scam stats and scambaiting stats

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:20 pm

I have been away from the PC for a bit and have been considering the proposal and its ethics. A year or so ago, I was in conversation with a well-respected Baiter and I said something like, “Wouldn’t it be great, if we could afford to Bait full time?”. The Baiter agreed with me that it would be amazing.

Of course, I can’t. Like most of us here, I need to earn to survive.

I oppose baiting Lads for their money (which almost invariably will be Victims' monies anyway). Over the years, I calculate that – like others - I have spent into 4 figures on Skype calls and other baiting-related expenditure. If I saw an advertisement for say, a ‘Baiter Bounty-Hunter’, eg, £XXX for each Scammer arrested (or etc), I wouldn’t consider it.

However, if I was browsing through a newspaper or the web and saw an advertisement for an investigative journalist for a project on advance-fee fraud requiring ScamBaiting, would I apply? Yes, I would.

Equally, just suppose that scamstats represents an accredited organisation like a Government Department or Law Enforcement and is looking to fill official posts (in UK, say with the Foreign Office, or Department of Trade and Industry) tackling advance-fee fraud involving some baiting of Scammers, would I consider applying? As a former UK civil servant and knowing the propriety of the public service, yes, I would.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:22 pm

scamstats wrote:

Then they pick a scammer to scambait. The system tracks how much of the scammers time was wasted by the scambaiter. The scambaiter gets paid based on that.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?

How would your wonderful system know that I wasted X hours of scammer Y's time - will you install a tracker on that scammer to ensure that he wasn't actually scamming other victims in the X hours of his time that is allocated to me?

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:27 pm

Businesses funding a non-profit organisation which aims to support the victims who were affected and lost everything because of the scammers would be a better idea than paying us to bait them.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

B8er wrote:

scamstats wrote:

Then they pick a scammer to scambait. The system tracks how much of the scammers time was wasted by the scambaiter. The scambaiter gets paid based on that.

You really don't have a clue what you're talking about do you?

How would your wonderful system know that I wasted X hours of scammer Y's time - will you install a tracker on that scammer to ensure that he wasn't actually scamming other victims in the X hours of his time that is allocated to me?

Like I said, the system can't track everything that a scammer or scambaiter might do. But it's not about tracking everything. For instance, it can't track a scammers telephone calls to and from a scambaiter.

The idea of scambaiting is that while a scammer is engaged with a scambaiter they are not engaged with a real victim. If a scammer is writing an e-mail to you, then he's not writing one during that time to a real victim.

So the web site across the river can't track time on the phone. But just because a scammer is wasting his time talking with you on the phone (that's a great thing), that doesn't mean that it's not also a good thing that he is also wasting his time with a scambaiter across the river at the other web site.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:55 pm

The only way I could see this being monetized is in areas of baiting where we have hard numbers. Things like bank accounts reported, credit cards reported, and sites killed can be quantified. I know exactly how many of each I've done, and so theoretically I could tell you exactly how much you owe me.

But you can't measure, let alone put an exact dollar value on a scammer's time wasted, and even with safaris where the lad scans his tickets and expense receipts, you still can't quantify these things precisely. If you can't quantify them, you can't put a dollar value on them. So from the point of view of the people paying us to bait, straight baiting and safari baiting would be essentially worthless. But absolutely nobody in the baiting community would argue that straight baiters or safari baiters are not equally as valuable as site killers or bank account and CC baiters.

If you monetize certain areas of baiting and not others, it will cause baiters to shift their methods and tactics in ways that are unacceptable. Everybody would go for bank accounts or credit cards, and neglect the valuable straight baits that are the backbone of what we do.

Monetizing things would also trigger competitive behaviors that are detrimental to our cause. I'll explain what I mean with two clear examples:

With the way things are now, if another site killer takes down a site I was planning to report, I don't mind, because I am just glad the site got killed. I can focus my attention elsewhere without worrying about it. But if I was expecting to get paid for my site killing efforts, I would be furious that another site killer stepped on my toes and stole my kill, thereby reducing my pay. I would be less likely to share my methods with other site killers, or to teach new ones how to do it. It would destroy the camaraderie and team spirit that exists among site killers here and at AA419, because we would now be in direct competition with each other.

I also kill a lot of sites that are found by other site killers. They are happy to let me report the sites they find while they specialize in finding more, because they know it is my area of expertise. Would they do so if they were getting paid? No, they'd want to kill the sites themselves, and that would slow us down and cause the sites to stay up for longer if they don't have time to report them right away.

Similarly, bank account baiters would not be willing to cooperate with each other if they thought they were in competition. I know several baiters have developed excellent modalities for drawing out bank accounts on an industrial scale. They have been quite happy to share their methods, with the caveat that they should not be overused to the point of blunting their effectiveness. Would they be willing to share, if they thought that it would reduce their pay because other baiters applied the techniques better? No, they would guard it like a trade secret, making us less effective as a whole.

I'm sure there are plenty of other examples that illustrate why monetizing baiting is a bad idea. Leave things as they are. We do best as a volunteer army.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:56 pm

I would like to repeat this, as I never saw an answer.

If I'm a victim of a romance scam and have just lost my life savings, on the verge of losing my house and I hear about this get paid to take revenge opportunity, would I make a good candidate for employment?

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

The OverTheRiver "baiters" won't bait very well, so it's a huge waste of resources. They'll only do that which is "trackable", which, by the way, the time a scammer emails victims is not. Scammers copy and paste and send them in bulk. Are you going to separate off-script replies from scripted replies? Who decides if they're off script? Are they hand judged by experts?

And: the minute you add money you invite corruption (faked emails from scammers).

What you're suggesting isn't at all plausible, for many reasons.

Edited to add: A few posts happened while I was posting. Excellent post, Big X. Thumbs up

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

Father Moleman wrote:

Businesses funding a non-profit organisation which aims to support the victims who were affected and lost everything because of the scammers would be a better idea than paying us to bait them.

There's a lot of ways to attack the problem, and I am sure that there are better ways to attack the problem than what I propose. But this isn't a zero sum game. It's not an either/or thing. If someone can convince businesses to donate to a non-profit that supports victims, then that's great and I am all for it. Personally I would rather be involved in an approach that tries to reduce the number of scams - rather than an approach that is designed to help people after they were already scammed. But that's just me.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:03 pm

Quote:

. If a scammer is writing an e-mail to you, then he's not writing one during that time to a real victim.

Copy and paste. Can be writing the same email to many, even BCC the same replies as in the case of refugees etc.

Talking on the phone... doing other things at the same time. I can multi task, I am sure a scammer can.

I like the idea of a fund for victim support and a little bit of restitution better. If you want to bait...do it. It isn't quantifiable.

I knit whilst online to romance scammers on Facebook.... how can this be calculated for payment.

Sorry, I think you are a long way away from having a ScamBaiting Callcentre.
For Loan lads press 1
Refugee Darlings press 2
Dying of Cancer press 3
and on and on.

Pie in the Sky my friend. Sorry but it will never in a million years work !

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:03 pm

I would love to know what corporation, individual, foundation or other entity would actually even consider paying baiters.

I have friends who write grant requests for their non-profits. It is a LOT of work and requires enormous amounts of documentation, and even at that only a tiny fraction of such requests are accepted. Can you give us even an outline of how your funding request would be presented?

Frankly, the entire premise is sheer nonsense.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

bware419ers wrote:

I would like to repeat this, as I never saw an answer.

If I'm a victim of a romance scam and have just lost my life savings, on the verge of losing my house and I hear about this get paid to take revenge opportunity, would I make a good candidate for employment?

I don't really understand the question. I assumes it was sarcastic. This isn't some "work from home" scheme, and it's not a "revenge opportunity".

So if you lost your life's savings and you are on the verge of losing your house because someone scammed you, then you should find a real job that pays real money so you can afford a roof over your head and food etcetera.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:06 pm

^^^ But isn't that what your scam baiting company would be offering its employees? After all, you're going to have to pay minimum wage plus all the normal benefits, so why shouldn't bware work for your company instead of in some other service industry?

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:07 pm

^ The point is that we do not encourage recent victims to bait, as their emotions can cloud their judgment and cause further harm to them.

Your proposed "Scambaiters, Inc" would have no way to screen for that.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 pm

No. Victims don't make good baiters and the lads are cleverer and can make them feel worse.

Money isn't the issue here. It's self esteem and sanity.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

Ima Baeder wrote:

The OverTheRiver "baiters" won't bait very well, so it's a huge waste of resources. They'll only do that which is "trackable", which, by the way, the time a scammer emails victims is not. Scammers copy and paste and send them in bulk. Are you going to separate off-script replies from scripted replies? Who decides if they're off script? Are they hand judged by experts?

And: the minute you add money you invite corruption (faked emails from scammers).

What you're suggesting isn't at all plausible, for many reasons.

I understand your skepticism, but the concerns you raise are not a problem. There's no script, or off script, and no judging.

I understand that everyone wants to poo-poo the idea (despite not understanding it). I get it. I haven't posted all the details of how it would work. I get that people want to tell me that it won't work for this and that reason, and that it's a bad idea for this and that reason. I get it. But I really didn't come here for moral support or technical support. I believe that I have a unique approach that could be one part of what I believe is a common effort to waste scammers time so that they have less time to spend with actual potential victims.

The problem that I face is convincing others that the whole idea of scambaiting is worth their time and money. They don't think it's a significant problem. Yes, they get that it's significant to those who are scammed, but they don't think it's all that common a problem. I suppose it's like trying to convince congress to fund research into some disease that very few people have. It's deadly to the people who have it, but unless some congressperson has a relative with the disease they may not see it as a priority.

In addition, even if there were some stats that I could show them to give them a sense of the magnitude of the problem, they would still be left with the question of whether scambaiting can have a real impact. Sure in theory it might, but it would be nice to have something more than that to point to.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:21 pm

scamstats wrote:

There's no script, or off script, and no judging.

Do you actually have a clue what a script is and the difference between a scammer being on script or off script?

scamstats wrote:

I understand that everyone wants to poo-poo the idea (despite not understanding it

We fully understand it, you just don't have a clue why it is the dumbest idea ever.

I'd go back to your business degree handbook to look for another idea that you can monetize if I was you.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

scamstats wrote:

I understand your skepticism, but the concerns you raise are not a problem. There's no script, or off script, and no judging.

Yes, they are a problem, based on your own description of being paid for scammer time wasted. And then of course, you still have the problem of corruption. I have not seen any explanation of how that would be addressed. That aside:

Quote:

The problem that I face is convincing others that the whole idea of scambaiting is worth their time and money.

The problem is bigger than that. You have yet to convince us of your idea, and we're already on the same side as you regarding how widespread and damaging the scamming is.

Quote:

In addition, even if there were some stats that I could show them to give them a sense of the magnitude of the problem, they would still be left with the question of whether scambaiting can have a real impact. Sure in theory it might, but it would be nice to have something more than that to point to.

We've explained as best we can, and you're still not understanding: It just can't be quantified the way you want it to be.
As I said earlier in the thread (and I understand you're trying to answer a lot of posts at once). The whole key is education. Can we stop the scammers? No. Can we prevent victims? Yes. THIS is where resources belong.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:26 pm

Then get awareness sponsored.

Get ads on every street corner and articles in every magazine and newspaper.

Flood the world with the messages that scamming exists.

If the market wasn't there for it, it wouldn't work. It can be almost stopped with awareness. For someone to read an email and recognise it as a scam. It only thrives because there are victims and baiting a handful would do no good to stop it in significent numbers.

To a lonely person, help them recognise the pretty words and know it's a scammer. That is what should be paid for.

Because people aren't aware. Victims feel stupid and worthless by their evil scammers so they don't talk about it.

They don't... but you could with your funding. That would be better use of money. That's what volunteers can't do as it costs too much.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

Big X wrote:

^ The point is that we do not encourage recent victims to bait, as their emotions can cloud their judgment and cause further harm to them.

I guess I didn't understand that question, let alone what it's point was. But what you say makes total sense.

Big X wrote:

Your proposed "Scambaiters, Inc" would have no way to screen for that.

The web site across the river would not be designed to encourage recent victims to scambait any more than this site is, but you are correct, there would be no way to "screen" for that possibility.[/quote]

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:29 pm

scamstats wrote:

The web site across the river would not be designed to encourage recent victims to scambait any more than this site is

Yes it would, you're offering them $$$. For someone who has just lost thousands to a scammer that's a big incentive to get paid to do it.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:29 pm

scamstats wrote:

Well, lets say that we have a way to measure how much of a specific scammer's time has been wasted by a specific scambaiter. We can then pay the scambaiter based on that measure.

Back in the first dot-com boom, I remember reading that one of the leading companies tried to pilot a "bug-finding bounty", in which their QA team received bonuses for identifying bugs.

What did this lead to? A grey market in which the programmers purposely inserted bugs in their programs and then "sold" the bugs to QA for a cut of the bounty.

So what's to stop a few enterprising employees from making an agreement where the bounty baiters are splitting their proceeds with fake lads and, in essence, everyone gets paid for playing on the internet?

Trophy Videos · Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:47 pm

OP, I think your uninformed ideas, exaggerations of your knowledge. and nebulous fictitious corporate sponsor ideas have wasted enough of our time, better spend actually helping victims and hurting lads.
You obviously have not spent the time yourself to read anything here, or anywhere else before posting your proposal here.

It's time for you to get off your soapbox, and if you really finally decide to approach anyone willing to donate anything to the "cause," I would push push push for Education on scammers. There is plenty in the media right now, but internet users need to know about scammers and how they work.
Corporations can spend money on supporting education efforts. This is the best weapon against scammers, prevention of scams.

I ask the mods to lock this topic, so we can get back to work.
Some of us have to try and get a scammer to shove a banana up his ass or go help a crying victim.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

@SH: I completely understand your frustration, but nothing is stopping you from getting back to work. Wink

Anyone who doesn't want to take time to answer his questions can ignore the thread.

No rules have been broken and the discussion has remained polite, so no need for us to lock the thread.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 28 Feb 2015 Posts: 22

TheLoneHaranguer wrote:

So what's to stop a few enterprising employees from making an agreement where the bounty baiters are splitting their proceeds with fake lads and, in essence, everyone gets paid for playing on the internet?

Yup, I know how hard it is to anticipate all the possible ways that someone might use a new tool or system or whatever. I understand the problem you have articulated. I can't go into the reasons why that particular possibly isn't a problem with the proposed system, but it's just not. There might well be other problems with it, but that's just not one of them.

I understand that people don't believe me. I understand that they think I am some newbie to this world and that I must be an idiot. I get it. I understand that they want to know EXACTLY what I am proposing and EXACTLY how it would work, etcetera. I get that.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:56 pm

Western Union is a common outlet used for scamming. They know full well that a proportion of transactions carried out through them are scams. If they were taken to court they would deny all corporate responsibility for these scams by stating that the victims were given enough warning before they wired the money, as they have posters in their stores and managers can block any transactions they perceive to be phony. The problem therein is that for a company like Western Union to appropriate funds for scambaiting, for them it would akin to admitting that they are part of the problem and play an equal role to the scammer in that they are allowing the transaction. So no company will give money to this otherwise they are admitting culpability for their part in the scams and this would leave them open to lawsuits from scam victims for allowing them to go ahead with the transfer.

scam stats and scambaiting stats	View next topic View previous topic