tells you to sue the network operator for a refund of the
cost of the stolen item, and is free to leave with the stolen item

My point being - you pay your money to the network operator, not the
premium rate service providers. Why should the customer (or as in the
example above, the shop) have to claim from someone other than the one
who took their property ?

As the network operators take a cut of this stolen money, they are
handling stolen property.

"Dave {Reply Address In.sig}" <"noone$$"@llondel.org> declared for all
the world to hear...
> > As for proof, the best way of securing this is to allow the thief to
> > leave the store, thereby proving intent to remove the item without
> > payment.

> Surely it isn't actually theft until they've left the store?

That's what I have just said.

> Putting an
> item in a pocket is pretty damning but while they're still on the
> premises they've always got the chance to go pay for it.

It depends on where the tills are positioned in the store. Once the the
if has walked past the till in the direction of an exit then that's
pretty much enough, but if there are more product displays between the
till and the exit then it could get muddy. Best way is to let them leave
then you've got your proof.
--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> My point being - you pay your money to the network operator, not the
> premium rate service providers. Why should the customer (or as in the
> example above, the shop) have to claim from someone other than the one
> who took their property ?

Theiving something from a shop and disputing a charge for a reverse
charge message cannot be compared.

With premium rate reverse charging you cannot possibly prove intent for
starters. Unless you had documentary evidence that the service provider
intended to steal your £1.50 you would not get very far in court.

> As the network operators take a cut of this stolen money, they are
> handling stolen property.

Maybe, but until the opt-in methods are sorted out properly, I.e. double
opt-in etc then the network cannot possibly know that you never
requested the service therefore it's their word against yours. This is
why disputes must go to the originator of the "crime" and not the
middleman.

--
Regards
Jon

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > > As a result, BT now delays payments to premium rate providers
> > > by 30 days, so it can claw the money back if transactions turn
> > > out to be fraudulant, and it blocks numbers if it finds they
> > > are being used for this purpose.

> > A sensible idea and one which mobile networks could easily do I expect.

> what about PAYG?

What about it?
--
Regards
Jon

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>
> With premium rate reverse charging you cannot possibly prove intent
> for
> starters. Unless you had documentary evidence that the service
> provider
> intended to steal your £1.50 you would not get very far in court.
>

This same type of argument was used when BT was raking in money from
abuse by rogue diallers. I argued that by taking a cut after being
informed of the fraud, they were guilty of aiding and abetting the
fraudsters. Shortly after, BT stated that any money they had gained from
these calls would be given to charity, which was more or less admitting
that they were in the wrong. I think they have now changed their policy
to help prevent similar losses to their customers.

Jon wrote:
>
> With premium rate reverse charging you cannot possibly prove intent for
> starters. Unless you had documentary evidence that the service provider
> intended to steal your £1.50 you would not get very far in court.
>
> Jon

Your invoice with the debited amounts on provides all the proof of
intent and documentary evidence a court would need.

Orange, particularly in my own experiences, appear to be notoriously
vulnerable to abuses of their network by these outfits.

In my own case, I was charged for 12 of these messages (I actually
received none and was only aware of the problem when my invoice
arrived). Orange alleged that the charges were as a result of the
previous owner of my number subscribing to them (even though they
started five months into my contract) - a feeble excuse.

"Harry Stottle" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> >
> > With premium rate reverse charging you cannot possibly prove intent
> > for
> > starters. Unless you had documentary evidence that the service
> > provider
> > intended to steal your £1.50 you would not get very far in court.
> >
>
> This same type of argument was used when BT was raking in money from
> abuse by rogue diallers. I argued that by taking a cut after being
> informed of the fraud, they were guilty of aiding and abetting the
> fraudsters. Shortly after, BT stated that any money they had gained from
> these calls would be given to charity, which was more or less admitting
> that they were in the wrong. I think they have now changed their policy
> to help prevent similar losses to their customers.

I think they would have been in trouble under the Proceeds of Crime Act (I think
that's what it's called).

Cross-posted to uk.legal

"Jon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...

[snip]

> Maybe, but until the opt-in methods are sorted out
> properly, I.e. double opt-in etc then the network cannot
> possibly know that you never requested the service

Then *implement* double opt-in and be quick about it..!!

"Oh sorry Mr. Jones we never knew that Dodgy Telecoms are scamming but
we're taking your money to give it to them anyway"

Cobblers..!

> therefore it's their word against yours. This is why
> disputes must go to the originator of the "crime" and not
> the middleman.

But it's the "middleman" who took my money. They should ask me before they
do so if a third party asks them to take my money and give it to them.

My dispute is with the party who directly took money from me. They (and
you) can try and pass the buck but it won't wash.

Ivor

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Jon wrote:
> >
> > With premium rate reverse charging you cannot possibly
> > prove intent for starters. Unless you had documentary
> > evidence that the service provider intended to steal
> > your £1.50 you would not get very far in court.
> >
> > Jon
>
> Your invoice with the debited amounts on provides all the
> proof of intent and documentary evidence a court would
> need.

Difficult with a PAYG phone though. I had this happen to me on an Orange
PAYG number and it was the devil's own job to get my money back. I did in
the end but it took weeks.

Ivor

> Then *implement* double opt-in and be quick about it..!!

Not a bad idea - force the network operators to follow up all premium
rate texts with a message of their own saying if they dispute the cost
for that message call 0800 xxx xxx

Yes, there would be costs involved, but these would be negligible to the
network as they can send texts for free to their customers anyway.

Jon wrote:
> [email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
>> As a result, BT now delays payments to premium rate providers
>> by 30 days, so it can claw the money back if transactions turn
>> out to be fraudulant, and it blocks numbers if it finds they
>> are being used for this purpose.
>
> A sensible idea and one which mobile networks could easily do I expect.

All network operators are required by ICSTIS to withhold payment from
service providers for 30 days, this is nothing special to BT, it is
specified by ICSTIS.

Typically inter-operator contracts will have much shorter payment terms,
with procedures to withhold payment whilst (for example) investigations
into possible fraud take place.

If you have a problem with a provider who operates in an area under
ICSTISs remit, you should contact them directly for advise/to complain.

Jon <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I respectfully disagree. The charge is there because you have been
>> provided with a service (weather requested or not). The network are
>> not to know that you have not requested it are they.

By that logic, banks should hand your money over to any party that
claims to have provided a service.


Andrew Gabriel <[email protected]> wrote:

> The police had a meeting with the telcos something like a year
> ago to warn them that attempting to collect charges levied as
> a result of deception or fraud is in itself a criminal offence,
> even when the deception/fraud was not committed by the telco.
> This was in connection with premimum rate diallers where the
> the premium rate number was dialled, but as it was a deception
> or fraud (done by a virus unknown to the subscriber) collection
> of the charges is an offence.
>
> I see no reason why this doesn't apply to premium rate SMS too.

In practice I think the police refuse to issue CRNs for these things
and tell complainants that it's a civil matter.

On 2006-08-28, Paul Cupis <[email protected]> wrote:

> All network operators are required by ICSTIS to withhold payment from
> service providers for 30 days, this is nothing special to BT, it is
> specified by ICSTIS.
>
> Typically inter-operator contracts will have much shorter payment terms,
> with procedures to withhold payment whilst (for example) investigations
> into possible fraud take place.
>
> If you have a problem with a provider who operates in an area under
> ICSTISs remit, you should contact them directly for advise/to complain.

Since the network operators aren't required to provide refunds to the
victims, who is supposed to benefit from the 30 day holding period?
Or is this supposed to encourage them to do so?

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-08-28, Paul Cupis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> All network operators are required by ICSTIS to withhold payment from
>> service providers for 30 days, this is nothing special to BT, it is
>> specified by ICSTIS.
>>
>> Typically inter-operator contracts will have much shorter payment terms,
>> with procedures to withhold payment whilst (for example) investigations
>> into possible fraud take place.
>>
>> If you have a problem with a provider who operates in an area under
>> ICSTISs remit, you should contact them directly for advise/to complain.
>
> Since the network operators aren't required to provide refunds to the
> victims, who is supposed to benefit from the 30 day holding period?
> Or is this supposed to encourage them to do so?

I'll have to refer you to:

http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs/CodeAd...visionsNOs.pdf

particularly section 2.3.9.