[OT} They are getting better at it

Two nuisance incoming phone calls in the last couple of days to the never-used land line.

Heavy Indian accent, telling me that he was from the technical department of BT and that there was a problem with my line/broadband (or something similar - I hanged up before he managed to go any further).

The confusing thing was that the Caller ID showed a local number - i.e. area code and first 3 digits.

Any idea how they do this? Using more sophisticated software? Is it possible to tell if it was originated from the UK or not?

Reply to
JoeJoe
Loading thread data ...

VOIP can send any Caller ID it likes.

Using more sophisticated software? Is it

No, that is fakeable too.

Reply to
samchunk

It will be via a VoIP provider, and they will be able to set any presentation number they like. You might be able to find the comms provider that hosts the number and report a fraud attempt to them. They may suspend the service to the scammer if they get enough complaints.

(it won't stop the scammers directly since they will have several VoIP accounts on the go at any one time - but each time one gets suspended the providers will not usually return the pre-paid fees which will cause them some grief).

Reply to
John Rumm

Not really but my true call seems to clobber them as they simply cannot be arsed to say their name and wait for it to ring my phone and then of course I'll just put them on my zap list, so most tend to just ring off and try somebody else. The automated ones sometimes do get through, as they normally say hey did you know. leave a bit of dead air then continue so by the time I hear hey did you know on the name recording I just hit zap. Eventually they will run out of new numbers to pretend to be. To be honest the recordings do not annoy me as much as the time wasters, and if I am doing audio recordings I sip use lock down mode and everything is silently recorded. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

Depends. I think grammar is pretty fluid these days.

Its all the fault of The Stones. I can't get No Satisfaction. Which means you can. Brian

Reply to
Brian Gaff

JoeJoe formulated on Saturday :

Spoofing a phone number is not difficult, the simply spoof the same code as the local code they are dialing. There is no way for you determine where the call originates, but the likes of BT get the proper originating phone number..

Reply to
Harry Bloomfield

It happens that Brian Gaff formulated :

I thought all of the caller filters worked the same way - state your name and press a key. Mine is the # key.

Not easy for an auto system to get past and our nuisance callers have declined to zero, 24 months after installing, from the ten per day.

Reply to
Harry Bloomfield

Depends, what Dave Plowman needs.

Reply to
Richard

In message , JoeJoe writes

Ah! That's where they went:-) We had a series of those about 2 weeks back. No caller ID here. I find pressing the 9 button gives a certain level of satisfaction.

Reply to
Tim Lamb

This is correct.

Reply to
Tim Streater

There are many languages where a double negative intensifies rather than annuls the negation, including English up to a couple of centuries ago. I blame logical minded prescriptive grammarians.

Reply to
Max Demian

Yeah, right.

Reply to
Jethro_uk

You're wrong. It doesn't "depend" at all. Correct grammar is not fluid (though neither is it set in stone).

No: what has changed is the number of people with access to public expression of their thoughts is now immensely greater than the number of people with a good, basic education.

The other thing that has changed is that people who make these mistakes, or spelling mistakes, have the attitude: "Do I give a stuff?". A bit like saying "yeah well illiteracy is equally as good as literacy innit"

John

Reply to
Another John

maybe in the past people overcared. Grandma ease yews full bot knot a very thing.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

...as you hand the spliff on. (Do you pass it to the left, like port?)

Reply to
Max Demian

You're sick. For some reason, that's a great compliment nowadays!

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

That seems like a contradictory statement. If its not "set in stone", then you are implying it is able to exhibit some fluidity.

The value of communication in the vast majority of cases will outweigh the value of that communication conforming to some ideal of perfection.

Also, recognise that we all strengths and weaknesses. So it seems difficult to make a credible argument that what you say should always be subordinate to how you say it, or worse, that you should not say it at all unless you can say it in a "acceptable" way.

Reply to
John Rumm

Thanks, that is what I assumed - i.e. a more sophisticated software that tailors the fake CLID for each number dialled to make it more likely that someone will answer.

Reply to
JoeJoe

I've given that a bit of thought recently. If you're only allowed to discuss 'controversial matters' in flowery, poncey, nuanced terms then you are effectively denying the right of a large percentage of the population to express their views. I don't see why those who use flowery, poncey, nuanced language should enjoy an unchallenged monopoly wrt freedom of thought!

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

S'funny! I was wondering how to slip an example of a "Double Positive" into this thread. :-)

Reply to
Johnny B Good

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.