Processing Payments - ATM Card?

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: Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:39 am

It's not the same thing as writing your congressman. The congressman expects to receive and address letters from voters in his district. It is part of his job and he will have made arrangements to deal with constituents.

Law enforcement / security agencies, on the other hand, have major crimes and security issues to deal with. Sorting out packages received from people using fake names addressed to other people using fake names takes them away from handling their real responsibilities. And if it happens often enough, LE will get ticked at the baiting community as a whole for wasting their time. This will ultimately reduce the chances that baiters will be able to work with LE for arrests on the rare occasion it is really possible.

Contrary to what was suggested earlier, this practice also would not help with prosecution. It would actually make prosecution difficult to impossible. Even if the sender is the real scammer and they can track the name, without the supporting evidence of the scam, law enforcement wouldn't be able to prove that the scammer intended to commit a crime. The scammer can just as easily claim to be a victim who was trying to report a crime.

There is nothing wrong with reporting wrongdoing. But there is a proper way to do that, and diverting anonymous packages to LE is not it.

Baiting Guru Joined: 07 Jan 2007 Posts: 2788

People have pressured WU-but they are franchises and some may unwittingly employ the lads friends (or maybe even lads themselves) and some may even take a cut to make a lads life easier when it comes to making payments. Lads also pay people who don't scam but do have valid ID to collect payments. WU don't lose money when vics send money to lads in fact they make money-so where is the incentive for them to do anything above the bare minimum?

Bank employee's being better able to recognise fake cheques-most can and if it gets past them at some point it will be flagged as fake-so they are doing their job. However people want their money NOW so the banks advance them the money. If the cheque comes back as fake then the bank won't lose money-they'll come after you and if you can't pay they'll see you in court. All the while still getting paid by their insurers. So where is their incentive to do anymore than the bare minimum?

We have an annual budget for anti scam education? First i heard of it. Stuff like that imo should come from ISP's, email providers and computer makers-there should be mandatory warnings stuck on PC Towers, that come up on a screen when you first turn on a computer and when you sign up for an email account. But where is the incentive to do that?

Jaded-stick around and watch people lose their houses, family's, go to prison or even commit suicide (or get murdered by scammers), you'll get jaded-but then you'll also realise that what we do here is probably the best cost/benefit thing around and does actually make a difference (along with our sister site 'scamwarners').

Reporting wrongdoing is not as you put it 'unethical'-however there are, as people have mentioned, better ways of doing it other than just getting a lad to send your fakey cheque direct to A Baiter c/o FBI HQ Washington (not forgetting of course a lad probably wouldn't even send anything to an address like that-you'd be dropped PDQ).

Would i report it if my car got scratched-maybe, maybe not. Would it be figured into the crime stats-maybe, maybe not, i recall reading recently that police in the UK were/are under-reporting crimes so the figures look good-do you think my car scratch would get in there~me neither. Would the police's spending budget get adjusted incrementally-yeah right-that's why cops have been replaced by "Blunkett's Bobbies'. Crime rates rise and they go policing on the cheap.

Raising law enforcement agencies awareness-they are aware, they know it's a major problem-what else can you raise their awareness on. Oh Mr Meuller it was actually $4,243,985,500 and not $4,243,980,000 Mrs Jefferson's cheque was sent directly to our Atlanta office-but as no-one knew who it was for or why it was there it sat in the mail room for 8 months. Sorry.

As for paying their salary, i pay taxes-so i pay for every branch of govt-some of them spend their wages in Walmart in Seattle. So you could argue that no-one is a 'third party'. Again my definition...

Quote:

Did they ask for/or are they expecting the mail/package. If the answer is no then in my opinion they are an ITP.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7101 Location: Yes

I think we've had a mostly productive conversation here, and I'd like to politely suggest that we not re-hash the same points over and over.

@Delicious -- you have heard our answers. You can, of course, continue to quibble or disagree but you should not think that this position was taken by accident or without significant thought behind it. Indeed, we've had this discussion before over the years and covered these points before. We can't stop you from sending envelopes to whomever you see fit, but our position is not to do it for the reasons explained.

Elite Baiter Joined: 16 Jul 2008 Posts: 1407

Your new avatar is creepy JM.

Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:36 pm

@JM - ya, this has been enlightening for me, even if i dont agree completely on every point. i really wasnt planning on posting any more on the subject.

what did you all think of the story on "this american life"?

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:04 am

Deliciouspoison wrote:

Quote:

if they get enough scammers sending them fake checks and ATM cards, they might in fact eventually do something,

Do you really want to waste their time like that? A law enforcement agency? Sounds ill-advised at best.

Processing Payments - ATM Card?	View next topic View previous topic