> 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.
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.
> 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?
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.