FTC takes down fake support scammers, upbeat about "getting consumers’ money back"

[Jack]

​

Fake support scammers are the people who phone you up out of the blue (whether you are on the Do Not Call register or not) and, not to mince words, scare you witless with a litany of lies about malware on your computer.

For $300 or thereabouts, the same price point as CryptoLocker, the scammers will fix your computer, but any "fix" you get is as honest as the "problem" you didn't have in the first place.

Many people have told me that these guys don't just call once if you fail to cough up the $300.

They often call again and again, with the calls getting more and more odious and insistent – outright threatening, by many accounts – and with no real hope that they will stop.

Dealing with the scam
It's easy to say, "But all you have to do is hang up, so this scam could never work."

But it's also easy to see how a well-meaning but not very technically savvy user, especially someone without a network of family or friends to ask for IT help, could be menaced into paying up.

Imagine the questions that worried users might ask themselves:

• Didn't the caller say he was from Microsoft?
• Didn't he say that a virus on my computer was attacking his company's servers?
• Didn't he find evidence of it in my system log, just as he predicted?
• Isn't most computer support done over the phone and online these days?
• Isn't this the third time he's called, with the symptoms getting worse every time?
• Can't you get sued for a cyberattack because you didn't have a virus scanner?
• Won't it end up costing $300 anyway, or even more, if I go to my local shop instead?

Demanding money with menaces is what it sounds like to me, alias standover, alias extortion alias blackmail.

And these guys have your phone number!

With that in mind, it's always a good result when fake support callers get brought to book, even if they end up with just a slap on the wrist, like Mohammed Khalid Jamil of Smart Support Guys out of Luton in the UK.

FTC takedown
So take heart from another small but positive outcome, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the USA: Uttam Saha and Tiya Bhattacharya, who ran a company called Pairsys in Albany, New York, have been shut down by court order.

That may not sound like much, because all that's happened is that they have to stop doing something that was dishonest, immoral and illegal anyway.

But in this case, the settlement with the FTC will see the scammers' operation shuttered and their assets frozen.

Indeed, Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said:

We are pleased that the court has shut down the company for now, and we look forward to getting consumers' money back in their pockets.

There's a lot of money to recover: the FTC claims that the pair have pulled in about $2,500,000 in the past two-and-a-half years.

Is it a real punishment?
Of course, just giving the money back isn't really a punishment for the crooks, because they weren't supposed to have it in the first place.

It's still a result for the FTC, however, so, "Well done, Bureau of Consumer Protection."

But it does raise the question, what do you think courts should do punish fake support scammers?


Read more:http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/201...beat-about-getting-consumers-money-back-poll/

 

[Cats-4_Owners-2]

Jack, thank you for sharing this article. Any occurrence of justice (criminals not getting away with crimes) is a positive force in increasing the level of awareness in relation to the vast ether which the internet has become in the minds of an ever growing populace that is also a world community. Penalties grant an awareness of validity to a crime that has been committed. This effects positive change in human awareness. There is an inhuman condition (we'll call it predatory) in the nature of crimes which victimize those whom are attempting to respond with non-combative actions. They (we) are falling into the classification of prey.
Imho, we should not allow distraction to impede justice. Rehabilitation is plausible only in a world where remorse, and even regret, are brought into the collective consciousness as the norm. A seemingly unrelated parallel can be illustrated by violations of laws which have restricted people from speaking or text messaging while driving. In an environment where police officers normally send text messages and make frequent cell phone calls while on duty, it is far less likely to cite individuals for this particular violation. Unless the disease can be treated, how can it begin to be stopped?? I voted "other" because as much as degrees of punishment can, and by all means should, mean something significant, unless we consistently prosecute and follow through with the unacceptability thus making the norm that of dispersing justice, only then will the punishment be allowed to enhance the recognition of real crime that is then isolated, contained, and quarantined, with very similar actions taken against the malware and viruses which disrupt a system. Now, ask yourselves how you feel about this?

 

[amz]

Compulsory repayment of victims + Punitive fines + Prison sentences

 

[Kate_L]

Compulsory repayment of victims + Punitive fines + Prison sentences + Community service

 

[jamescv7]

Very sad to say that old tactics still victimized by some users that haven't enough knowledge to determine.

Such this must be in life imprisonment without parole.