A perfect example of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on iOS

[Ned Turnbull]

This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!

Here is a 3MB 30-minute MP4 recording of an unsolicited call today that I
received from the “Microsoft IT” department, telling me my computer was
"sending reports" to them (this file kindly uploaded by Marek):
https://app.box.com/s/0yluyszg1qj2l83ynbm2

I realized it was a scam within the first seconds, but I was surprised,
that, at the 21:30 mark, the increasingly frustrated caller threatens to
f* up my entire family (explicitly threatening my sister, my mother, my
daughter, etc.).

That first tirade lasted more than two minutes, from 21:30 to 23:50.
Miraculously, the caller calmly resumes his attempt to get me to execute
the Microsoft file, even going so far as to attempt to remotely log into
my computer!

Despite the fact the caller calms down after the first set of invectives,
within 10 minutes, the caller repeats the threats against me and my
family at the 32:24 mark to about 33:29, which is essentially the end of
the recording.

Here is a truncated 400KB 5-minute recording with chirps inserted into
the removed (boring) sections:
https://app.box.com/s/czwpmr905zxqfk92rgxx

The first web site they had me go to was the following:
- http:// www (dot) windowscare (dot) us
Which brought me to:
- http:// www (dot) windowscare (dot) us/microsoft.com/
(Calling the listed phone number, +1-845-241-1234, just gets a computer-
generated recording identifying itself as "Thank you for calling Windows
Support ... please leave a message").
The domain is registered to "windows tech support" (all lower-case),
which has a New York, NY, postal address.

The caller then directed me to click on the green "Get Support" button at
that web page, which downloaded a Windows executable file (into my Linux /
tmp directory), which actually came from:
- http:// www (dot) ammyy (dot) com
The postal address for the ammyy domain is in Panama.

The downloaded file was 764KB file, named:
- 764184 Aug 26 09:28 AA_v3.exe

$ md5sum AA_v3.exe
- f8cd52b70a11a1fb3f29c6f89ff971ec AA_v3.exe

$ sha1sum AA_v3.exe
- 6a0c46818a6a10c2c5a98a0cce65fbaf95caa344 AA_v3.exe

The caller repeatedly asked me to execute that AA_v3.exe file, which, of
course, I wasn't going to do, so I had to fish for what he was looking
for as a result.

After quite a few false starts where I made up numbers, and many excuses,
I belatedly learned he was looking for an 8-digit number that starts with
39 just below the "client wait for session" text that said "Your ID".

Of course, I never came up with a valid number, which apparently
frustrated the caller, who probably thought, at first anyway, that he had
a fish hooked on his line from the very start.

At the 16:00 time point, he tried his second tack, which was to have me
boot my Windows XP pc to Safe Mode, so, I stalled until I could find a
Windows machine, and then booted it to "Safe Mode with Networking", where
he told me "it's totally safe now". At 18:12, he had me go to the same
web site above (you can hear me breathing heavily as I climb the stairs
from Windows to Linux).

The caller used the "broken record" approach, to get me to repeatedly run
the AA_v3.exe file, but I was guessing wrong as to what he had wanted me
to report back to him (having never executed the file).

Finally, at the 26:40 time point, the caller tried a third, and totally
new approach, which was for him to take over my machine so that he could
(presumably) download the file himself.

In order to take over my machine, he instructed me to go to:
http://www (dot) support (dot) me
Which took me to:
https://secure (dot) logmeinrescue (dot) com /Customer/Code.aspx
The postal address for the above domain is in Boston, MA.

Then he gave me the 6-digit logmeinrescue authorization code:
https://secure (dot) logmeinrescue (dot) com/Customer/TrialWarning.aspx?
code=106536

Entering that 6-digit code downloaded the Windows executable file into my
Linux /tmp directory:
1529152 Aug 26 09:51 Support-LogMeInRescue.exe

Which the Linux “file” command reports as:
Support-LogMeInRescue.exe: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS
Windows

Afterward, I called LogMeInRescue at 1-877-337-2102, and at
1-866-478-1805 and provided them with the 6-digit number, for which they
thanked me, saying they will cancel the account, but that it could be a
trial account, and therefore, it would have little real impact.

They did say that the Support-LogMeInRescue.exe file allows the attacker
remote access to your Windows PC, but, since I was on Linux, they say
nothing would happen.

This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!

[Nduka Okafor]

Ned Turnbull wrote, on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:02:11 +0000:

> This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
> the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!

> https://app.box.com/s/0yluyszg1qj2l83ynbm2

iPhone users can try something like Call Recorder Free, which relies on
three-way calling to merge your call with a recording line. But take note
that the free version is fairly limited; to unlock most features, you'll
need to unlock an in-app upgrade ($9.99).

[Michael Eyd]

Nice one (without listening to it, just judging from your description),
but *why exactly* is that a perfect example of why I would want a call
recorder on my iPhone?

- In order to publish this scam? At least here in Germany this would
(could) get you in legal trouble, for not respecting the basic rights of
the caller (yes, they have them as well).
- In order to take the caller to court? The recording (at the very least
since recording it was not done with the consent of the caller) would
not be qualified to be taken as evidence - so it's useless.
- For my own entertainment? Well, that might work for some, but I don't
think I would ever again want to listen to this. My memories of such a
call would be sufficient... :-)
- ...?

Best regards,

Michael

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:37:15 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> I would hav hung up on them in the first 30 seconds.

You are the problem, in a sense.

If you had done that, then you would never have been able to
get their 6-digit account number canceled, for example.

Nor would you have learned *what* their scam entailed, so,
you wouldn't be able to warn others.

Nor would you have gotten them to make incriminating
statements, of which there were many in that call.

Nor would you have learned anything, nor would anyone
else.

Of course, I do agree, most people are just like you.

NOTE: I do not mean this condescendingly; I just mean that
few people fight, most just let them attack someone else.

It's the same with USENET or car forums. Most ask the
question, get the answer, and then leave. Very few contribute
back something to the conversation or problem at hand (e.g.,
very few write a DIY).

[BobbyK]

If I had nothing else to do I might jerk this guy around for a few
minutes, but 30 minutes is ridiculous. What did you learn about the
scam that wasn't apparent in the first minute? Yes, you had his
LogMeIn account cancelled...but that probably lasted an hour or so.
Who are you going to warn? People on Usenet? I doubt that anyone
reading your post would have fallen for the scam in the first place.

Whatever makes you feel good, but except for the LogMeIn thing it was
for naught in my opinion.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:38:59 -0500, BobbyK wrote:

> What did you learn about the
> scam that wasn't apparent in the first minute?

I learned what they were up to.

By downloading the file, I could run a "strings" command on it,
to find out that the original file is a remote login program.

Also, the second file that they had me upload, is also a remote
login program.

I've notified logmein, but I just realized the purpose of the original
program, of which we have the checksum, so, we can also let the
virus scanners know, which I've done (for those virusscan web pages
which will allow me to do so).

In addition, I've gathered concrete evidence, which helps the
authorities track down the scammers, and I've also enabled us to
know what they are looking for, so that the next person can stand
on my shoulders.

Most people are selfish, and they don't bother to help others.
I do realize you're not one of them, as you wouldn't be on USENET
if you were - but you're not most people, and neither am I.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:08:04 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Nice one (without listening to it, just judging from your description),
> but *why exactly* is that a perfect example of why I would want a call
> recorder on my iPhone?

How many times do you and your family get threatened by a caller?

For me, it's rare, and unexpected to have a supposed support person curse
me out for two minutes on end, and then calmly resume trying to support
me, and then curse me out, again, just 10 minutes later.

With an automatic call recorder, you'll always have it all on file.

What if, for example, he *does* carry out his threat (remember, he knows
where I live)?

Wouldn't *you* want to record an unexpected threat against you and your
children?

Also, if you were to report it to authorities, wouldn't it be nice to (at
the very least) be able to tell them *exactly* what words the perpetrator
used?

[Alan Browne]

On 2014.08.27, 03:02 , Ned Turnbull wrote:
> This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on

No. It's a perfect example of why I hang up on such calls when they
occur. Life is short and 30 minutes on that BS is far too big a slice.

--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:51:44 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> No. It's a perfect example of why I hang up on such calls when they
> occur. Life is short and 30 minutes on that BS is far too big a slice.

So, if you see a crime in progress, you look the other way?

[Alan Browne]

On 2014.08.27, 08:59 , Ned Turnbull wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:37:15 +0000, Lewis wrote:
>
>> I would hav hung up on them in the first 30 seconds.
>
> You are the problem, in a sense.

Not at all. Scammers are trolls with a profit motive. Ignore them and
move on like you would some irritating fellow with a great fail safe
investment opportunity.

While I suppose your entertainment of this particular troll for half an
hour served the public at large in preventing them from irritating 20
other people (who would have had the good sense to hang up) it is not
something that will go away. It is not something you'll be able to
trace. It's not something the police will pursue.

Really - just hang up. Swear at them and question their parenthood and
biological makeup if that gives you a salve, but ... just hang up.

[Alan Browne]

Total BS. A scam is a scam is a scam. Educate people about the scam so
they can avoid it (by simply hanging up).

The "authorities" will do nothing about what you provide and the various
national and state/provincial anti-cyber fraud/theft organizations know
1000x more about these scammers than you could hope to collect.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:57:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Not at all. Scammers are trolls with a profit motive. Ignore them and
> move on like you would some irritating fellow with a great fail safe
> investment opportunity.

That's the same as advising that when you see a crime in progress,
you should just look away and do nothing about it except to protect
yourself.

I'm sure many (perhaps even most) people do what you do, as it's the easy
way out; but, someone has to complain to the authorities with evidence
and let others know what to expect so that they can gather more.

Also, "I" learned a lot from the thread, because folks suggested debugging
commands and added their experience, which is invaluable.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:01:44 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> The "authorities" will do nothing about what you provide and the various
> national and state/provincial anti-cyber fraud/theft organizations know
> 1000x more about these scammers than you could hope to collect.

People just like are are the main reason the scammers can still exist
with impunity.

There are only two solutions, one of which will never happen, and the other
of which takes effort on the part of everyone.

a) EVERYONE ignores them (i.e., nobody gets scammed), or,
b) MANY people take them up for the task.

Those who just ignore them and let them perpetuate the crime on someone
else are simply inadvertently aiding and abetting them.

[Alan Browne]

No - when someone tries to scam me, I blow them off. If I tried to
'play the game' to the point of getting the police involved it would
take far too much time.

I also spend a lot of time with older people educating them to phone
scams and that they should never give out any personal (DOB, place of
birth, full name) or financial information of any kind to anyone who
calls. Old people are most vulnerable to such scams. I'd rather
educate them to that with my time than entertain scammers on the phone.

Really - if you get hustled in Time Square please go to a cop and then
learn how indifferent the cops are to how you got mugged by your own
gullibility.

And the fact that you replied so quickly to my post says a lot too ...

Really: go for a walk in the woods and relax.

[Erilar]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> was all, like:
> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:02:11 +0000 (UTC) <ltjvpj$kjg$4...@news.mixmin.net>

>> In order to take over my machine, he instructed me to go to:
>> http://www (dot) support (dot) me
>> Which took me to:
>> https://secure (dot) logmeinrescue (dot) com /Customer/Code.aspx
>> The postal address for the above domain is in Boston, MA.
>
>> Then he gave me the 6-digit logmeinrescue authorization code:
>> https://secure (dot) logmeinrescue (dot) com/Customer/TrialWarning.aspx?
>> code=106536
>

> Support.me and logmein are both perfectly cromulent companies and have
> nothing to do with the malware scammers. It would be no different than
> using skype or AIM, only it's more capable.

>
>> This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
>> the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!
>

> Why?

>
> I would hav hung up on them in the first 30 seconds.

It wouldn't take me that long.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[Alan Browne]

Wow - I reply to your thread and others replies to it and you're hanging
on with near instant replies like it's a chat room and not usenet.

Have a nice life Ted. But seriously, there are lots of roses out there
needing smelling...

[Michael Eyd]

Am 27.08.2014 um 15:51 schrieb Ned Turnbull:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:08:04 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:
>
>> Nice one (without listening to it, just judging from your description),
>> but *why exactly* is that a perfect example of why I would want a call
>> recorder on my iPhone?
>
> How many times do you and your family get threatened by a caller?

So far? Never. :-)

> For me, it's rare, and unexpected to have a supposed support person curse
> me out for two minutes on end, and then calmly resume trying to support
> me, and then curse me out, again, just 10 minutes later.

If they called me, they wouldn't have had the time to get to cursing
before I closed the call. We're doing that rather regularly with
unwanted (and illegal) calls trying to sell us <whatever>.

> With an automatic call recorder, you'll always have it all on file.

Nice, but again: What would it help me?

> What if, for example, he *does* carry out his threat (remember, he knows
> where I live)?

He wouldn't have gotten to threaten you hadn't you started to take him
seriously (at least as far he could see). ;-) You offered yourself as
bait, please don't play astonished if the opposite tried to bite you... ;-)

Anyway, at the very latest I would've closed that call at the time he
started to curse at you. I'm working in IT support myself, and I know
how nobody in his right mind would ever behave in this business - at
least if he wants to stay in this business... ;-)

> Wouldn't *you* want to record an unexpected threat against you and your
> children?

I rather try to prevent getting such threats in the first place...

> Also, if you were to report it to authorities, wouldn't it be nice to (at
> the very least) be able to tell them *exactly* what words the perpetrator
> used?

The authorities will have to take my word for it - as I already
mentioned at the latest in court the recording will not be regarded
anyway...

Best regards,

Michael

[Michael Eyd]

Am 27.08.2014 um 15:47 schrieb Ned Turnbull:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:38:59 -0500, BobbyK wrote:
>
>> What did you learn about the
>> scam that wasn't apparent in the first minute?
>
> I learned what they were up to.
>
> By downloading the file, I could run a "strings" command on it,
> to find out that the original file is a remote login program.
>
> Also, the second file that they had me upload, is also a remote
> login program.

Probably just a standard (and perfectly legitimate) login client from
logmein.com. Do you expect to ban this company altogether?

> I've notified logmein, but I just realized the purpose of the original
> program, of which we have the checksum, so, we can also let the
> virus scanners know, which I've done (for those virusscan web pages
> which will allow me to do so).

So, you're trying to block logmein clients? Do you really think that the
anti-virus vendors will go there? I don't.

> In addition, I've gathered concrete evidence,

Which? You didn't mention any so far...

Best regards,

Michael

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <ltkkn6$nip$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> You are the problem, in a sense.
>
> If you had done that, then you would never have been able to
> get their 6-digit account number canceled, for example.
>
> Nor would you have learned *what* their scam entailed, so,
> you wouldn't be able to warn others.

If everyone hung up on them within 30 seconds, they would go out of
business.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <ltkngn$nip$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> > What did you learn about the
> > scam that wasn't apparent in the first minute?
>
> I learned what they were up to.

I learned that within ten seconds when I received a similar call.

> By downloading the file, I could run a "strings" command on it,
> to find out that the original file is a remote login program.
>
> Also, the second file that they had me upload, is also a remote
> login program.

By realizing that it was a scam within a few seconds of receiving the
call, I knew that they wanted to insert malware onto my computer; what
kind of malware wasn't important.

> In addition, I've gathered concrete evidence, which helps the
> authorities track down the scammers, and I've also enabled us to
> know what they are looking for, so that the next person can stand
> on my shoulders.

Have you actually notified the authorities? If so, which ones?

> Most people are selfish, and they don't bother to help others.

You're not actually helping anyone; you're merely blowing your own
horn, so to speak.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:21:14 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> I learned that within ten seconds when I received a similar call.

Actually, the local silicon valley high tech crime unit explained
to me this morning how the scam works.

They were responding to my call, yesterday, to the Santa Clara
County High Technology Crimes Unit at (408) 792-2804 where I had emailed
the unedited phone recording to them at publicin...@da.sccgov.org

They called back this morning from a San Jose task force called REACT, at
408-282-2425, who took down all my information, and who applauded
me for reporting it as thoroughly as I could.

They said the caller isn't the guy who performs the crime.
The caller simply obtains my 8-digit ID, and then he immediately
passes it to another person, likely in a third country, who
takes control over my machine, while a script runs that the caller
is aware of as a cover. The high tech crime unit guy spent about
a half hour with me explaining how the whole thing works.

He said the caller gets paid for a valid code, and that's all
the caller wants. They said that most people don't report it, so,
they usually have nothing to go on, but, they did ask me to try to get
the callers name and phone number next time, because they said
that I'd be surprised how many people actually send them money, a
and, they said they almost never get the money back unless
it's a reverse on the credit card.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:21:14 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Have you actually notified the authorities? If so, which ones?

I notified the Santa Clara district attorney's task force on high tech crimes:
http://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/prosecution/DistrictAttorneyDepartments/Pages/High-Technology-Crimes-Unit.aspx

The left me a message that they forwarded my call to the San Jose REACT team:
http://www.sjpd.org/BOI/HighTechUnit.html

REACT called me this morning, and took down all my information, and asked
for the original AMR file off my phone. They asked if I could come down to
give it to them, but, I said I'd just email it to them, and did.

The main problem, they told me, is that while the crime was committed here,
the perpetrators are almost certainly in another country (they said most likely
India), and the actual people who break in, are in yet a third country (they
said most likely Russia), but they said every bit of data helps.

When I asked why the guy got mad at me for p0wning him, when he was
trying to p0wn me in the first place, the detective said that the poor
guy probably only makes a day's wages ... and he's not the "real" perp.

He said they're trying to get to the guys who make the money, not
the guys who make the call, and he said every bit of data helps.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:52:25 +0200, Michael Eyd wrote:

> Probably just a standard (and perfectly legitimate) login client from
> logmein.com. Do you expect to ban this company altogether?

Actually, the folks from the SJPD high tech crime unit said *all*
the files they have us download are legitimate files!

They even said the caller doesn't actually commit the crime in
that the caller is paid to hand to someone else the 8-digit
number.

The real crime is when the people whom the caller hands the
8-digit number to get their money, and he says all too often,
people unwittingly fork over their money.

He said that every bit of data helps, so, they asked for the
original AMR file (unedited), which I sent them. Hopefully,
if everyone did this, these guys would be put out of business.

But, while people remain complacent, and look the other way,
they will just grow stronger, like ISIS, and stronger.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:09:05 +0000, Erilar wrote:

> It wouldn't take me that long.

And that's why you're part of the problem.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:07:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Really - if you get hustled in Time Square please go to a cop and then
> learn how indifferent the cops are to how you got mugged by your own
> gullibility.

I had my motorcycle helmet stolen, way back in the 80's, in the
middle of the evening, off of 42nd street near the newly built
convention center, and I reported it to the local police because
I had to ride back to New Jersey sans the helmet to get home.

They were *very* supportive and caring. They gave me all the
paperwork I needed. They spent at least 15 minutes or so, with
that, and even gave me a telephone number and badge number of
the cop in NY in case the NJ police pulled me over on my way
home.

It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.

Anyway, if people don't report crime (rape, theft, vandalism, etc.,)
then the police have less to go on. It's our *duty* to report crime.

Anything less is aiding and abetting the criminals (IMHO).

[Alan Browne]

On 2014.08.27, 12:29 , Ned Turnbull wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:07:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Really - if you get hustled in Time Square please go to a cop and then
>> learn how indifferent the cops are to how you got mugged by your own
>> gullibility.
>
> I had my motorcycle helmet stolen, way back in the 80's, in the
>

I didn't say theft. I said "hustled". If you don't know what that
means, go look it up.

> Anyway, if people don't report crime (rape, theft, vandalism, etc.,)
> then the police have less to go on. It's our *duty* to report crime.

But not scam attempts. If everyone reported scam calls to the police,
the resources used up would result in other real (successful) crimes
never being solved. More serious crimes would occur, be successful and
never solved or prosecuted.

>
> Anything less is aiding and abetting the criminals (IMHO).

Ignoring a scam call is just making it more expensive (less successful)
for the scammers.

If everyone hung up on them, they would stop that scam attempt and move
on to something else.

By hanging up I _prevent_ the crime from occurring.

Again the effort to go after these scams is not worth what comes of it.

So better to _inform_ everyone you know about the scam so they can avoid
it (and similar phone scams) and that makes it not worth trying.

Indeed, your e-mail provider probably filters hundreds of e-mails per
day destined to you based on the Nigerian letter scam and you're not
aware of it and the e-mail provider certainly does not report them to
anyone other than the filter s/w company so they can continuously
improve the filter.

So - when you get this scam on the phone ... filter it and hang up.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <ltl119$d1v$7...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
> nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
> almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.

There is no bus station at Times Square.

[BobbyK]

There is no scam, nor crime, if no money is sent to the caller
without a promised result.

The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

As I said before, whatever turns you on, but my suggestion is to
forget it unless you get these calls daily. Better yet, just hang up,
then go on with your life.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:21:14 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> You're not actually helping anyone; you're merely blowing your own
> horn, so to speak.

Michelle,

I also notified Chris Wilson, at logmein, and sent him the
audio recording. He was particularly interested in the redirect
and in the 6-digit number. He said they will cancel the account
(but he said it could be a trial account), and he said he wouldn't
do the work himself as they have an entire department set up to
handle this information.

He said they have certain information about each account, even
the trial accounts, so, he also thanked me for providing the
details.

With the additional information I received from the SJPD today
about the Ammyy file also being a legitimate file, I will contact
them, as well.

In addition, I googled the MD5 checksum, and found the files
reported variously on virus scan web sites, so, I posted the
situation into any of those which had feedback mechanisms.

And, of course, I made the recording available to others, where,
I presume, some people may forward it to their friends, by way
of warning.

So, I *do* think I am helping others.

I'm sure you help others also, but those few who simply hang up
on these callers would never accomplish any of the above,
don't you agree?

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:38:25 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> I didn't say theft. I said "hustled". If you don't know what that
> means, go look it up.

You mean the guys who bump you on the street saying "cokes in the bag"
and then you reach back to find your wallet gone?

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:38:25 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> But not scam attempts. If everyone reported scam calls to the police,
> the resources used up would result in other real (successful) crimes
> never being solved. More serious crimes would occur, be successful and
> never solved or prosecuted.

You remember Rudy Giuliani and his "broken window theory"?

Please do read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

They arrested the guys who would spit on your windshield as you waited
at a light and then offer to wash your windshield for a fee, and the guys
who would "help" you find a parking spot, and who said they would "guard"
your car, also for a fee. They even busted the guys playing the shell
games on the street corners, who were scamming innocent tourists.

They even made the store owners themselves liable for cleaning up
the graffiti, as the broken window philosophy starts at the bottom.

If you were in Times Square before then, and then you go now, it's like
two very different worlds.

The old world is what you seem to espouse, where petty crime is
basically allowed, Everyone here, who espouses just hanging up (essentially
looking the other way) is actually part and parcel part of the problem.

Just like the broken-window theory says they are...

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:45:42 -0500, BobbyK wrote:

> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

You would ignore a broken window at a jewelry store?
You'd ignore graffiti?
You'd ignore street hustlers, etc.?

You remember Rudy Giuliani and his "broken window theory"?

Please do read up on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

They arrested the guys who would spit on your windshield as you waited
at a light and then offer to wash your windshield for a fee, and the guys
who would "help" you find a parking spot, and who said they would "guard"
your car, also for a fee. They even busted the guys playing the shell
games on the street corners, who were scamming innocent tourists.

They even made the store owners themselves liable for cleaning up
the graffiti, as the broken window philosophy starts at the bottom.

If you were in Times Square before then, and then you go now, it's like
two very different worlds.

The old world is what you seem to espouse, where petty crime is
basically allowed, Everyone here, who espouses just hanging up (essentially
looking the other way) is actually part and parcel part of the problem.

Just like the broken-window theory says, if you ignore it, then you're
actually part of the problem.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:42:48 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> There is no bus station at Times Square.

It is nearby because I used to take the bus from NJ
to, I think it was called, penn station, and then walk
to times square.

This was in the 70s and 80s, but I haven't been there
since about 85, so, it's from memory.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <ltl21v$d1v$9...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> I'm sure you help others also, but those few who simply hang up
> on these callers would never accomplish any of the above,
> don't you agree?

As I said, if everyone would hang up on them, they would soon stop
doing it.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-08-27, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
> This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
> the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!

Thanks for sharing the recording. Fun listen! : )

What did you use to record this call?

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:58:24 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> As I said, if everyone would hang up on them, they would soon stop
> doing it.

That is true.
And, if everyone reported them, they would experience a penalty.

Either way, *everyone* needs to do one or the other.

Unfortunately, we all know, *someone* is losing their money, so,
we're the only ones left do do something about it.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:59:19 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Thanks for sharing the recording. Fun listen! : )
> What did you use to record this call?

I was on Android, where all sorts of manual and automatic
call and voice recorders abound.

However, since you're on the iPhone, the only app I know of
for iOS is Call Recorder Free.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-recorder-free-record/id637819447?mt=8

Here's the blurb on it:

Description

Call Recorder is the easiest way to record your iPhone's incoming and outgoing calls!

Features include:
- Record your incoming calls
- Record your outgoing calls
- Download and share recordings via Email, iMessage, Twitter, Facebook, and Dropbox

Steps for recording an incoming (existing) call:
1) Open Call Recorder
2) Go to the Record screen and tap the Record button
3) Your existing call is put on hold and your phone will dial our recording number
4) Once connected to our recording number, tap the Merge button on your screen to create a 3-way call between your existing call and our recording line

Steps for recording an outgoing call:
1) Open Call Recorder
2) Go to the Record screen and tap the Record button
3) Your phone will dial our recording number
4) Once connected to our recording number, tap the Add call button on your screen to call your desired contact.
5) Tap the Merge button to create a 3-way call between your existing call and our recording line

Please note that 3-way calling is a required phone feature for Call Recorder to work properly. Cellular carriers known to NOT support 3-way calling are: H2O Wireless, Virgin Mobile

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 07:31:50 +0000, Nduka Okafor wrote:

> iPhone users can try something like Call Recorder Free

There are a handful of call recorders for the iPhone
but I think they all make use of 3-way calling.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=iphone+call+recorders&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:56:09 +0000 (UTC), Ned Turnbull
<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 11:45:42 -0500, BobbyK wrote:
>
>> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
>> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.
>
>You would ignore a broken window at a jewelry store?

That's a crime, telephone calls aren't unless you send money and are
cheated out of it.
>You'd ignore graffiti?
Always.

>You'd ignore street hustlers, etc.?

Always.

>
>You remember Rudy Giuliani and his "broken window theory"?

It actually was his police commissioner who came up with that. It
doesn't apply here

>
>Please do read up on it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
>
>They arrested the guys who would spit on your windshield as you waited
>at a light and then offer to wash your windshield for a fee, and the guys
>who would "help" you find a parking spot, and who said they would "guard"
>your car, also for a fee. They even busted the guys playing the shell
>games on the street corners, who were scamming innocent tourists.

Those are all acts that are illegal. Phone calls aren't.

>
>They even made the store owners themselves liable for cleaning up
>the graffiti, as the broken window philosophy starts at the bottom.
>
>If you were in Times Square before then, and then you go now, it's like
>two very different worlds.
>
>The old world is what you seem to espouse, where petty crime is
>basically allowed, Everyone here, who espouses just hanging up (essentially
>looking the other way) is actually part and parcel part of the problem.
>
>Just like the broken-window theory says, if you ignore it, then you're
>actually part of the problem.

No you aren't. The "problem" doesn't exist if you hang up.
Any further posts from you on this only point to your being a nutcase.

[BobbyK]

Penn Station is about a half mile away from Times Square. There is no

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:08:39 +0000 (UTC), Ned Turnbull
<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:58:24 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> As I said, if everyone would hang up on them, they would soon stop
>> doing it.
>
>That is true.
>And, if everyone reported them, they would experience a penalty.

Ridiculous. What penalty was assigned for all of your wonderful
information? None. There is no penalty for a phone call.

>
>Either way, *everyone* needs to do one or the other.
>
>Unfortunately, we all know, *someone* is losing their money, so,
>we're the only ones left do do something about it.

No one that hangs up loses money. Period.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:55:12 -0500, BobbyK wrote:

> Penn Station is about a half mile away from Times Square. There is no

> bus station at Times Square.

It's an easy walk.

BTW, this is an informative article that showed the scammers deleting
files from this well-known professional's computer, who "played along",
and by doing so, lost all his data files & NIC drivers in the process:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/11/malwarebytes

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <kqdsv9hqqep9004p1...@4ax.com>, BobbyK

<bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote:

> >This was in the 70s and 80s, but I haven't been there
> >since about 85, so, it's from memory.
>
> Penn Station is about a half mile away from Times Square. There is no
> bus station at Times Square.

However, the Port Authority's NE corner is one block west of Times
Square. In the 1970s, though, it was one block west and one block south
of Times Square. Its SW corner is two blocks south and two blocks west
of Times Square.

NS blocks are 1/20 mile each; EW blocks are 1/5 mile each.

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:58:50 +0000 (UTC), Ned Turnbull

Kill filters are Usenet friends. Bye.

[Rod Speed]

Michael Eyd <inv...@eyd.de> wrote

> Nice one (without listening to it, just judging from your description),
> but *why exactly* is that a perfect example of why I would want a call
> recorder on my iPhone?

Because it allows you to record the entire call so that when
the caller starts doing something flagrantly illegal, you have the
evidence you need to do something about it if you choose to.

> - In order to publish this scam? At least here in Germany this
> would (could) get you in legal trouble, for not respecting the
> basic rights of the caller (yes, they have them as well).

But that is not true of all jurisdictions.

> - In order to take the caller to court?

That is only one option you have with the recording.

> The recording (at the very least since recording
> it was not done with the consent of the caller)
> would not be qualified to be taken as evidence

But that isnt the only thing that can be done with that evidence.

> - so it's useless.

No its not.

> - For my own entertainment? Well, that might work for some,
> but I don't think I would ever again want to listen to this.

Your problem.

> My memories of such a call would be sufficient... :-)

But no use if you want to give the authoritys the
evidence and see if they do anything useful with it.

[Rod Speed]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:270820140817058382%mich...@michelle.org...
> In article <ltkkn6$nip$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull
> <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> You are the problem, in a sense.
>>
>> If you had done that, then you would never have been able to
>> get their 6-digit account number canceled, for example.
>>
>> Nor would you have learned *what* their scam entailed, so,
>> you wouldn't be able to warn others.

> If everyone hung up on them within 30 seconds,

That is never going to happen.

> they would go out of business.

And when everyone doesn't, they wont.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:18:31 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> But no use if you want to give the authoritys the
> evidence and see if they do anything useful with it.

As Rod Speed said, the authorities do prosecute the scammers, as shown
here in this article where the feds stung the same type of scammers:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/how-windows-tech-support-scammers-walked-right-into-a-trap-set-by-the-feds/2/

In addition, here is a published article where a malwarebytes researcher
was contacted, and he recorded the entire thing, and we don't see anyone
sending him off to jail either:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/11/malwarebytes

What is interesting in that malwarebytes call, and in mine, is how
malicious the callers get. Maybe it's an Indian personality thing?

I don't know, but, in the malwarebytes case they maliciously deleted
files, and in my case, they certainly cussed up a storm in impotent
frustration.

Maybe it's a power thing?

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:57:18 -0500, BobbyK wrote:

> Ridiculous. What penalty was assigned for all of your wonderful
> information? None. There is no penalty for a phone call.

Ridiculous, you say?

Read this if you want to know what the penalty is:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/how-windows-tech-support-scammers-walked-right-into-a-trap-set-by-the-feds/2/

[Rod Speed]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

>> Erilar wrote

>>> It wouldn't take me that long.

>> And that's why you're part of the problem.

> There is no scam, nor crime, if no money is
> sent to the caller without a promised result.

Wrong. There is a lot more that is a crime than just that.

> The answer is to ignore them.

Fat lot of good that will do.

> If someone is scammed they can report it to the proper authorities

They wont necessarily even realise what has happened.

> who have plenty of information already.

Not about who is doing the crime they don't.

> As I said before, whatever turns you on,
> but my suggestion is to forget it unless
> you get these calls daily. Better yet, just
> hang up, then go on with your life.

Fat lot of good people doing that has done.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> BobbyK wrote

>> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
>> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

> You would ignore a broken window at a jewelry store?

If it looks like its already been reported.

> You'd ignore graffiti?

Yes, but not someone actually doing the graffiti.

> You'd ignore street hustlers, etc.?

I don’t call the cops about every one I notice.

> You remember Rudy Giuliani and his "broken window theory"?

> Please do read up on it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

> They arrested the guys who would spit on your windshield as you waited
> at a light and then offer to wash your windshield for a fee, and the guys
> who would "help" you find a parking spot, and who said they would "guard"
> your car, also for a fee. They even busted the guys playing the shell
> games on the street corners, who were scamming innocent tourists.

> They even made the store owners themselves liable for cleaning up
> the graffiti, as the broken window philosophy starts at the bottom.

> If you were in Times Square before then, and then you go now, it's like
> two very different worlds.

> The old world is what you seem to espouse, where petty crime is
> basically allowed, Everyone here, who espouses just hanging up
> (essentially
> looking the other way) is actually part and parcel part of the problem.

> Just like the broken-window theory says, if you ignore it, then you're
> actually part of the problem.

Its rather more complicated than that.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:09:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> However, the Port Authority's NE corner is one block west of Times
> Square. In the 1970s, though, it was one block west and one block south
> of Times Square. Its SW corner is two blocks south and two blocks west
> of Times Square.

I was a college kid. It was a very short walk, Almost nothing, actually.
I graduated college in 1981, so, it was probably 79 or 80 at the time.
I don't even remember there being *any* distance, to speak of, between the two.
Same with the (new at that time) convention center (I was doing a part time job at a show).
They are all about at the same spot (39th to 42nd, 9th to about 11th).

Anyway, it looks like we've figured out the scam by now:

What amazes me is why *he* didn't hang up on me, for 30 minutes, especially after hurling a two-minute string of invectives my way only 2/3 of the way through the call.
Had he called my Android phone, my Automatic Call Recorder would have recorded the entire thing (as it was, I missed the first few seconds until I realized it was a scam).

For future reference, I've been advised there are three things any of us "could" set up, ahead of time:
1. A guest network (probably not required - but the point is to limit the risk)
2. A Windows virtual machine within Linux
3. Easy screen recording (e.g., gtkRecordMyDesktop) which captures ambient audio

I'm not sure if a public VPN server would help mask our IP address though?

To summarize what I know, I have been told the scam goes like this:
a) Indian caller, with publicly available phone lists, says he's from the "Microsoft Department", and your machine has been sending them "reports".
b) You download a legitimate remote software tool that virus scanners won't detect (logmeinrescue, ammyy, or whatever).
c) You execute that remote tool and provide the 8-digit ID to the caller who passes it to someone else, where the caller gets paid for all valid IDs.
d) While the original caller keeps you busy for a minute or three, the infiltration guy (maybe even in a different country) compromises your machine.
e) At some point, either you pay them money or they p0wn your machine (depending on what they're after).

I'm not sure about the last step (i.e., the payload), but, the earlier stuff is becoming apparent.
The odd thing is how *angry* they get on the phone (the caller clearly threatens to f* all the females in my family, more than once).
Maybe it's an Indian culture thing, but the males get away scott free.

What's also odd is that they don't just hang up, like an American would, to cut their losses.
They actually get mean and nasty (which would gain them absolutely nothing).

So, it's very odd that they get angry. They should just hang up.
Clearly I wasn't getting angry. I wonder if it's a power thing with Indians?

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:10:17 -0500, BobbyK wrote:

> Kill filters are Usenet friends. Bye.

A plonk from you should be considered a compliment to me.

[Rod Speed]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

news:270820140958243099%mich...@michelle.org...

> In article <ltl21v$d1v$9...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull
> <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure you help others also, but those few who simply hang up
>> on these callers would never accomplish any of the above,
>> don't you agree?
>
> As I said, if everyone would hang up on them,

Tisnt going to happen.

> they would soon stop doing it.

And that wont happen, because everyone wont hang up on them.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Michelle Steiner wrote

>> As I said, if everyone would hang up on
>> them, they would soon stop doing it.

> That is true.
> And, if everyone reported them,
> they would experience a penalty.

No, they would just operate in a
jurisdiction where there is no penalty.

> Either way, *everyone* needs to do one or the other.

That isnt going to happen either.

> Unfortunately, we all know, *someone* is losing their money,
> so, we're the only ones left do do something about it.

Trouble is that there isnt anything effective that can be done.

That's why the problem is ongoing.

[Rod Speed]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

>> BobbyK wrote

>>> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
>>> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

>> You would ignore a broken window at a jewelry store?

> That's a crime,

Not necessarily.

> telephone calls aren't unless you send
> money and are cheated out of it.

Wrong. There are plenty of other
crimes that involve a telephone call.

>> You'd ignore graffiti?

> Always.

>> You'd ignore street hustlers, etc.?

> Always.

Then you clearly are part of the problem.

>> You remember Rudy Giuliani and his "broken window theory"?

> It actually was his police commissioner who came up with that.
> It doesn't apply here

It does actually.

>> Please do read up on it:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

>> They arrested the guys who would spit on your windshield as you waited
>> at a light and then offer to wash your windshield for a fee, and the guys
>> who would "help" you find a parking spot, and who said they would "guard"
>> your car, also for a fee. They even busted the guys playing the shell
>> games on the street corners, who were scamming innocent tourists.

> Those are all acts that are illegal.

So is that phone call.

> Phone calls aren't.

Wrong, as always.

>> They even made the store owners themselves liable for cleaning up
>> the graffiti, as the broken window philosophy starts at the bottom.

>> If you were in Times Square before then, and
>> then you go now, it's like two very different worlds.

>> The old world is what you seem to espouse, where petty crime is
>> basically allowed, Everyone here, who espouses just hanging up
>> (essentially
>> looking the other way) is actually part and parcel part of the problem.

>> Just like the broken-window theory says, if you
>> ignore it, then you're actually part of the problem.

> No you aren't. The "problem" doesn't exist if you hang up.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Any further posts from you on this
> only point to your being a nutcase.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:32:38 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
>> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote
>>> Erilar wrote
>
>>>> It wouldn't take me that long.
>
>>> And that's why you're part of the problem.
>
>> There is no scam, nor crime, if no money is
>> sent to the caller without a promised result.
>
>Wrong. There is a lot more that is a crime than just that.

Not if you hang up. There is no crime in a phone call....period.

>
>> The answer is to ignore them.
>
>Fat lot of good that will do.

You and Turnbull should get a room.

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:47:18 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
>> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote
>>> BobbyK wrote
>
>>>> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
>>>> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

>>These telephone calls aren't a crime unless you send

>> money and are cheated out of it.
>
>Wrong. There are plenty of other
>crimes that involve a telephone call.

We're discussing cold calls from companies trying to sell Internet
support. They aren't criminals until they commit a crime.

[AV3]

On 8/27/14, 12:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<ltl119$d1v$7...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull
> <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
>> nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
>> almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.

>
> There is no bus station at Times Square.

The bus station is within easy walking distance, on 8th Ave. at West
32nd St. There was a police station on West 42nd St. at Broadway, but I
think it has recently been modified or moved. I haven't been to that
exact location in years, just pass through occasionally on a bus.


--
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvi...@Wearthlink.net> ||
||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
|| Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso ||
++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++

[Jolly Roger]

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.phone.mobile.iphone.]

On 2014-08-27, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:59:19 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sharing the recording. Fun listen! : )
>> What did you use to record this call?
>
> I was on Android, where all sorts of manual and automatic
> call and voice recorders abound.

So which app did you use? I'm just curious what design it uses.

> However, since you're on the iPhone, the only app I know of
> for iOS is Call Recorder Free.
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/call-recorder-free-record/id637819447?mt=8

Yeah, thanks, but no thanks. Any such app which sends your conversation through a
third-party pone system is suspect to me. I already dislike what the NSA
is doing, and allowing some random corporation to intercept and
potentially record and store my conversations for who knows how long, to
do with as they see fit at any point in the future just isn't something
I'm willing to do on a whim. Maybe it's for other folks though. : )

What I would like to see is an Apple API that allows us developers to
record incoming and outgoing audio during a call - with appropriate
security measures in place, and ways for users to opt into the access
needed for the app to record those audio streams, of course.

[Alan Browne]

On 2014.08.27, 12:49 , Ned Turnbull wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:38:25 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> I didn't say theft. I said "hustled". If you don't know what that
>> means, go look it up.
>
> You mean the guys who bump you on the street saying "cokes in the bag"
> and then you reach back to find your wallet gone?

Nope.


--
I was born a 1%er - I'm just more equal than the rest.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 22:15:33 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> So which app did you use? I'm just curious what design it uses.

This is an iPhone group, so, I didn't want to get into Android specifics,
but, the Automatic Call Recorder on Android works *flawlessly*.

There are many automatic call recorders on Android, but this is
the one that I use:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder&hl=en

I turn it on, I tell it to record up to the last 200 phone calls (both sides),
and that's it. I don't do anything else. It just records and saves the files.

It's so automatic, that I don't even look at it, except to grab a file
if I need it (which is rare, as it's specifically for that rare occasion
where you need to go back to a phone call to know what happened exactly).

One of the settings is to notify the desktop that it's recording, but,
I have that turned off, so, since I don't even have the icon on my desktop,
it's essentially, invisible. In fact, I forget it's there except when I
need it (which is, after all, the mark of a well designed app).

If I need it, I go to the app drawer and pull it out, but, otherwise
it's totally transparent to me.

That is exactly as I want it to be.

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-27 16:09:20 +0000, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> said:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:21:14 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> I learned that within ten seconds when I received a similar call.
>
> Actually, the local silicon valley high tech crime unit explained
> to me this morning how the scam works.
>
> They were responding to my call, yesterday, to the Santa Clara
> County High Technology Crimes Unit at (408) 792-2804 where I had emailed
> the unedited phone recording to them at publicin...@da.sccgov.org
>
> They called back this morning from a San Jose task force called REACT, at
> 408-282-2425, who took down all my information, and who applauded
> me for reporting it as thoroughly as I could.
>
> They said the caller isn't the guy who performs the crime.
> The caller simply obtains my 8-digit ID, and then he immediately
> passes it to another person, likely in a third country, who
> takes control over my machine, while a script runs that the caller
> is aware of as a cover. The high tech crime unit guy spent about
> a half hour with me explaining how the whole thing works.
>
> He said the caller gets paid for a valid code, and that's all
> the caller wants. They said that most people don't report it, so,
> they usually have nothing to go on, but, they did ask me to try to get
> the callers name and phone number next time, because they said
> that I'd be surprised how many people actually send them money, a
> and, they said they almost never get the money back unless
> it's a reverse on the credit card.

Did they a;so trell you that the Santa Clara County DA was about to
file charges against you for violating Cal Penal Code. It seems that
you are vulnerable to a $10,000 fine and a year in the Santa Clara
County Jail, and you provided all the evidence they need to convict you
voluntarily.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638>

Never

let it be said ignorance of the Law is an excuse.
...but you knew that didn't you?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-27 16:29:30 +0000, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> said:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:07:38 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Really - if you get hustled in Time Square please go to a cop and then
>> learn how indifferent the cops are to how you got mugged by your own
>> gullibility.
>
> I had my motorcycle helmet stolen, way back in the 80's, in the
> middle of the evening, off of 42nd street near the newly built
> convention center, and I reported it to the local police because
> I had to ride back to New Jersey sans the helmet to get home.
>
> They were *very* supportive and caring. They gave me all the
> paperwork I needed. They spent at least 15 minutes or so, with
> that, and even gave me a telephone number and badge number of
> the cop in NY in case the NJ police pulled me over on my way
> home.

>
> It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
> nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
> almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.
>

> Anyway, if people don't report crime (rape, theft, vandalism, etc.,)
> then the police have less to go on. It's our *duty* to report crime.
>
> Anything less is aiding and abetting the criminals (IMHO).

Come on! NYPD does its thing to fight crime, ...or is that fight crime
fighters.
<http://nypost.com/2014/08/11/cops-bust-iron-man-spider-man-and-elmo-in-times-square/>

--


Regards,

Savageduck

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:39:04 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> Did they a;so trell you that the Santa Clara County DA was about to
> file charges against you for violating Cal Penal Code. It seems that
> you are vulnerable to a $10,000 fine and a year in the Santa Clara
> County Jail, and you provided all the evidence they need to convict you
> voluntarily.

They have the unedited file, so, if they want to file charges, they
know where I live.

They never even mentioned anything about that, by the way.

Besides the fact I'll take my chances with the jury, if/when it ever gets
to trial.

However, I'm not sure what the law says when the other person is in another
country.

I couldn't tell from your cite if it matters whether the other party is in
another country. Can you?

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-27 16:42:48 +0000, Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> said:

> In article <ltl119$d1v$7...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull
> <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>

>> It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
>> nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
>> almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.
>

> There is no bus station at Times Square.

Well there is an NYPD Sub-Station at Time Square. Nothing to do with
the phantom bus station. It isn't much better than a neon decorated
information kiosk.
<http://www.romelevangelista.com/img/s11/v30/p885130125-3.jpg>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Desh]

On 8/27/14, 3:02 AM, Ned Turnbull wrote:
> This is a perfect case of *why* you want an automatic call recorder on
> the iPhone or at least, a decent voice recorder on the iPad!
>
> Here is a 3MB 30-minute MP4 recording of an unsolicited call today that I
> received from the “Microsoft IT” department, telling me my computer was
> "sending reports" to them (this file kindly uploaded by Marek):
> https://app.box.com/s/0yluyszg1qj2l83ynbm2
>

Yeah, I've gotten those calls too. If I'm doing something, I just hang
up on them. If I'm feeling twisted or perverse, I'll string them along
for 10-15 minutes until I let them know I know they're scammers. I did
have one shout "F### you" before he hung up on me a few weeks ago.

--
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
- Vladimir Lenin (via @Boazziz)

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-27 16:57:34 +0000, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> said:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:42:48 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> There is no bus station at Times Square.
>

> It is nearby because I used to take the bus from NJ
> to, I think it was called, penn station, and then walk
> to times square.

>
> This was in the 70s and 80s, but I haven't been there
> since about 85, so, it's from memory.

If you took a bus from NJ, you would have arrived at the NY Port
Authority Bus Station on W42 & 8th. Time Square is 2 NYC blocks East &
5 NYC blocks North, still a bit more than a casual stroll away.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

So you didn't bother to read it in its entirety?
Here is the most important thing to take away from those Penal Code
Sections, consent of all parties are required to make the recording
legally. If law enforcement has established a wire tap for evidence
collection, they need a warrant, otherwise all that has been collected
is of no value in court.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Rod Speed]

"Ned Turnbull" <NedTu...@example.com> wrote in message
news:ltlf6a$3l6$6...@news.mixmin.net...

> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:18:31 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> But no use if you want to give the authoritys the
>> evidence and see if they do anything useful with it.
>
> As Rod Speed said, the authorities do prosecute the scammers, as shown
> here in this article where the feds stung the same type of scammers:
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/how-windows-tech-support-scammers-walked-right-into-a-trap-set-by-the-feds/2/
>
> In addition, here is a published article where a malwarebytes researcher
> was contacted, and he recorded the entire thing, and we don't see anyone
> sending him off to jail either:
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/11/malwarebytes
>
> What is interesting in that malwarebytes call, and in mine, is how
> malicious the callers get. Maybe it's an Indian personality thing?

More likely to be just a third world thing.

Tho we don’t often see what happened with the partition of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Independence.2C_population_transfer.2C_and_violence

Corse there was Rwanda which was quite a bit worse than that.

> I don't know, but, in the malwarebytes case they
> maliciously deleted files, and in my case, they
> certainly cussed up a storm in impotent frustration.

> Maybe it's a power thing?

More likely to be a frustration thing.

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <2014082716025939063-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> If you took a bus from NJ, you would have arrived at the NY Port
> Authority Bus Station on W42 & 8th. Time Square is 2 NYC blocks East &
> 5 NYC blocks North, still a bit more than a casual stroll away.

Times Square is actually a triangle formed by 42nd ST (the base),
Broadway, and 7th Avenue, with the northern point at 45th St. There's
another triangle formed by those three streets, with its base at 47th
St.; this triangle is called Father Duffy Square.

These "squares" host statues of George M. Cohan and Father Duffy. The
Port Authority Bus Terminal houses a statue of Ralph Cramden.

[Savageduck]

I have ended and started many bus rides at the Port Authority in the
days I lived in Upstate NY (Syracuse, Utica, Lake George, & Inlet). I
was considerably younger then and my body more bus tolerable. My last
NYC visit was back in 2005.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Anyway, it looks like we've figured out the scam by now:

> What amazes me is why *he* didn't hang up on me, for
> 30 minutes, especially after hurling a two-minute string
> of invectives my way only 2/3 of the way through the call.

Its always going to be a hard call, when to give up
and when it might be feasible to get there in the end.

> Had he called my Android phone, my Automatic
> Call Recorder would have recorded the entire
> thing (as it was, I missed the first few seconds
> until I realized it was a scam).

Yeah, automatic recording of all calls has real advantages.

Its less clear how normal callers would feel about that tho.

> For future reference, I've been advised there are
> three things any of us "could" set up, ahead of time:
> 1. A guest network (probably not required
> - but the point is to limit the risk)
> 2. A Windows virtual machine within Linux

I think a dedicated real Win machine for the purpose makes more sense.

> 3. Easy screen recording (e.g., gtkRecordMyDesktop) which captures ambient
> audio

> I'm not sure if a public VPN server would help mask our IP address though?

No it wouldn’t if you do allow them full access to the machine.

> To summarize what I know, I have been told the scam goes like this:
> a) Indian caller, with publicly available phone lists, says he's from the
> "Microsoft Department", and your machine has been sending them "reports".

That's what all of them who have called me have claimed.

But there are bound to be variations out there.

> b) You download a legitimate remote software tool that virus
> scanners won't detect (logmeinrescue, ammyy, or whatever).
> c) You execute that remote tool and provide the 8-digit ID to the caller
> who passes it to someone else, where the caller gets paid for all valid
> IDs.
> d) While the original caller keeps you busy for a minute or three, the
> infiltration
> guy (maybe even in a different country) compromises your machine.

Seems unlikely that they all bother with that two organisation approach.

> e) At some point, either you pay them money

That is what most of them are after. And those with more of a clue use
a non reversible system like Western Union to get the payment too.

> or they p0wn your machine (depending on what they're after).

Plenty of them just want to see what they can find
on your system personal identity or bank details wise.

> I'm not sure about the last step (i.e., the payload),
> but, the earlier stuff is becoming apparent.

I am, just from logic.

> The odd thing is how *angry* they get on the phone (the caller
> clearly threatens to f* all the females in my family, more than once).

I don’t find it at all odd that they can get rather
frustrated at having wasted all that time.

> Maybe it's an Indian culture thing,

Unlikely.

> but the males get away scott free.

Not always, some have been hanged.

> What's also odd is that they don't just hang
> up, like an American would, to cut their losses.

Not all americans do that. You didn’t.

> They actually get mean and nasty (which
> would gain them absolutely nothing).

Sure, but its understandable that they do get a
tad pissed off at being deliberately jerked around.

Some of ours have been known to transfer you to their
service when they cold call suggesting you change to
their service and get pissed off when you tell them to
go away.

> So, it's very odd that they get angry.
> They should just hang up.

All the ones I have verbally abused have done just that.

> Clearly I wasn't getting angry.

Yeah, you should get a job as a professional con man |-)

> I wonder if it's a power thing with Indians?

Nope, just a frustration thing.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:16:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> consent of all parties are required to make the recording
> legally.

Hi Savageduck,
I appreciate the help, and I read the words.

They say nothing about other countries.

They also say nothing about the mechanics if the person on the
other side isn't even known who it is.

How's that gonna work, was what I'm asking, when we don't even know
who the other party is, nor where they live.

The law doesn't say anything about the mechanics of that, especially
since they're not complaining.

[Rod Speed]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
>>> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote
>>>> Erilar wrote

>>>>> It wouldn't take me that long.

>>>> And that's why you're part of the problem.

>>> There is no scam, nor crime, if no money is
>>> sent to the caller without a promised result.

>> Wrong. There is a lot more that is a crime than just that.

> Not if you hang up.

What you do in response to the crime is irrelevant
to whether a crime has been committed or not.

> There is no crime in a phone call....period.

You can keep chanting that pig ignorant mantra till
the cows come home if you like, changes nothing.

There are plenty of crimes that can
be committed with a phone call.

>>> The answer is to ignore them.

>> Fat lot of good that will do.

> You and Turnbull should get a room.

We don't need to, usenet works fine and is
a lot more convenient given that we are on
opposite sides of the world.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:02:59 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> If you took a bus from NJ, you would have arrived at the NY Port
> Authority Bus Station on W42 & 8th. Time Square is 2 NYC blocks East &
> 5 NYC blocks North, still a bit more than a casual stroll away.

You're kidding right?
2 blocks? 5 blocks? In NYC?
That's nothing to a college student.

Me, now? At this age?
Sure, I'll take a taxi.

But not at that age.
Anyway, most of the time I rode my bike, although, in those days, when I took
Park Av from the "nice" part up, up, up, and up, to, um, er ... I remember it
was the not-so-nice part. I just wanted to get my butt *out* of there fast!

Same thing with "da Bronx", and the "projects" which we had to drive through
at times, depending on traffic, to get to the boats at City Island Yacht Club
where I used to sail on Wednesdays on J35's.

[Rod Speed]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> wrote
>>> Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote
>>>> BobbyK wrote

>>>>> The answer is to ignore them. If someone is scammed they can report
>>>>> it to the proper authorities who have plenty of information already.

>>> These telephone calls aren't a crime unless
>>> you send money and are cheated out of it.

>> Wrong. There are plenty of other
>> crimes that involve a telephone call.

> We're discussing cold calls from companies

Yes.

> trying to sell Internet support.

They want to get access to your system
and tell lies about your system to do that.

> They aren't criminals until they commit a crime.

They commit a crime when they attempt to get access to
your system by telling lies about what your system is doing.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:00:31 -0400, Desh wrote:

> I did have one shout "F### you" before he hung up on me a few weeks ago.

See? That's the funny thing.

How many times did you call, say, T-Mobile, or Verizon, or AT&T, etc.,
where they shouted "f-you" at you?

I'll bet the answer is near zero, right?

What they do, when you're not nice to them, is simply hang up.
They hang up on you, and move on to the next person.
Or, they patch you through to the elevator music, and you have to
start all over again. Right?

But these guys? They swear like pirates. I just wonder why. It may be a cultural
thing. For some reason, I was supposed to be all upset that he was f'ing my
women I guess. Was I supposed to believe him? That's the part I don't get.

It's so sophomoric. It may be the individual, but, it has *never* happened to me
in the USA, and it seems to happen here with these guys. I think it "might"
be cultural. Dunno though.

[AV3]

On 8/27/14, 18:07, AV3 wrote:
> On 8/27/14, 12:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> In article<ltl119$d1v$7...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull
>> <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's my only experience with NYC cops, but, they were surprisingly
>>> nice. They have a station right there, in the middle of Times Square
>>> almost, inside the bus station, as I recall.
>>
>> There is no bus station at Times Square.
>
>
> The bus station is within easy walking distance, on 8th Ave. at West
> 32nd St.

Sorry, that's 8th Ave. at West 40th St.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:45:47 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Seems unlikely that they all bother with that two organisation approach.

They appeared to use *three* organizations, in this well documented similar approach:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/11/malwarebytes

[Ned Turnbull]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:45:47 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> That is what most of them are after. And those with more of a clue use
> a non reversible system like Western Union to get the payment too.

That seems to be the case, as they ran a wire transfer in this similar scam:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/how-windows-tech-support-scammers-walked-right-into-a-trap-set-by-the-feds/2/

[Ned Turnbull]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 09:45:47 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

>> What's also odd is that they don't just hang
>> up, like an American would, to cut their losses.
>
> Not all americans do that. You didn’t.

:)

[Savageduck]

On 2014-08-27 23:48:32 +0000, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> said:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:16:29 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> consent of all parties are required to make the recording
>> legally.
>
> Hi Savageduck,
> I appreciate the help, and I read the words.
>
> They say nothing about other countries.

Country is irrelevant. Consent is the thing.

> They also say nothing about the mechanics if the person on the
> other side isn't even known who it is.

Another irrelevance. If both parties have not consented to the
recording it is not permitted, even if anonymous.

> How's that gonna work, was what I'm asking, when we don't even know
> who the other party is, nor where they live.

Just the same way it does when you call Verizon, AT&T, etc. and you are
advised that "this conversation might be recorded for training
purposes."
If you don't like the idea of that you are free to stop the call.


Ypu could have easily told your mystery caller that you would be
recording the conversation so you could have a reference regarding the
instructions he was giving you. If he chose to continue giving those
instructions after having been given that advice, then all is well.
Otherwise, he would probably hang up on you.

> The law doesn't say anything about the mechanics of that, especially
> since they're not complaining.

The mechanics are irrelevant.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

On 2014-08-27, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 22:15:33 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> So which app did you use? I'm just curious what design it uses.
>
> This is an iPhone group, so, I didn't want to get into Android specifics,
> but, the Automatic Call Recorder on Android works *flawlessly*.
>
> There are many automatic call recorders on Android, but this is
> the one that I use:
>
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder&hl=en

Thanks. Looks like a nice app. : )

I may write my own iOS app to do call recording some time, just for my
own personal use on my own phone - not for distribution, since it'd
never make it onto the app store anyway.

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 17:27:37 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> The mechanics are irrelevant.

But who is going to care enough to "press charges" when we don't even *know* who the other party is?
Certainly if the SJ PD cared, they'd have mentioned it, don't you think?

[Ned Turnbull]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 01:12:16 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Thanks. Looks like a nice app. : )

Funny thing, I just noticed the app description says 'This app contains ads.',
but, since I never even *see* the app, I never see the ads.

> I may write my own iOS app to do call recording some time, just for my
> own personal use on my own phone - not for distribution, since it'd
> never make it onto the app store anyway.

There are a few call recorders on iOS but I think they make use of
three-way calls.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Savageduck wrote

>> consent of all parties are required
>> to make the recording legally.

> Hi Savageduck,
> I appreciate the help, and I read the words.

> They say nothing about other countries.

Which means that the law applys regardless of
whether the other party is in another country or not.

> They also say nothing about the mechanics if the
> person on the other side isn't even known who it is.

Doesn’t matter consent wise.

> How's that gonna work, was what I'm
> asking, when we don't even know who
> the other party is, nor where they live.

Neither is relevant to the consent question.

> The law doesn't say anything
> about the mechanics of that,

Doesn’t need to. Its up to you to make sure that
the other party has consented to the call being
recorded. You can do that any way you like.

> especially since they're not complaining.

That is irrelevant to what the law requires.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Desh wrote

>> I did have one shout "F### you" before
>> he hung up on me a few weeks ago.

> See? That's the funny thing.

> How many times did you call, say, T-Mobile, or Verizon,
> or AT&T, etc., where they shouted "f-you" at you?

I don’t call operations like that and deliberately
waste half an hour of their time.

> I'll bet the answer is near zero, right?

Sure, but that’s because they record all calls and
they know what will happen to them if the customer
complains about them having sworn at a customer.

> What they do, when you're not
> nice to them, is simply hang up.

While that is common, it isnt the only thing that happens.

> They hang up on you, and move on to the next person.
> Or, they patch you through to the elevator music, and
> you have to start all over again. Right?

Not always. I quite often get them mindlessly repeat
what they have just said over and over again.

> But these guys? They swear like pirates. I just wonder why.

Because there is no downside for them from
the operation that employs them if they do that.

> It may be a cultural thing.

Much more likely to just be because of the
consequences that don’t happen with them.

> For some reason, I was supposed to be all
> upset that he was f'ing my women I guess.
> Was I supposed to believe him? That's the
> part I don't get.

> It's so sophomoric.

Sure, but he likely is that age.

> It may be the individual, but, it has
> *never* happened to me in the USA,

Because all calls are recorded and they know what will
happen to them if the customer complains about it.

> and it seems to happen here with these guys.
> I think it "might" be cultural. Dunno though.

Its just because there are no consequences.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Seems unlikely that they all bother with that two organisation approach.

> They appeared to use *three* organizations, in this well documented
> similar approach:
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-04/11/malwarebytes

Just because some do says nothing useful about what ALL do.

[BobbyK]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:54:21 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote
>> Savageduck wrote
>
>>> consent of all parties are required
>>> to make the recording legally.
>
>> Hi Savageduck,
>> I appreciate the help, and I read the words.
>
>> They say nothing about other countries.
>
>Which means that the law applys regardless of
>whether the other party is in another country or not.
>
>> They also say nothing about the mechanics if the
>> person on the other side isn't even known who it is.
>
>Doesn�t matter consent wise.

That varies from state to state in the U.S. In Texas only one party
has to know that the call is being recorded, and that can be the
initiator. Some states insist that both parties are aware of it. That
info can be googled for your state.

[Rod Speed]

"Jolly Roger" <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:c67dvf...@mid.individual.net...

> On 2014-08-27, Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 22:15:33 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> So which app did you use? I'm just curious what design it uses.
>>
>> This is an iPhone group, so, I didn't want to get into Android specifics,
>> but, the Automatic Call Recorder on Android works *flawlessly*.
>>
>> There are many automatic call recorders on Android, but this is
>> the one that I use:
>>
>> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.callrecorder&hl=en
>
> Thanks. Looks like a nice app. : )
>
> I may write my own iOS app to do call recording some time, just for my
> own personal use on my own phone - not for distribution, since it'd
> never make it onto the app store anyway.

I'm not convinced that its possible, apparently the api doesn�t allow it.

[Rod Speed]

"Ned Turnbull" <NedTu...@example.com> wrote in message

news:ltlvv3$fc4$1...@news.mixmin.net...

Plenty of the voip clients do allow you to record calls, but that’s
not all calls, doesn’t allow the recording of normal cellphone calls.

[Savageduck]

If they mentioned it to the DA's office who knows what could develop.
The cops have no say in what the DA will choose to do. The identity of
the other party is irrelevant. What they have is evidence that you have
committed a crime by recording a phone conversation in California
without the consent of all parties. You have freely given it to them.
It was as good as signing a confession. That is a violation of the
California Penal Code, that much is quite clear.

The DA has two crimes to deal with here. The attempted crime against
you, and the actual crime you have committed. This is not a case of
self defense.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <ltlmul$fc4$2...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> Besides the fact I'll take my chances with the jury, if/when it ever gets
> to trial.

it more than likely won't.

> However, I'm not sure what the law says when the other person is in another
> country.

that doesn't matter.

you live in california and california requires the consent of all
parties, which you did not have.

[nospam]

In article <ltlqu3$fc4$4...@news.mixmin.net>, Ned Turnbull

<NedTu...@example.com> wrote:

> > If you took a bus from NJ, you would have arrived at the NY Port
> > Authority Bus Station on W42 & 8th. Time Square is 2 NYC blocks East &
> > 5 NYC blocks North, still a bit more than a casual stroll away.
>
> You're kidding right?
> 2 blocks? 5 blocks? In NYC?
> That's nothing to a college student.

it's nothing to an adult either.

new york is *very* walkable and port authority to times square is not a
big deal at all.

> Me, now? At this age?
> Sure, I'll take a taxi.

lazy.

[Savageduck]

Since Ned lives in California, and he recorded this phone conversation
in Santa Clara County, California the California Penal Code applies.
That requires consent of all parties.
Those sections of the Cal Penal Code are pretty comprehensive.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-638>

Regarding

California, this also makes interesting reading:
<http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law>

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

Those are the ones allowed on the Apple App Store, because the recording
doesn't happen on the phone, but on a remote server, for a fee -
surprise, surprise! ; ) I don't consider that to be the real thing.
There are genuine call recording apps in various Cydia repositories,
this being one of the more popular ones:

<http://modmyi.com/cydia/net.limneos.callrecorder>

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:31:14 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> That requires consent of all parties.

I don't know how this process works, but again, I ask, who is going to "press charges".
(I'm not sure I even know what that means, to "press charges", but, where is the victim?)

[Ned Turnbull]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 19:18:01 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> The DA has two crimes to deal with here. The attempted crime against
> you, and the actual crime you have committed. This is not a case of
> self defense.

I'll take my chances.

[Rod Speed]

Ned Turnbull <NedTu...@example.com> wrote

> Savageduck wrote

>> That requires consent of all parties.

> I don't know how this process works, but
> again, I ask, who is going to "press charges".

The DA normally.

> (I'm not sure I even know what that means, to "press charges",

Basically it means you end up in front of a judge, in a court.

> but, where is the victim?)

There is no victim with a speeding charge either.