 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Country Specific / Australian Group / June 2006Phone scam info
Hi guys, I have heard that there is someone placing calls to mobiles at all hours. If you answer then nothing happens. But if you do not answer and then use the call back feature, you get wacked with a bill of $20. Any truth to this story? where can I get more info? > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > where can I get more info? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=02+8404+2296&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU > > Hi guys, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=02+8404+2296&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU Ta > Hi guys, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > where can I get more info? Scam indeed it seems, I got a call from 02 8404 2213 a week ago and missed it because it only rang once. As a general rule I never call back missed calls that I don't recognise - if it's urgent they'll call again. > Scam indeed it seems, I got a call from 02 8404 2213 a week ago and > missed it because it only rang once. As a general rule I never call back > missed calls that I don't recognise - if it's urgent they'll call again. Interesting, I checked my phone and I also received a call from (02) 8404 2201 towards the end of May. I ignored it at the time because it was not familiar, and they didn't bother to leave a voicemail. I usually put presented but unrecognised numbers into Google in case it's a known company I'm expecting a call from, but I guess I must have forgotten this time around. I wonder if the "call us back" setup is more an attempt to skirt automated dialling regulations rather than saving a bit of money on unanswered calls. >> Scam indeed it seems, I got a call from 02 8404 2213 a week >> ago and missed it because it only rang once. As a general [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Interesting, I checked my phone and I also received a call > from (02) 8404 2201 towards the end of May. Even more interesting - I see an unanswered call from the same number (0284042201) on 19 May last. John >> Hi guys, >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it because it only rang once. As a general rule I never call back missed > calls that I don't recognise - if it's urgent they'll call again. There's an 03 number that was quite active for a while, I haven't heard much about it in the last couple of months too. I like the suggestion on one of the websites there - create a spam calling group with all of the numbers to identify them. > I like the suggestion on one of the websites there - create a spam calling > group with all of the numbers to identify them. I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected numbers and even ignorant/paranoid people that do not send an ID. I have included those numbers to the list, so I won't be bothered by them again! :) -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 > I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little > programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected > numbers and even ignorant/paranoid people that do not send an ID. Only ignorant paranoid people reject calls without caller ID! There are all sorts of reasons why you might get a genuine call - that you may want to receive - from a phone that doesn't send caller ID. Apart from many other reasons, Optus cable network phone services seem to come with CID switched off by default - and a lot of their customers don't even realise they're not sending a CID number. >> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little >> programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all sorts of reasons why you might get a genuine call - that you may want > to receive - from a phone that doesn't send caller ID. The people I give my primary number (for personal use) to should have no reason to hide their number. > >> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little > >> programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The people I give my primary number (for personal use) to should have no > reason to hide their number. Yup. Anyone who calls me with CID off gets a chance I wont answer the phone. Tough. > Anyone who calls me with CID off gets a chance I wont answer the phone. > Tough. Unfortunately there's a lot of fools like that. Our phones at work don't send CID - for good policy reasons. People call, leave a message on the answering service and expect you to call them back - only, when you do, they don't answer the call cos they're paranoid and stupid. > > Anyone who calls me with CID off gets a chance I wont answer the phone. > > Tough. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > - only, when you do, they don't answer the call cos they're paranoid and > stupid. What an idiot! You have a good policy reason not to send CID I have a good policy reasons not to answer. If the CID is on good chance it is some fuckwit trying to sell you something. And I have told my friends/relatives lotsof times dial 1832 if they have too. What too lazy? too paranoid about sending their CID? Whatever. > What an idiot! You have a good policy reason not to send CID I have a > good policy reasons not to answer. That's totally cool by me mate. One less drongo to have to waste my time talking to! > > What an idiot! You have a good policy reason not to send CID I have a > > good policy reasons not to answer. > > That's totally cool by me mate. One less drongo to have to waste my time > talking to! Good to know you are a convendor. >> > What an idiot! You have a good policy reason not to send CID I have a >> > good policy reasons not to answer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Good to know you are a convendor. Maybe you should try looking that word up in a dictionary. will said.... >> What an idiot! You have a good policy reason not to send CID I have a >> good policy reasons not to answer. > > That's totally cool by me mate. One less drongo to have to waste my time > talking to! Assuming of course, that you're not a drongo yourself. Me, I agree with Andy's philosophy. If people wish to hide their numbers, then they go to the answering machine. If they think that their call is really important to me, but more to them, then they can leave a message. > will said.... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > call is really important to me, but more to them, then they can leave a > message. why are so many people lazy> just prefix with 1832. maybe telstra needs an education campaign, to ramp up their call completion rates and revenue >> will said.... >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > maybe telstra needs an education campaign, to ramp up their call > completion rates and revenue Nope, not a hope in hell of ever being revenue positive. Back to those dunnys, child, its all you can manage. > >> will said.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Nope, not a hope in hell of ever being revenue positive. Rubbish > Back to those dunnys, child, its all you can manage. >>>> will said.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> Nope, not a hope in hell of ever being revenue positive. > Rubbish Never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. No surprise that it only ever gets to clean the dunnys and never ever gets any say on thing more important than that. >> Back to those dunnys, child, its all you can manage. >>>> will said.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Rubbish He's right. Most have said they let an answering machine answer the call. The call is answered - the call completion rates are not affected.  SignatureKwyj Kwyjibo said.... > Most have said they let an answering machine answer the call. The call > is answered - the call completion rates are not affected. Probably why Telstra made its message bank service free (it used to cost a minimum fee per month when it was introduced). No-one's using it, so no calls are "completed". Give it away, people take it up, calls are then "completed" when they connect to your new free message bank. Hmm, I wonder if it costs anything to retrieve messages, like the mobile phone version. > Kwyjibo said.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wonder if it costs anything to retrieve messages, like the mobile phone > version. That was what Frank Blount said after he first took over Telecom. He reckoned they should give all customers a free answering machine 'cause it costs the network the same to set up an unanswered call but they don't get any revenue for it. SignatureClem > > Anyone who calls me with CID off gets a chance I wont answer the phone. > > Tough. > > Unfortunately there's a lot of fools like that. No, its a good approach, thanks > Our phones at work don't send CID - for good policy reasons. People call, For w.nk reasons > leave a message on the answering service and expect you to call them back Jeez, how unreasonable, eh? > - only, when you do, they don't answer the call cos they're paranoid and > stupid. Just like you > will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote >>> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little programme called >>> Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected numbers and even >>> ignorant/paranoid people that do not send an ID. >> Only ignorant paranoid people reject calls without caller ID! There >> are all sorts of reasons why you might get a genuine call - that you >> may want to receive - from a phone that doesn't send caller ID. > The people I give my primary number (for personal use) to should have no reason to hide > their number. Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. And one of those may need to call from a copshop or hospital etc too. I've had a few examples of where the sh.t has hit the fan and someone has needed to call me in a situation where caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. > > will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and someone has needed to call me in a situation where > caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. That is what the answering machine is for. >>> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > That is what the answering machine is for. You aint established that there is an answering machine. > And one of those may need to call from a copshop or hospital etc too. > > I've had a few examples of where the sh.t has hit the fan > and someone has needed to call me in a situation where > caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. This is something new -- Rod Speed, the Good Samaritan! >> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and someone has needed to call me in a situation where > caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. Yes I guess you're right, I can't expect everyone to know about 1832 prefix (or expect it to work, as it doesnt always). A little offtopic, it's the home phone now where we're getting hassled by spammers - its an unlisted number but I've noticed many of the Indian telemarketers now call from an "OVERSEAS" name instead of "PRIVATE NUMBER". This is a pain when we do regularly get (important) international calls. They're calling several times a week now on average. > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote >>>>> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice >>>>> little programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS >>>>> from selected numbers and even ignorant/paranoid people that do >>>>> not send an ID. >>>> Only ignorant paranoid people reject calls without caller ID! There >>>> are all sorts of reasons why you might get a genuine call - that >>>> you may want to receive - from a phone that doesn't send caller ID. >>> The people I give my primary number (for personal use) to should have no reason to >>> hide their number. >> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden >> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. >> And one of those may need to call from a copshop or hospital etc too. >> I've had a few examples of where the sh.t has hit the fan >> and someone has needed to call me in a situation where >> caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. > Yes I guess you're right, I can't expect everyone to know about 1832 prefix Or remember it when the sh.t has hit the fan. > (or expect it to work, as it doesnt always). Yep, in spades with calls from pabxs etc. > A little offtopic, it's the home phone now where we're getting hassled by spammers - its > an unlisted number but I've noticed many of the Indian telemarketers now call from an > "OVERSEAS" name instead of "PRIVATE NUMBER". Cant say I have ever got one like that, they have all been private number. > This is a pain when we do regularly get (important) international calls. They're calling > several times a week now on average. I just keep telling them to take me off their call list once they identify themselves. And I chuck a tantrum when they dont and call again. That does appear to be working quite well. > Yes I guess you're right, I can't expect everyone to know about 1832 prefix > (or expect it to work, as it doesnt always). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is a pain when we do regularly get (important) international calls. > They're calling several times a week now on average. Just ask them about the Karmasutra, they wrote the book! -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >> Yes I guess you're right, I can't expect everyone to know about 1832 >> prefix (or expect it to work, as it doesnt always). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just ask them about the Karmasutra, they wrote the book! Bet most of them have never even heard of it. > > Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden > > by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > spammers - its an unlisted number but I've noticed many of the Indian > telemarketers now call from an "OVERSEAS" name instead of "PRIVATE NUMBER". Because they are from OVERSEAS, eh?!? Wild idea that! >> > Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden >> > by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Because they are from OVERSEAS, eh?!? Wild idea that! No sh.t sherlock, none of us even considered that. Jeremy said.... > A little offtopic, it's the home phone now where we're getting hassled > by spammers - its an unlisted number but I've noticed many of the Indian > telemarketers now call from an "OVERSEAS" name instead of "PRIVATE > NUMBER". This is a pain when we do regularly get (important) > international calls. They're calling several times a week now on > average. Us too, for both of the above. We can't afford to ignore overseas calls, so we pick up the phone expecting some troll to try and flog us phone services. Lately the wife has said, when I hear her answer the phone, "sorry, but he's passed away. Yes, that's right, passed away. Er, that means that he's dead." Click. But for private callers it goes straight to answering machine. All other numbers are responded to if we're home. > Jeremy said.... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "sorry, but he's passed away. Yes, that's right, passed away. Er, that > means that he's dead." Click. heh ;-) I do that as well, my directory listing is in a fictitious name, so that works well On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:19:24 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little programme called > >>> Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected numbers and even [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and someone has needed to call me in a situation where > caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. Why do you know so many people who have been taken to the copshop, Rod? > Rod Speed wrote >>>>> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice >>>>> little programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS >>>>> from selected numbers and even ignorant/paranoid people that do >>>>> not send an ID. >>>> Only ignorant paranoid people reject calls without caller ID! There >>>> are all sorts of reasons why you might get a genuine call - that >>>> you may want to receive - from a phone that doesn't send caller ID. >>> The people I give my primary number (for personal use) >>> to should have no reason to hide their number. >> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden >> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. >> And one of those may need to call from a copshop or hospital etc too. >> I've had a few examples of where the sh.t has hit the fan >> and someone has needed to call me in a situation where >> caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. > Why do you know so many people who have been taken to the copshop, Rod? Never said I did. I did however know one cop since the says when he was still a school kid. And I also had the cops ring me one saturday morning when some stupid local kids had got caught looting cars into a wheel barrow, quite literally, late friday night, to come down to the cop shop and work out which of the loot was mine. On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:23:20 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden > >> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > barrow, quite literally, late friday night, to come down to the > cop shop and work out which of the loot was mine. How was the sh.t hitting the fan if it was just the fat old plodder asking you to ID your goods? > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:23:20 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > How was the sh.t hitting the fan if it was just the fat old plodder > asking you to ID your goods? Never said it was. That was just another example of where it was useful to answer a call that didnt present caller ID, stupid. On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:53:51 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden > >>>> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Never said it was. That was just another example of where it > was useful to answer a call that didnt present caller ID, stupid. Why couldn't you call him back? > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:53:51 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Why couldn't you call him back? No idea who it was without caller ID, stupid. On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:53:13 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden > >>>>>> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > No idea who it was without caller ID, stupid. Ever heard of a funky little thing called an answering machine. Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:53:13 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> No idea who it was without caller ID, stupid. > Ever heard of a funky little thing called an answering machine. Nope, never ever have, child. > Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:11:34 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>>> Reason is an entirely separate issue to what gets hidden > >>>>>>>> by default by their telco that they arent even aware of. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Nope, never ever have, child. Really? They've been around for a while. I can't believe you've never heard of them! > > Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > > Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have > never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. You don't think Telstra can trace calls? > Rod Speed: >> Josh B wrote: (but then removed himself) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You don't think Telstra can trace calls? Of course they can. The question is why would they do it for YOU?!!? Why would they breach their privacy obligations just so you can find out who called you? SignatureKnob On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 13:03:06 GMT, Knobdoodle (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >> > Ever heard of a funky little thing called an answering machine. > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Why would they breach their privacy obligations just so you can find out > who called you? I never suggested they could trace a call for me?! Knobdoodle said.... > Of course they can. The question is why would they do it for YOU?!!? > Why would they breach their privacy obligations just so you can find out > who called you? Not sure if you're being sarcastic or cynical or what, here. Presuming that you're being serious, Clem, I'll bite. How would it be a "privacy" issue if you want to find out who is invading YOUR privacy by making an unsolicited call to you? The whole idea of Telstra's privacy bullshit is so annoying, when they'll only allow the calling number to be displayed on a caller ID unit. Other places on this wretched planet don't seem to have a problem with the caller ID units displaying the caller's name and locale. So why not here? If a person who calls me wishes to hide his ID, then fine. He can listen to my answering machine. If his call's important enough to him for me to get back to him, then he can leave a note on the machine. If I'm listening, I'll pick up. Otherwise, it's his wasted 18 cents... > Knobdoodle said.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would it be a "privacy" issue if you want to find out who is > invading YOUR privacy by making an unsolicited call to you? Simple; a telephone user has right to give or hide his phone number when he calls anyone (except emergency services). The caller has that right; not the person who receives the call. (same as sending a letter) > The whole idea of Telstra's privacy bullshit is so annoying, when > they'll only allow the calling number to be displayed on a caller ID > unit. Other places on this wretched planet don't seem to have a problem > with the caller ID units displaying the caller's name and locale. So why > not here? Probably 'cause no-one's asked for it. > If a person who calls me wishes to hide his ID, then fine. He can listen > to my answering machine. If his call's important enough to him for me to > get back to him, then he can leave a note on the machine. If I'm > listening, I'll pick up. Otherwise, it's his wasted 18 cents... Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender or age....) is his choice. SignatureClem > Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender or > age....) is his choice. If the caller chooses not to provide the details I want, then I choose not not to them. It works both ways! -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender >> or age....) is his choice. > > If the caller chooses not to provide the details I want, then I choose > not not to them. It works both ways! No argument. I was just explaining why you don't have the "right" to know who is calling you. SignatureClem >>> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender >>> or age....) is his choice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I was just explaining why you don't have the "right" to know who is calling > you. I do however have the right to decline answering such callers, so in the end they are the ones that miss out if they wanted to talk to me. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >>>> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or >>>> gender or age....) is his choice. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I do however have the right to decline answering such callers, so in the > end they are the ones that miss out if they wanted to talk to me. Is there any reason why you keep repeating this totally obvious, irrelevant (and uncontested) fact? SignatureClem > >>> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender > >>> or age....) is his choice. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I do however have the right to decline answering such callers, so in the > end they are the ones that miss out if they wanted to talk to me. Frankly, it sounds like they would be better off not talking to you, you sound like a knob > -- > The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may > belong to. > > 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 Knobdoodle wrote: > I was just explaining why you don't have the "right" to know who is > calling you. Well, you haven't, actually. You've just made the claim that they do have this particular right. Not why they do, and under what legislation that it's sanctioned. If it's merely Telstra policy, then it's a bullshit one. >> I was just explaining why you don't have the "right" to know who is >> calling you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that it's sanctioned. If it's merely Telstra policy, then it's a > bullshit one. "legislation that it's sanctioned"?!!? Are you for real? Since when do you need legislation to NOT do something? There is no legislation forcing anyone to disclose ANYTHING they don't want to! (outside of a court) It's not Telstra policy; it's NORMAL-PEOPLE policy! SignatureClem (This is getting weird!) Knobdoodle said.... > "legislation that it's sanctioned"?!!? > Are you for real? Hope so. If I'm not, then there's some weird sh.t happening in front of my computer as this is being typed... > Since when do you need legislation to NOT do something? I asked if there was legislation in place that stops Telstra from disabling the caller ID suppression feature. > There is no legislation forcing anyone to disclose ANYTHING they don't Anyway, if you think about it, what's the point of allowing people to suppress their caller ID? After, at some point during the call they will have to disclose who they are to the called person. Might as well be during the initial calling, rather than when the person says, "who am I speaking to?". You know what annoys me (apart from "private caller" CLIDs)? And that's when someone calls me and asks, "Who am I speaking to?" when I answer the phone. I usually respond with, "Who are you and who are you looking for?" If they persist in asking who I am without saying who they are, and this has happened a number of times, I end up saying, "Listen, you called me. You interupted what I was doing. Unless your call is important, please do not bother me in future." and I hang up on them. A simple lesson in phone etiquette is all these people need for a sucessful conclusion to their call. Eg; "Hi, this is Jerry Burgess, calling from Camel Yamaha. May I speak to Mr. Martin Taylor, please? It's about an offer to join the team as a test rider." Then they'll get my attention, and full co-operation over the phone. > Knobdoodle said.... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I asked if there was legislation in place that stops Telstra from > disabling the caller ID suppression feature. Yes > > There is no legislation forcing anyone to disclose ANYTHING they don't > > Anyway, if you think about it, what's the point of allowing people to > suppress their caller ID? After, at some point during the call they will Many many reasons. > You know what annoys me (apart from "private caller" CLIDs)? And that's > when someone calls me and asks, "Who am I speaking to?" when I answer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > called me. You interupted what I was doing. Unless your call is > important, please do not bother me in future." and I hang up on them. What a dick. > A simple lesson in phone etiquette is all these people need for a > sucessful conclusion to their call. Eg; "Hi, this is Jerry Burgess, > calling from Camel Yamaha. May I speak to Mr. Martin Taylor, please? > It's about an offer to join the team as a test rider." > > Then they'll get my attention, and full co-operation over the phone. Knobdoodle wrote: > Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender > or age....) is his choice. Well, I'm of the view that the choice should be taken out of his hands. And in spades, (a Rodism, there) for businesses, particularly telemarketers and call centres who call you up to hassle you. Obviously there ain't much that we can do about overseas phone pests. For them, unless you've got family or friends overseas we can simply ignore the call when the CLID says "OVERSEAS"... Thing is, the caller is invading YOUR privacy. So, therefore, you should have the right to see who it is. Well, that's what I think, anyway. And because callers do block their numbers, they get ignored. >> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender >> or age....) is his choice. > > Well, I'm of the view that the choice should be taken out of his hands. > And in spades, (a Rodism, there) for businesses, particularly > telemarketers and call centres who call you up to hassle you. Make a submission to the Communications Minister then. I reckon you've got Buckley's but if you think it's worth pushing...... SignatureClem >>> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or gender >>> or age....) is his choice. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Make a submission to the Communications Minister then. > I reckon you've got Buckley's but if you think it's worth pushing...... Maybe the Telemarketers in Australia should be forced to display SALES or similar! That would sort the bastards out. :P -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >>>> Yep; that's your choice. And disclosing his number (or address or >>>> gender [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Maybe the Telemarketers in Australia should be forced to display SALES or > similar! That would sort the bastards out. :P 'cept you couldn't enforce that off-shore so it'd just kill off the last few call-centres that haven't already moved to Mumbai. (And all the charities would probably get exemptions too) SignatureClem > Knobdoodle said.... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would it be a "privacy" issue if you want to find out who is > invading YOUR privacy by making an unsolicited call to you? Because, you are entitled to the number of the person who is calling you, IF they want you to have it. No more, no less. > The whole idea of Telstra's privacy bullshit is so annoying, when The Privacy Act is Commonwealth legislation - nothing to do with Telstra > they'll only allow the calling number to be displayed on a caller ID > unit. Other places on this wretched planet don't seem to have a problem > with the caller ID units displaying the caller's name and locale. So why > not here? No business need for it. You would also need a massive education campaign to allow for this, and you would need a majority vote for it to go ahead. If its even permitted by legislation > If a person who calls me wishes to hide his ID, then fine. He can listen > to my answering machine. If his call's important enough to him for me to > get back to him, then he can leave a note on the machine. If I'm > listening, I'll pick up. Otherwise, it's his wasted 18 cents... usually 20c > On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:11:34 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have >> never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. > You don't think Telstra can trace calls? I know they wont trace calls in that particular situation, fuckwit. On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 04:54:29 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>> Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I know they wont trace calls in that particular situation, fuckwit. If you worked for Telstra I bet you could trace the call. > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 04:54:29 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If you worked for Telstra I bet you could trace the call. Depends entirely on where you work for telstra. And I have never worked for telstra anyway. On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>> Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And I have never worked for telstra anyway. That's a shame. If you did, you could have ignored calls with no caller ID because you could later trace them. But these things happen. Don't beat yourself up about it, Rod. > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > caller ID because you could later trace them. But these things > happen. Don't beat yourself up about it, Rod. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:45:49 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>> Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. Telstra? I think they have a pretty good Issues Management department. > On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's a shame. If you did, you could have ignored calls with no > caller ID because you could later trace them. Almost impossible without having prior knowledge that you would be wanting to trace a call. SignatureKwyj >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many >> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Almost impossible without having prior knowledge that you would be > wanting to trace a call. Have fun explaining how come the cops can get it done if necessary. >>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many >>> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Have fun explaining how come the cops can get it done if necessary. Did you miss the word 'almost'? In the situation you mentioned, they don't use the switch to trace the call. They trawl through individual call records to find what they are looking for. As I said - Almost impossible. SignatureKwyj > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>> Josh B <joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? >>>>>>>>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have >>>>>>>>> never ever had a f.cking clue about anything at all, ever. >>>>>>>> You don't think Telstra can trace calls? >>>>>>> I know they wont trace calls in that particular situation, fuckwit. >>>>>> If you worked for Telstra I bet you could trace the call. >>>>> Depends entirely on where you work for telstra. >>>>> And I have never worked for telstra anyway. >>>> That's a shame. If you did, you could have ignored calls with no caller ID because >>>> you could later trace them. >>> Almost impossible without having prior knowledge that you would be wanting to trace a >>> call. >> Have fun explaining how come the cops can get it done if necessary. > Did you miss the word 'almost'? Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > In the situation you mentioned, they don't use the switch to trace the call. Duh. > They trawl through individual call records to find what they are looking for. Duh. > As I said - Almost impossible. Clearly nothing like impossible, completely routine in fact. >> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Josh B <joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. So you *did* miss it. >> In the situation you mentioned, they don't use the switch to trace >> the call. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Duh. Which isn't a call 'trace', fuckwit. >> As I said - Almost impossible. > > Clearly nothing like impossible, completely routine in fact. Not even close to 'routine', dickhead. Very few people (<10) can run queries that would use that much CPU time. If they did it as part of a 'routine they would find their arses swiftly kicked out the door. SignatureKwyj >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote >>>>> Josh B <joshbDELETEME@ANDTHISBITozdebate.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > So you *did* miss it. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> In the situation you mentioned, they don't use the switch to trace >>> the call. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> Duh. > Which isn't a call 'trace', fuckwit. Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. >>> As I said - Almost impossible. >> Clearly nothing like impossible, completely routine in fact. > Not even close to 'routine', dickhead. Very few people (<10) can run > queries that would use that much CPU time. If they did it as part of > a 'routine they would find their arses swiftly kicked out the door. Clearly nothing like impossible, completely routine in fact. > Which isn't a call 'trace', fuckwit. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that would use that much CPU time. If they did it as part of a 'routine > they would find their arses swiftly kicked out the door. It's not "reverse searched" like that. There are a number of ways you can do it. There is a network CDR database that takes records from the switch, there is a CDR database, and even one of the billing systems allows B-party number searches > > They trawl through individual call records to find what they are looking for. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Clearly nothing like impossible, completely routine in fact. Far from routine. There are only a reasonably small segment of staff that have access to that information, in terms of tracing > >>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:22:48 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many > >>> personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > for. > As I said - Almost impossible. Rod has difficulty moving from theory to fact to policy and process. On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 00:16:20 +1000, Kwyjibo (or one of their many personalities) said...... > >>>>>>> Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Almost impossible without having prior knowledge that you would be wanting > to trace a call. If you already knew you were not going to answer calls with no CLi presented, you would have prior knowledge, wouldn't you? Duh.... Josh said.... > Or perhaps getting Telstra to trace the call? Tracing phone calls is not a straightforward thing. We had this woman stalking our daughter, calling the house at all hours. Police got involved. Telstra set up a monitoring service on our line (no caller ID back then). It took a bit of rooting around to do it, too. When each of the offending calls came through, we had to wait a few seconds before answering. Then we had to call Telstra to advise of the call. They would then send a printout to the police. I don't know if they've made the process any easier or simpler since. > Josh said.... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't know if they've made the process any easier or simpler since. In terms of the technology, things have change a lot since then. >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 04:19:24 +1000, Rod Speed (or one of their many >personalities) said...... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Why do you know so many people who have been taken to the copshop, Rod? 'cos up Griffith way they are nearly all growing or selling wacky weed ... > Why do you know so many people who have been taken to the copshop, Rod? Maybe because he lives in Griffith, former home of the drug mafia? :) Josh said.... >> I've had a few examples of where the sh.t has hit the fan >> and someone has needed to call me in a situation where >> caller id isnt deliverable for a variety of reasons. > > Why do you know so many people who have been taken to the copshop, Rod? It's where he lives. Place is full of bogans, ferals and druggies. Everyone's related to the missing anti-drug campaigner, Mackay who disappeared up that way many years ago. You wanna have a look at the phone book. Rod's name is probably Rod Speed-Speed, but he's shortened it to "Speed", so as to not to confuse anyone else from there who may troll through Usenet... > I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little > programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected > numbers and even ignorant/paranoid people that do not send an ID. Just curious, what does "reject" mean exactly? Silent ring? Immediate divert to voicemail? The latter would be a nice touch with the scam company as it means they're charged for the call. :> >> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little >> programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > divert to voicemail? The latter would be a nice touch with the scam > company as it means they're charged for the call. :> It hangs up on them immediately. No time for the phone to even ring. It keeps a log of the rejected calls, if I bother to look at them. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >>> I have a Nokia 6680, Symbian phone and have installed a nice little >>> programme called Black Baller. It rejects callers and SMS from selected [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It hangs up on them immediately. No time for the phone to even ring. It > keeps a log of the rejected calls, if I bother to look at them. If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to voice mail, wasting their money. > If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to > voice mail, wasting their money. It's not actually a divert, it just hangs up on them. That's how the software was designed. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 > > If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to > > voice mail, wasting their money. > > It's not actually a divert, it just hangs up on them. That's how the > software was designed. Nope, thats not GSM standard. The standard is to invoke the diversion if present >>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to >>> voice mail, wasting their money. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The standard is to invoke the diversion if present It's got nothing to do with GSM standard, this is just an application I have installed on my phone. It in effect does what I want to do automatically, hang up on the ignorant c.nts. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 > >>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to > >>> voice mail, wasting their money. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > have installed on my phone. It in effect does what I want to do > automatically, hang up on the ignorant c.nts. What a nerd. Just hit REJECT >>>>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What a nerd. Just hit REJECT Why be bothered if you don't want to answer blocked calls? Nothing wrong with letting technology work for your. -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 > Why be bothered if you don't want to answer blocked calls? > Nothing wrong with letting technology work for your. How about some software that optionally answers and says: "Your call is important to me. Please hold and I'll be with you in a few moments." - repeated every minute until it hangs up 10 minutes later? So much software to write, and so little time to do it. John >> Why be bothered if you don't want to answer blocked calls? >> Nothing wrong with letting technology work for your. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > John Yes, that software is available for Symbian phones! -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 > >> Why be bothered if you don't want to answer blocked calls? > >> Nothing wrong with letting technology work for your. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 nerd number two! > > Why be bothered if you don't want to answer blocked calls? > > Nothing wrong with letting technology work for your. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > John What a nerd >>>>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them >>>>> straight to voice mail, wasting their money. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What a nerd. Just hit REJECT Wota fuckwit, lot easier to have the phone do it for you and not even have the phone ring at all. >>>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have installed on my phone. It in effect does what I want to do > automatically, hang up on the ignorant c.nts. How does it "hang up" on a ringing call exactly? SignatureKnob > How does it "hang up" on a ringing call exactly? Stuffed if I know, it is software driven. That is the great thing about Nokia Series 60 Symbian phones. People who know how to write software for them can get the phone to do just about anything! -- The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may belong to. 73 de Simon, VK3XEM. http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452 >> How does it "hang up" on a ringing call exactly? > > Stuffed if I know, it is software driven. That is the great thing > about Nokia Series 60 Symbian phones. People who know how to write > software for them can get the phone to do just about anything! Cant print money, or fart its way to the moon. > Cant print money, or fart its way to the moon. Unlike roddles. > > Cant print money, or fart its way to the moon. > > > Unlike roddles. roddles has hot air to spare :-) > Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote >>> If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send >>> them straight to voice mail, wasting their money. >> It's not actually a divert, it just hangs up on them. >> That's how the software was designed. > Nope, Yep. > thats not GSM standard. Wrong, as always. > The standard is to invoke the diversion if present Wrong, as always. Jeremy said.... > If you set the divert correctly, then reject will send them straight to > voice mail, wasting their money. Until you need to call 101 to hear new unanswered messages which may be comprised of real messages as well as the spams... > > I like the suggestion on one of the websites there - create a spam calling > > group with all of the numbers to identify them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have included those numbers to the list, so I won't be bothered by > them again! :) You need to add just the whole hundred group, they buy them in hundred groups, not single numbers > Scam indeed it seems, I got a call from 02 8404 2213 a week ago and > missed it because it only rang once. As a general rule I never call back > missed calls that I don't recognise - if it's urge |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message