|
Author
|
Topic: A Healthy Paranoia (April 2001)
|
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 04-04-2001 12:16 AM
   
This month's Life in Practice story is now online. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-04-2001 12:16 AM
I wish I had some additional advice or constructive info to add to Pattie's piece. As it is, I find myself in the position of saying, "Yeah! Rock on!" I'm not sure that 'paranoia' is the word I'd want to use to describe watching out for your best interests, because it does have negative connotations . . . but I guess stories like this is how we got the phrase "You can't be too careful." Although I always thought that it was possible to be too careful - to be so afraid of losing money or being cheated or being taken advantage of that you shut yourself off from legitimate opportunities. I'm not suggesting anyone forget the whole "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" axiom, because those are pretty good words to live by . . . but our whole social system is built on trust, and without it, we're all going to be in pretty sad shape. Which brings us back to Pattie's point - if you have the knowledge you need to protect itself, you can still keep your faith in your fellow human beings. Well, the ones that aren't trying to scam you, anyway.All that said, I have often wondered: people have got to know that games like three-card monte are rigged. I can't imagine why people go back time and again. Are they trying to prove that they can somehow outwit the dealer? "Even with all the odds stacked against me, I still won?" Seems to me to be a pretty expensive way to prove your card-spotting prowess, but what do I know?
|
Kevin Ott
True Believer
|
posted 04-04-2001 12:18 AM
See, what really bothers me, though, is the kind of stuff that makes possible the sorts of crimes Pattie is talking about here. It really is difficult to tell the difference between phone hucksters who are doing what they’re doing legally and phone hucksters who are trying to swindle you illegally.
Fortunately, there are efforts to put a stop to this. Ten states now have legislation that mandates that a statewide do-not-call list be maintained by the attorney general’s office. It’s easy to get on the list; all you’ve got to do is check a box on your phone bill. A woman I spoke with in the Oregon Attorney General’s office said the results when she signed up were instantaneous: She used to get about seven calls a day, usually during dinner, and now she gets none. Any telemarketing firm or firm that utilizes telemarketing as part of its sales strategy who calls a name on the do-not-call list can be fined as much as $25,000 per call. The Pennsylvania legislature (I live in PA) will vote on a similar bill this term. Here’s hoping it passes.
There’s still a problem of cost, however. In Oregon, phone customers have to pay about $7 to get on the list, and $3 a year to stay on it. That way, taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. IMHO, it’s pretty unacceptable that a resident has to pay a yearly fee not to be bothered during dinner or naptime by someone selling him something he doesn’t want. I understand that companies have to market their products, and telemarketers are people who need jobs just as much as I do, but there’s got to be a better way than annoying me a few times every day. Anything that makes it harder for this industry to exist is a good thing.
|
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 04-04-2001 07:36 AM
Kevin, I find that Oregon law intriguing for a few reasons:1) The Direct Marketing Association is supposed to maintain a list of consumers who don not want to receive telephone or mail solicitations. You can apparently write to this organization (for free) and get your name added to this list. (I have this address around here somewhere, I'll post it when I find it.) The problem is, only legitimate DMA members actually adhere to the list so the chances are you'll still get a few calls and/or mail. I suppose that would be true under the Oregon method, as well. 2) I agree that it's six kinds of absurd to have to pay not to harassed. That's insane! With the amount of money that direct mail and telemarketing companies earn each year, they should be forced to pay some kind of licensing fee that would cover these costs. That just irks me.
At three bucks per month, I think it's cheaper just to screen your calls. 3) The privacy legislation that financial institutions have to comply with before July of this year requires that customers be notified if their information is sold and/or shared with third parties. Some companies are now giving customers the right to "opt-out" of such sales when possible. (FYI, sometimes it's not possible such as in the case of a third-party statement processor or printer.) This too is supposed to be implemented at no cost to the consumer. I don't see why the phone company can't do the same. But having worked for the phone company, I'm not really all that surprised that they don't know which end is up. |
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-09-2001 04:48 PM
I used to work for a magazine that focused on the call center industry, including telemarketers, so we got a lot of newsletters and books about how to use the phone to sell effectively. Perhaps I got more sympathetic to the industry there, although I'm still not exactly their biggest fan. One thing occurs to me though -- if we didn't have telemarketers, we'd have more door-to-door salesmen. I'll take the phone calls -- those I can screen with my answering machine.Although we seem to be getting away from the fraud problem to the general intrustion problem of telemarketers. Getting back to the former . . . I don't recall seeing a lot by the DMA to curtail phone fraud, but we probably weren't the place where they would promote those efforts, being geared away from consumers. What have some of the industry groups you've worked with done on this issue? |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 04-10-2001 08:23 PM
It's not surprising that we strayed, because, in my experience, people rank not being annoyed by telemarketing calls during dinner even higher than protecting their i personal information.
Example: Many people with write their Social Security number on a sweepstakes entry form in a mall but will think twice about giving out their daytime or evening number. Make sense?Back to the scams and fraud, yes, much of this can be blamed on an overzealous marketing industry that has spent years coming up with clever ways to design advertising. So when fraudster make their ads look like checks or government letters, many of them are just copying methods used by legitimate advertisers. But then there's the whole "wanting to get something for nothing" gene that I'm sure someone will isolate any day now. The pool of people who want so badly to people that they deserve free money or free gifts is so abundant that the industry seems to survive whatever laws are thrown in its way. I once read somewhere that "con games are like ju jitsu. In ju jitsu, you use your opponent's strengh to defeat him. In cons, you use his greed." To a certain extent, this is right on the money. Of course, it's no justification for taking someone's life savings. In answer to you question, I believe that several direct marketing trade organizations have lobbied to get stiffer penalties passed against those who perpetrate fraud, particurly against the elderly. The reason I know this it that, last month, when the PA Attorney filed suit against the Video Computer Store (a local company that sold computers over the Internet and through a nationally televised infomercial), the suit wanted the compnay to pay a certain amount of restitution to each bilked customer and a larger fine for each bilked customer over age 65.
|
Dave Thomer
Guardian of Peace and Justice in the Galaxy
|
posted 04-14-2001 04:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Pattie Gillett:Example: Many people with write their Social Security number on a sweepstakes entry form in a mall but will think twice about giving out their daytime or evening number. Make sense?
Hmm. I think we have an example of people Not Thinking Things Through! I oughta get certificates printed. quote:
Back to the scams and fraud, yes, much of this can be blamed on an overzealous marketing industry that has spent years coming up with clever ways to design advertising.
Good point here -- technology makes it easier and easier to look legit, too. quote:
I once read somewhere that "con games are like ju jitsu. In ju jitsu, you use your opponent's strengh to defeat him. In cons, you use his greed."
Darned good line, that is. quote:
In answer to you question, I believe that several direct marketing trade organizations have lobbied to get stiffer penalties passed against those who perpetrate fraud, particurly against the elderly. The reason I know this it that, last month, when the PA Attorney filed suit against the Video Computer Store (a local company that sold computers over the Internet and through a nationally televised infomercial), the suit wanted the compnay to pay a certain amount of restitution to each bilked customer and a larger fine for each bilked customer over age 65.
Was this element of the suit a response to direct marketers' efforts, or is the state collaborating with the marketers, or what? How exactly are these efforts connected? |
Pattie Gillett
True Believer
|
posted 04-15-2001 01:51 PM
Sorry if that connection was not clear. Whent the statisitcs on the number of elderly targeted for scams came to light, a number of DMA members tried to redeem thier images by backing legislation that allowed for tougher penalties such as these. It made sense in my head. | |
This Is Not News Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
