Nuisance Call Firm Keurboom Hit With Record Fine (bbc.com) 81
An anonymous reader writes: A cold-calling firm has been fined a record $515,000 by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for making almost 100 million nuisance calls. Keurboom Communications called people, sometimes at night, to see if they were eligible for road-accident or PPI compensation, the ICO said. It breached privacy laws by calling people without their consent. The company has since gone into liquidation but the ICO said it was committed to recovering the fine. It said it had received more than 1,000 complaints about automated calls from the Bedfordshire-registered company. The ICO said Keurboom Communications called some people repeatedly and during unsocial hours. It also hid its identity so that people would find it harder to complain. "The unprecedented scale of its campaign and Keurboom's failure to co-operate with our investigation has resulted in the largest fine issued by the Information Commissioner for nuisance calls," said Steve Eckersley, head of enforcement at the ICO.
Which they won't pay (Score:5, Insightful)
They will just abscond with their ill-gotten profits and form another company beyond the reach of the long arm of the law to continue raping and pillaging phone lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's called "sue the hand" - transfer the assets (what was liquidated) to another legal container and leave behind a shell without any assets to accrue the hits from regulators, plantiffs, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I should be dictator, at least for a few years, to fix problems like this. I'd make it so that you can't pull legal tricks like this, and I'd also make fines much more fair for the amount of damage caused. For this firm, I think $1 per call is appropriate. Since they made $100M calls, that's $100M dollars they need to pay. And under my rule, they won't be able to hide through legal tricks, and their owners and executives will all be personally liable for the fine. If they can't pay, they'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"sue the hand"
You can try, but the pimp hand is strong.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would of course be bankruptcy fraud, so you could prosecute and jail the CEO. Except it never happens...
And what is 5c/phone call anyway? They just file that as the cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:2)
They will just abscond with their ill-gotten profits and form another company beyond the reach of the long arm of the law to continue raping and pillaging phone lines.
That's why we should nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world is the figure given in dollars?
The standard unit of "value" in the world is the USD. TFA is from FastCompany, an American magazine. Slashdot is an American website. The ICO fine is in GBPs, but this story is being directed at an international audience, so stating the value in USD is normal and expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the standard unit of "value" in the world is not USD. It is true in some industries, but certainly not in telecom. Only deluded Americans can imagine that they are the centre (sic!) of capitalism.
But I agree: web pages pandering to a national audience without mentioning it are a pain.
Re: (Score:2)
Only deluded Americans can imagine that they are the centre (sic!) of capitalism.
Kudos on the use of the French spelling of "centre". That's very British of you. The legacy of the Norman Conquest lives on to this day.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is where the Libertarian ideal is a crock. It won't protect against exactly this behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have "Libertarian" confused with "anarchist". Libertarians see "keeping the peace" as part of the legitimate role of government, along with "fraud protection" which this also almost certainly runs afoul of.
But then, very few self-identify as Libertarian any more, except maybe for a few Randroids who can't let the label go. "Classic liberal" better captures the spirit that the first job of the government is to ensure individual liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
This level of evasion from responsibility is only possible because of the limited liability and lack of operational transparency granted to corporations by the government. Does the "Libertarian ideal" support the formation and defense of limited liability corporations by the government?
Genuinely curious...
Small Fine (Score:2)
$515,000 is not much for a large business (same as 5 telemarketing employees for a year approximately). Even if they do pay, it's unlikely to make a difference to their behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
where the hell is a telemarketing employee making $100K a year?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Telemarketers cost $103k each?!?
Even if you assume a burden of 100%, even $51.5k seems a bit high.
That is probably more like 10-15 employees employees with little more than a cubicle, computer, phone, and some basic benefits. $15 an hour ($30k per year). Maybe $35k-$45k per year.
Re: (Score:3)
$15 an hour ($30k per year). Maybe $35k-$45k per year.
Most of the telemarketers I talk to have distinct South Asian or Filipino accents. I sometimes ask where they are located, and occasionally they open up and talk about that. Most are from southern India. The Filipinos are usually in or near Manila.
I doubt if they are making anywhere close to $15 per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they do pay, it's unlikely to make a difference to their behavior.
Agreed. $515,000 / 100,000,000 calls is about a half cent per call.
On a global market, cheap telemarketers are around 50 cents per call, or more expensive billed on a per-minute basis for longer calls; more again if you don't use the global market and focus locally instead.
The fine won't make any difference to the company. It may sting slightly to pay it, but the practice will continue.
Re: (Score:2)
On a global market, cheap telemarketers are around 50 cents per cal
Whoa. Your math is way off. These are ROBO-calls. Maybe 1-2% of the people called "Press 1 to speak to an operator". So most of these calls cost them nothing.
Important note: You should ALWAYS press "1" when you get a robo-call. Then put the phone on hold, or, even better, spend a few minutes pretending to be interested, and then put them on hold while you "go get your credit card". If every call goes to a human their business model no longer works.
Re: (Score:3)
I wrote a voice script that would do this very thing: play a "Hello?" announcement, say "Yes" and "Uh huh." every so often. It was fun to eavesdrop on the drone on the other end going along with it for 30-60 seconds before realizing how much time he had wasted. Great fun was had by all.
Of course, pressing 1 is equivalent to replying to junk mail so you are now marked as a valid "mark" and will no doubt receive more such robocalls. May God have mercy on your soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Never say "yes." They will record that, and alter the recording so that you said "yes" to agree to their offer.
Bullcrap. A nameless voice on a phone is not a court enforceable contract. Absolutely no way. And a call center in Mumbai does not have write access to anyone's credit report.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, i read it (Score:3)
Pathetic (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So 100 million calls costs 400k? That sounds like a competitive rate. Far from being a deterrent its also a guarantee they can't be sued from once they are fined. 2 for the price of 1.
Thats 0.4 pence a call. If they made A 20 quid in every 5000 calls, it's break even.
I'm of the mind where nuisance calls should attract a minimum fine of 1 pound per alleged call (alleged, not proven).
Re: (Score:2)
(alleged, not proven)
I allege that you made 10 million nuisance calls. I can't prove it? So what? Pay up.
Punishing people based on unproven allegations is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Unforgeable Caller ID (Score:5, Interesting)
I repeat my call for unforgeable Caller ID. If the Telco can't verify the actual caller phone number and identity, it should present "untrusted" or some words to that effect.
The argument 'this can't be done' doesn't sound credible to me, it implies the Phone Company doesn't know who to bill. Yes, this could be a significant change to Telco switches. But they've been facilitating these kinds of frauds for way too long.
This will not stop nuisance calls, but it will make it MUCH EASIER to block or ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, here.
Telecom companies are self-dealing here, wanting to sell SIP services badly and not wanting to deal with another layer of compliance to see if customers are actually passing numbers they control.
It has to be made some kind of law, which of course will piss off a number people, especially in industries tightly tied to call centers who want to pass numbers out to put up appearances of being the company in question when actually they're vendors, suppliers or contractors.
I don't understand why Apple
Re: (Score:2)
What would Apple/Google use for that privacy feature? We -know- Caller ID numbers are forged all the time. Is there some other signature that comes with the incoming call?
Re: (Score:2)
Hiya app does this. People can report a number as "bad" and it is blocked on all other users of that app. Works fantastic.
Re:Unforgeable Caller ID - aka "ANI/ALI" (Score:2, Informative)
Enhanced 911 refers to the ability of the 911 Communications Center to receive Automatic Number Identification and Automatic Location Identification also known as (ANI/ALI). Enhanced 911 Centers employ technology far beyond that available to the general public such as “Caller ID”. In fact even if you have an unlisted number or caller ID block, when you call 911 we still get your information.
Re: (Score:2)
I would still think it would be generally useful. When was the last time you got a call on a forged number that matched a known number of someone you call regularly, especially a private party?
I don't think it's ever happened to me. My spam calls are always unknown or out of state, although there has been an uptick lately in calls that use a new technique of forging numbers in my same exchange/prefix.
But generally being able to send a unique voice message to unknown callers would be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
I once got called where the Caller ID was -my own number-, and I'm not the only person this has happened to.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for it. I constantly get numbers within my own area code that are not assigned to the company that is calling me. Sometimes I would call them back and the person on the other side would tell me I have the wrong number and that they never called me in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
SS7 provides practically NO (ZERO) security, that's why incumbent telcos guard it like hawks. That would be the only way to verify the origination of a call.
With SIP anybody can generate calls originating from anywhere so it's a free-for-all. Unless the SIP gateway provider filters these out (some do, some don't) then calls can show up from the White House for that matter. (But who in his right mind would answer THOSE?)
Meanwhile, the stakeholders such as the stodgy old telcos and politicians/regulators sit
Re: (Score:2)
On my Note 5 you can block unknown or anonymous calls though!
Can't do it on my Moto G even with Lineage OS, unless I install Mr. Number or similar.
Re: (Score:1)
There already is (mostly) unforgeable Caller ID for billing. It's called ANI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number_identification [wikipedia.org]
Unless you have direct digital access to a phone switch or a toll-free phone number, you likely are not capable of receiving it though.
Re: (Score:1)
If you can get an ISDN line. I'm pretty certain that Verizon has stopped taking orders for ISDN. I'm sure other telcos are doing the same. Just no demand for such ancient technology anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
You missed the part where "I'm sure other telcos are the same". BT is phasing out ISDN as well. So there. ISDN is on its way out, has been for over a decade.
Go away, pedant.
Re: (Score:3)
Even as a small company I've got 4 voip transit providers. Requiring that you have a DID with a given provider is broken. It really does not matter these shops switch providers often to get out of paying bills or just escape the backlash from their calls. Even when they get a DID it's a few cents they use it and throw it away once it gets blocked by google etc and move onto the next one.
Watching for these patterns is easy but they are making money allowing the calls. A quick criminal penalty for busines
Re: (Score:2)
But I think it's a significant start:
1. Once a DID is identified as coming from a scammer, propagating that information should be pretty easy (akin to the mechanisms now used for detecting and reporting malicious websites.)
2. This also provides an easier time for Do Not Call registries to 'follow the money'.
It's not sufficient to cure the problem, as you point out.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you get how business class phone systems work. My PBX gets has a set of rules to route any given call to several different providers for lowest cost calling. Inbound where I get my DID's is not often the same company that I'm calling out via. That's for a small company I've set up far more complex calling rules for modest-size companies. There is absolutely nothing that ties a given outbound call to any DID currently and implementing it means every PBX needs to be reprogramed many will have
Re: (Score:2)
If the Telco can't verify the actual caller phone number and identity, it should present "untrusted" or some words to that effect.
This is trivial. Step 1: find a fine point sharpie. Step 2: write "untrusted" on the caller ID display.
The argument 'this can't be done' doesn't sound credible to me, it implies the Phone Company doesn't know who to bill.
Of course your local phone company knows who to bill for any traffic: the phone company the incoming call comes from. The same company the bogus caller ID data is being given to them from.
Yes, this could be a significant change to Telco switches.
Yes, it would be a significant change. And all to no effect. The originating telco doesn't care and most likely isn't in the US anyway.
This will not stop nuisance calls, but it will make it MUCH EASIER to block or ignore them.
Sorry, but it will change nothing, and thus won't make anything easier.
An absolute joke (Score:1)
This is akin to punishing a bank robber by making them give back stolen money. Until the perpetrators of this constant, nation-wide harassment are given hefty jail times (or better yet, dragged into the street and beaten) the unending robocall plague will continue.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it is more like asking them to give back 5% of what they stole.
Not really punished: 5/1000 of a cent per call (Score:1)
That is more of a license or a tax than a real fine. Particularly when those whom made out can easily fold the company and likely not pay anything. Now theoretically there might be a criminal charge and they could go up the ladder and seize assets of those behind the company- but given the size of the fine its not really going to make a difference. They could easily pay that fine and setup shop all over again because its cheaper to do this cold calling stuff than any other type of advertising. Ever try Goog
Re: (Score:2)
That is not correct.
This is what you did wrong:
You divided 500,000 dollars by 100,000,000 calls and got 0.005 ___ per ___.
Your mistake was assuming that because you saw a fractional result that you were dealing with cents. That is not correct. Your unit is still dollars, so your result should be 0.005 _dollars_ per _call_.
That's 5/1000 of a dollar per call. To find cents, you'll need to multiply that result by 100. (Remember: dollars = cents/100; cents = dollars*100) That will give you the correct answer
Go After Their Clients? (Score:2)
If their violations were so obvious, what case can be made for going after their clients? I mean, sue the people who hired them to make the solicitation calls.
The whole "but we didn't know" excuse shouldn't hold water for a vendor that had numerous public complaints and bad press about illegal business practices.
If people really want to stop this practice, then take away the profitability.
Re: (Score:2)
This. There is precedent in the UK: that's how pirate radio was largely shut down.
Ummm (Score:1)
So they got fined $.005 or half a cent per call? Ya.. much bad fine... such deterrence... wow.
Math (Score:2)
$515,000 dollars / 100,000,000 calls = 0.515 pennies per call. A dinky surcharge to continue operations, wouldn't you say?
Compare that with this. [go.com] $675,000 dollars divided by 30 songs = $22,500 per song.
Finally solid proof that businesses aren't people. If they were the fines would be the comparable.
Fuck your fines (Score:3)
Arrest people.
Really wish an eye for an eye applied here (Score:3)