Glitterbomb vs scammers - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 11:14:25 am
content: I just watched this new video from Mark Rober, the glitterbomb package guy. This time he takes on these bastard scammers. Good job for everyone involved!

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 02:12:39 pm
content: Hehe I love his videos... lowlifes having a bad day at the 'office'!

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 03:03:34 pm
content: For a service you can actually use, check out the jollyrogertelephone.comSome of the examples shown are beyond hilarious.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 03:04:43 pm
content: Saw that yesterday,great vidieo pity he can't put semtex in them and get rid of the scammer scum for good.

author: richard.cs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 07:35:54 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on March 19, 2021, 03:04:43 pmI guess you missed the bit about 1/3 of the way through where a totally innocent person got glittered. Semtex is more... permanent.Edit:spelling

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 09:10:02 pm
content: The video is great, but the solution is not going to be awareness.The telephone system needs a complete overhaul, caller ID is meaningless. Or at the very least some small fee to route calls. Just high enough to discourage scammers from making 500,000 robo calls.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 09:32:07 pm
content: I would settle for a caller-ID flag that the number is spoofed. When I’m uncertain on a missed call, the number is inevitably out of service.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2021, 09:56:27 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 19, 2021, 09:10:02 pmYes, an overhaul of the phone and email system might help, but what needs to be mostly overhauled is peoples mentality.This is just a variation of the problem, scams of various sorts - especially against the elderly - have been around forever. This is just the latest variation, exploiting a mix of good intentions, trying to see the best in people, a misunderstanding of the way the world works these days and a lack of technical knowledge.A broader solution or at least mitigation is:- awareness and education to those most at risk- exemplary punishments to people who do this kind of shit in any way, shape or form

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2021, 03:22:42 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 19, 2021, 09:10:02 pmI disagree, well in part. More than just those actions, the Federal and State authorities need to start treating these scams like any other mafia style organized crime and bust them under the RICO Act, and also starting charging everyone involved with Federal income tax evasion like they did with Al Capone. Al was sentenced to 11 years in Federal prison in 1931solelyfor Income Tax Evasion. The first time that a mule got put into Federal Prison for 10+ years it would send a loud and clear message to everyone else in these rackets. Since they're making calls internationally and interstate and the mules are traveling state to state to pick up packages, the Feds would have clear jurisdiction. Wire fraud, banking fraud, money laundering, postal fraud and other Federal charges would also be applicable.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2021, 12:12:58 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 20, 2021, 03:22:42 amSomething could be done, but the mules are not making enough to be required to file income tax and the courts lack jurisdiction over the people making the calls who do so outside of the country. If they are making enough, then they could just file for income tax.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2021, 05:04:34 pm
content: The US government could put pressure on India to clamp down on the scammers on their home turf.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 12:21:28 am
content: It's the wrong approach - no country wants another pushing them around. Whether it's fentanyl manufacturing in china, scammers in India or Nigeria, cartels in Mexico.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 03:22:03 am
content: [quote author=David Hess link=topic=274214.msg3522882#msg3522882Something could be done, but the mules are not making enough to be required to file income tax and the courts lack jurisdiction over the people making the calls who do so outside of the country. If they are making enough, then they could just file for income tax.What is the maximum income someone can make before they arerequiredto file an income tax statement in the US? Not before they are required to PAY taxes but to make a written, legal declaration of their income to the IRS.Do the math, the mule in the video said that she was making $75 to $100 per package and doing up to seven packages a day. That's at least $525 per day. Even if she only works 100 days of the year that's still $52,500. And that's on top of any other income that she has. And you also need to consider state, and in some areas, local income tax reporting requirements.Actually, curiosity got the better of me so I went and looked and here is the answer:"In the year 2018, the maximum earning before paying taxes for a single person under the age of 65 was $12,000.""If they are making enough, then they could just file for income tax."Yeah, so could drug dealers. Do you want to make a bet as to how of them report their income to the IRS?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 01:52:18 pm
content: It's actually illegal to not declare illegally gained earnings to the IRS.So if you're dealing illegal drugs and get caught, not only will the courts hang you out to dry, but the IRS will want the taxes legally due, on your illegal income.And you can't even expense the fines!

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 02:13:22 pm
content: QuoteBut if your only income is from illegal activities how can the tax man get paid,as the only money you have is raised from illegal activities ,so the tax man would also be benefiting from illegal activities

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 07:29:27 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 22, 2021, 02:13:22 pmUnlike the rest of us, the tax man is allowed to f*k anyone and anything, at any time!

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 08:28:14 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 22, 2021, 03:22:03 amMost do not but they are small time compared to the ones which do. While illegal income counts as taxable income, there is no requirement to identify that the income is illegal when filing for taxes. It has to be this way because of the 5th amendment which protects against self incrimination.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 09:04:54 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on March 20, 2021, 03:22:42 amHow about we do all these things? No single one of them is going to fix the problem. Caller ID should need to be authenticated to an individual or corporation's true ID, and it should be trivial to block all non-authenticated calls so they don't even ring the phone or go to voicemail. At the same time we could aggressively go after scammers legally.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 09:25:49 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on March 19, 2021, 09:56:27 pmYou aren't going to change 80yr old granny's mentality, their brain is just too old. Its hard enough changing opinions of 30-50 year olds as it is.Quote from: Stray Electron on March 20, 2021, 03:22:42 amPutting someone in federal prison for 10yrs over making $100 is wild. IF they were the ones orchestrating the entire scam, and kept the full $10k+, sure, but they are not. You'll find an endless stream of mules willing to do this kind of work, nothing will happen targeting those kind of people.I struggle to see how its not exactly the same as targeting low level drug users or dealers. Which seems to be a waste of money to me: "47% of federal prisoners serving time in September 2016 (the most recent date for which data are available) were convicted of a drug offense.".https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/drugfacts_nationtrends_6_15.pdf

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 10:00:06 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 22, 2021, 09:25:49 pmSo what are you going to do... just let them run loose to sell drugs to your kids? I can see legalising some drugs is a partial solution (with its own set of problems), but how do you legalise scamming?

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 10:35:10 pm
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 22, 2021, 10:00:06 pmI wouldn't legalize scamming, no. I don't have a simple solution for you, other than whats been mentioned: reduce calls coming in via technological means.You could require banks to ask anyone withdrawing more than $10k cash what its for, lecture them about scams. But then "ma freedoms". Not to mention, Walmart/etc store employees are already heavily warning anyone who tries to buy large amounts of iTunes cards, and it rarely has an impact. Although they keep trying:https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2020/12/new-toolkit-retailers-help-stop-gift-card-scams

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2021, 10:53:27 pm
content: QuoteThe alternative to legally persecuting scammers is legallynotpersecuting scammers. Which is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned. You may as well feed your grandpa to the wolves.edit: As to nothing happening, well, I disagree. Sure, some people will continue, but many won't.QuoteWhat's wrong with persecuting drug dealers? They are the scum of the Earth, knowingly causing wholesale misery by means of distributing awful illegal shit.QuoteReduction of calls is all well and good, but there are other non-call methods available and commonly done, ranging from simple cons to fairly complex gray areas, where elderly people arenotherded, but ratherinvitedto an event and they are not forced to buy the awesome and obscenely expensive set of pots, but surely they only want only what's best for their grandchildren, right? With a paper invite bulk delivered to an old folks house mail box.I know I may have a simplistic view of the world, but I simply find a vision of the world where my grandma, who's never in her life done anything but be nice to people, will find herself scammed out of her life savings or even her flat due to some dick randomly picking her phone number appalling. I have no sympathy for that sort of scum.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 12:47:04 am
content: I don't think that suspending the rule of law for anything less than grievous bodily harm is a great idea. For some people, that just gives them a green light. Surely we have all met that type at some point?

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 01:14:11 am
content: Quote from: daqq on March 22, 2021, 10:53:27 pmI think the question is really whether to arrest them immediately and throw them in jail, which will just have the scammer move on to the next desperate mule but the return of a couple victims' money, or allow the crime to occur in the hopes of catching someone higher up and having a much greater positive impact on victims overall. The former will have little impact on the scammers as a whole, but put a bunch of low-level employees who know nothing into probation on petty sentences. The latter requires hard police work and the acceptance that you'll need to let some crime slide in the hopes of catching the bigger fish, which might ultimately fail.See HBOs The Wire.QuoteThe problem is targetinglow leveldrug dealers, who have virtually no connection to the organization and are more or less disposable. You inflate the prison population while having effectively zero effect on the availability of drugs or the profit of drug dealers. Similar situation here. The mules are disposable and don't know enough about the organization to be a problem for them. Arresting them will have very little impact.With these scammers, the cross-jurisdictional nature doesn't help, nor does the anonymity on the Internet that the scammers themselves enjoy. It's a pretty intractable problem, IMO, but arresting the mules isn't going to be an effective counter.Scams have been around since the dawn of commerce, and naive old folks have been taken advantage of for approximately as long. There's not much point in wasting resources on counter strategies that are unlikely to be effective, IMO.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 04:16:25 am
content: Quote from: ve7xen on March 23, 2021, 01:14:11 amAre you saying "natural justice" is the way to go? That's the kind of thing that leads people to take the law into their own hands... I know of instances where miscreants were given rough justice because the "victim" didn't think it worth wasting time making police complaints, and preferred dealing with the problem in a more, ahem, direct fashion... - you get enough people thinking like that, and pretty soon you'll have your country ruled by the Mafia, who will take care of injustices in their own inimitable way....

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 08:03:51 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 23, 2021, 04:16:25 amI am saying that if all you do is arrest the first connected person you find and throw them in jail (or more likely community service), you're never going to have any effect on the root cause, the number of victims, or the people actually profiting from the scam/drugs. Doing anything meaningful to address the problem requires harder work, which most likely doesn't focus on finding low-level money mules who have plausible deniability and don't really know what they're even a part of. Poor people in America looking to make an easy buck aren't the problem here.People's need for vengeance is the root of many problems in society. I don't have any solution for that, but it's not very productive.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 08:50:32 am
content: Quote from: ve7xen on March 23, 2021, 08:03:51 amPoor people trying to make an easy buck aren't a problem. The problem is when they do so by means of participating in (organised) crime.As to not knowing what they are a part of... seriously? In what conceivable Universe is someone that dumb that they believe that there is a legitimate reason why someone would want them to:- Rent a room somewhere where they never actually go aside from receiving a package.- Receive a package there.- Give the cash contents of said package to someone else.- Get hundreds of USD for this service.No, they know very well that they are a part of something illegal and that at some point of the chain is someone being made to suffer. I'm not saying that they should be executed for said service, but at the very least a few months in prison or a hefty fine should be applied.And no, the argument "I'm poor so it's okay for me to steal from grannies." is not valid.

author: ve7xen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 09:20:37 am
content: Quote from: daqq on March 23, 2021, 08:50:32 amThe problem is the organized crime. There's no end of poor people trying to make an easy buck, and arresting an endless stream of them for delivering packages is not productive, you will never eliminate the tools of such organizations, at least without devolving into despotism. You need to strike at the head, or take away their means of profit (by protecting victims, for example).QuoteI didn't say that. I said they have plausible deniability, which is generally understood to mean they know what they are doing but evidence to prove it doesn't exist. They don't open the packages. They aren't doing anything illegal aside from under reporting income. Ergo, arresting them probably doesn't even lead to charges, let alone convictions. And even if it did, the person you caught is a disposable tool of the organization and will be easily replaced with another of the aforementioned endless stream.QuoteSure, but you will not solve this by arresting yet more poor people and throwing them in prison. Do you want solutions, or vengeance? Arresting low-level couriers isn't, and has never been, a solution to organized crime.QuoteOf course it's not, but you do get a lot fewer thieves when fewer people are poor. It doesn't make it okay, but if you care about reducing crime and not simply punishing criminals after the crime has occurred, it is a huge factor.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 02:09:31 pm
content: Quote from: ve7xen on March 23, 2021, 08:03:51 amIt is a part of the human condition... just like thieving. So, if you don't think it helps to do anything about low level thieves, you probably don't think it helps to do anything about vengeance either.I guess your position could be called fatalist?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 05:21:03 pm
content: You don't have to throw them in prison for 10 years, but ignoring low level thieves encourages them because it doesn't take very long for people to realize that there are no consequences to helping themselves to someone else's stuff so they keep doing it, and more people join them. The impact adds up too, maybe it doesn't create a big hardship when someone steals $50 from somebody, but multiply that by the 50-100 or more victims over time and all the ancillary costs like frustration and a feeling of insecurity and pretty soon it's a pretty serious impact to the community. A large enough number of minor crimes can have a cumulative impact as big as a major crime.

author: SilverSolder
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2021, 05:48:56 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on March 23, 2021, 05:21:03 pmExactly - it is like dealing with weeds sprouting in the garden - you know it is natural, you know they are only doing what they do, but you can't let it go or the whole thing will be overgrown before you know it.There is no need for disproportionate punishment. Often a severe talking to works. If it doesn't work, escalate from there.

author: aargee
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2021, 05:56:24 am
content: Apart from the moral conflagration that's going on in this thread, I do like the story and technical work to make it happen.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2021, 11:04:32 am
content: Quote from: SilverSolder on March 23, 2021, 05:48:56 pmI agree with these points. Coming from a country were enforcement on petty crimes was softened over the course of a decade, I can tell the end game is not pretty. Not only this emboldened criminals but, when it hig a specific ROI threshold, it enabled moving to more profitable businesses (drug trafficking) and better equipment (pistols, machine guns, grenades, etc.). Over the decades, this turned some of the major capital cities hostages of these paramilitary groups.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2021, 01:02:37 pm
content: What about make it legal to bait and trap thieves as long as it is done in a way that it would be unlikely to catch the innocent by mistake? For example, in a fenced off area, have a roll of bare copper wire or tubing that's connected to a high voltage power line in such a way that it's not obvious. Or even a radio jammer that automatically activates if stolen, if it's not already legal to own (but not operate) such a device.Perhaps a solution to fight drugs and other obviously illegal goods being sold would be to make it legal to sell fakes of such items. Basically crash the market by flooding it with fakes.