cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Distinguished Guru
Distinguished Guru
319 Views
Message 31 of 43

Re: Phone calls regarding Internet being "compromised"


@gg30340 wrote:

I don't need to refute it because as far as I can see what you have said is not relevant and apparently Ofcom agree


You also don't need to refute it because it's not a material fact. To be material, a fact has to be such that withholding it could reasonably be held to lead to a different decision. That Caller Display can be spoofed fails that test on two grounds - that it would be unlikely to deter a reasonable person from taking the service; and that, in any case, the service can easily be turned off or cancelled if a customer deems retrospectively that spoofing is a deal breaker.

I guess that Ofcom are smart enough to realise that without having to rely on the absurd notion of being "in the pocket of the phone service providers".

--
You can click the thumbs up icon below this message if you think it was helpful.
Distinguished Guru
304 Views
Message 32 of 43

Re: Phone calls regarding Internet being "compromised"


@pottypersonwrote:

@gg30340wrote:

I don't need to refute it because as far as I can see what you have said is not relevant and apparently Ofcom agree


You also don't need to refute it because it's not a material fact. To be material, a fact has to be such that withholding it could reasonably be held to lead to a different decision. That Caller Display can be spoofed fails that test on two grounds - that it would be unlikely to deter a reasonable person from taking the service; and that, in any case, the service can easily be turned off or cancelled if a customer deems retrospectively that spoofing is a deal breaker.

I guess that Ofcom are smart enough to realise that without having to rely on the absurd notion of being "in the pocket of the phone service providers".


I said in post 15 that I agree with Steve? that the wording in the caller display page is incorrect, which is what I believe his main gripe is.

0 Ratings
Reply
Distinguished Guru
Distinguished Guru
282 Views
Message 33 of 43

Re: Phone calls regarding Internet being "compromised"


@Andy_N wrote:

I said in post 15 that I agree with Steve? that the wording in the caller display page is incorrect, which is what I believe his main gripe is.


I think the claim was that the wording is inadequate (as opposed to incorrect) on the basis, we now know, that it omitted a material fact. Ofcom obviously disagree, and I was postulating a reason for that decision.

--
You can click the thumbs up icon below this message if you think it was helpful.
0 Ratings
Reply
Stevek1311
Expert
274 Views
Message 34 of 43

Re: Phone calls regarding Internet being "compromised"

By using the word all in "All about Caller Display" the information is incorrect because it is not 'all'

By omitting the key fact that VOIP can be used to spoof a call so it appears to be coming from any number the spoofer chooses including maybe your bank's then the information is significantly inadequate.

Ofcom's view is that this is not misselling even though the materially incomplete and incorrect information is used to sell a bundled package.  My printable view on that stance has already been stated

 

For reasons I'd be best not to go into, I am not likely to post in this thread again

 

 

 

 

 

0 Ratings
Reply
Robert6
Newbie
245 Views
Message 35 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose


@Stevek1311wrote:

@Andy_Nwrote:

@watfordihwrote:

Keith_Beddoe, they ARE to do with BT.

I agree that BT did not make them, but it is BT and a few other large, arrogant companies like them that allow callers to spoof the caller Id number through VOIP. VOIP has NO benefit to the ordinary subscriber - only, perhaps, for big business.

As I've said before, number spoofing is designed to disguise identity which, in the real world  is immoral, if not illegal. If I pretended to be Keith Beddoe and took money out of his bank account, I would be guilty of identity fraud and branded, rightly, a criminal. These scammers are perpetrating identity faud all the time to extract money from subscribers bank accoiunts. Even when the scammers are not succesful, they are a b***** nuisance and wasting our valuable(?) time. 

BT have NO right to allow such illegal activities through their network.


As it happens, this is a worldwide issue. There are a lot of VoIP companies out there, not just for big business - e.g. Skype.

Companies legitimately use delivery numbers for their systems, BT is one of them. When BT call, the person will be calling from an office extension which will have it's own individual number - but when received to the outside world, it's a specific number and set by their internal switchboard system. They use a few delivery numbers, depending on the type of help/contact.

Lots of other companies do the same.

If it really was that straightforward to stop it, either by altering the way VoIP systems integrate with the network or other methods, then it would be done by now.

Be aware that this might need some form of OFCOM intervention or agreement.

I don't see Comcast or AT&T in the USA doing anything to stop it either feedback.


So BT is charging money for a Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose and is knowingly allowing fraudsters to send fake Caller IDs to my house

Yes I will be contacting OfCom and Trading Standards


oh my god! is that so? this pretty much annoying i guess. I wish that this get sorted soon.

0 Ratings
Reply
Distinguished Sage
Distinguished Sage
211 Views
Message 36 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose

Late to this thread, but the whole point is that caller I'D allows you to see numbers that you recognise. Why on earth would you even answer an unrecognised number?

0 Ratings
Reply
Stevek1311
Expert
207 Views
Message 37 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose

Because they can spoof the call to look like a number of your bank

0 Ratings
Reply
Distinguished Sage
Distinguished Sage
204 Views
Message 38 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose

Look like maybe, but not the actual number.

0 Ratings
Reply
Stevek1311
Expert
176 Views
Message 39 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose


@licquoricewrote:

Look like maybe, but not the actual number.


So if the number that shows on the caller ID is the same as the number of your bank it ill be the actual number

Here's one way it works:  they call the target with the spoofed phone number that also appears on your bank debit card.  When the target is suspicious they say don't worry, go away and check the number on the card and we'll call you again in 5 minutes and you can see we really are calling from the Acme Bank Ltd.  That second call is made and the target has been conned

And that's why Caller ID is not fit for purpose right now

At least BT have started a (locked) thread here endorsing the think Jessica service which very much does warn that Caller ID can be and is being spoofed for criminal purposes.  But BT websites themselves still persist in saying it absolutely shows you the number of the person calling.  Compare:

https://www.thinkjessica.com/telephone-scams/

"Fraudsters often use a tactic called ‘number spoofing’, in order to make their call appear genuine. The number you see on your phone display matches that of your bank. But in fact the fraudster has manipulated this number, by disabling the actual number they are calling from. Should you query who they are and if they are genuine, they ask you to check your handset display in an attempt to convince you it’s a real call."

with http://bt.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/8502/~/all-about-caller-display

"Caller Display shows you the number of the person calling"

 

0 Ratings
Reply
iniltous
Recognised Expert
156 Views
Message 40 of 43

Re: Caller ID service that is not fit for purpose

The vast majority of spoofed CLI scams are not to specific targets , it's a blanket approach, most scam calls made with a spoofed CLI saying something like ' I'm from BT' most would be to non BT customers anyway, and if the called party wasnt a 'BT' customer ( and statistically they wouldn't be, as BT only have around 25% of the phone base as customers ) and had any sense they would hang up at that point, thats why they are more likely to say they are from Openreach , or I'm from your 'ISP', to improve the chances of sounding plausible.

Perhaps you  could provide some evidence of your assertion of a 'scam call' that had a particular target in mind and then adjusted the CLI presentation to spoof the number of the targets genuine Bank phone number, even if this has happened, Banks publicise the fact they would never call you and ask details such as your account number, passwords etc, and if a CLI scam was made , chances are they would be equally vague saying ' I'm from your Bank' rather than being specific 'I'm from Nat West , or whatever, and again if they say they are from a Bank that you don't use, you would ( hopefully) hang up

Seems to me you are hung up on the word 'all' used as a pronoun in the sentence 'all you need to know about CLI' , and that has nothing to do with the service itself being fit or unfit for purpose, your argument would still be flimsy if you said they don't fully describe CLI if they don't highlight the fact that it's possible to illegally spoof CLI, so they shouldnt use the word 'all' , would you be happy with ' what you need to know about the legal use of CLI' ?

Most banking scams are via  phishing emails not CLI spoofing