Miscellaneous desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 20

Caribbean phone scams

I quote Area code 876, for phone numbers in Jamaica:

The 876 area code has been linked to a form of telephone fraud known as the "one ring scam". The person perpetuating the scam calls the victim via a robodialer or similar means, sometimes at odd hours of the night, then hangs up when the phone is answered with the hope that they will be curious enough to call the number back. When the victim does this, an automatic $19.95 international call fee is charged to their account, as well as $9.00/min thereafter. Similar scams have been linked to Grenada (area code 473), Antigua (area code 268), the Dominican Republic (area code 809) and the British Virgin Islands (area code 284)

I can understand someone performing this kind of fraud with a 900 number, but the description for the Caribbean numbers says nothing about fees except for stuff that would be kept by the phone company. Phone companies presumably wouldn't be engaging in this (it would be a legal and PR nightmare); why would anyone else engage in such a scam? You don't use autodialers if you're just out to have fun at someone else's expense. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the FCC's article on the subject, but it doesn't really explain how the scammers (as opposed to the phone company) make money from it. I'd be interested to know myself. Tevildo (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage in Premium-rate telephone number#Using international-rate calls as premium-rate numbers.There's some more discussion here [1] [2] [3]. International Revenue Sharing Fraud seems to be the common name. More commonly it refers to cases when the person paying the bill doesn't even make the call, but instead a hacked phone system, hacked computer (in the past when people had dialup modems connected to phone lines nowadays possibly if someone has Skyper or some other VoIP software installed which allows outgoing calls except that often these are prepaid and may disable calls to such destinations by default), hacked SIP or VoIP device (well technically a phone system but the point is it doesn't have to be a fancy business one), stolen or hack mobile phone etc etc. However tricking someone into dialing an expensive international destination is basically the same thing (in terms of how money is made, even if not the amounts and requiring a destination where the trick is likely to work). BTW I suspect our article cited above needs to be revised since I fairly doubt there is a fee that every single US provider charges. However wholesale rates probably means it's always higher than a certain amount. (Also what about Canada and Mexico.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage in 809 scam mentioned in our Phone fraud article. There is also Wangiri but it doesn't discuss the money aspect. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scam may work like this: The unwitting caller is greeted with an advertisement for some company that the scammer has contracted with. The more calls that the scammer can entice unwitting callers to make, the more he can point to a bigger 'audience' for the advertisement and the more $$ he can demand from the client. And because he's running this as a business, all of the enticement calls he makes are tax deductible. Akld guy (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Heavily edited to make clearer what I meant. Akld guy (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like the phone company is running the scam - they convince you that you have flat rate calling to numbers anywhere in the country, but then it turns out there are a bazillion unannounced ways that simply punching in the wrong number gets you hit with exorbitant charges. To blame these on isolated "scammers" rather than the companies that charge you the actual bill and set the actual policy that allows it seems a tremendous misdirection. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phone companies can hardly be blamed for customers' keying of the wrong digits. Akld guy (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be blamed for creating a confusing interface where people think they have to dial "011" for exceptional charges and they don't, or more specifically, for taking exceptional amounts of money under these confused circumstances. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked for NYTEL I can assure you this scam does exist, and the normal policy is to advise a customer never to call a long distance number they don't recognize, and that if a charge appears on their land-line bill, request that the local carrier remove the charge and advise the scamming company to bill separately, at which point they usually don't even bother. Read your bill, and call your rep! μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed "hat|collapse what might be construed as handy legal advice" put here by someone because this is not legal and not even advice, but a simple description of a company's practice by someone apparently in a position to know. It's not a conventional sort of reference but a reference it is and it can in fact be verified if desired by contacting NYTEL. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYTEL is now a subsidiary of Verizon, and it's against policy for reps to answer hypothetical questions--you need to have an account with an actual issue, otherwise you were referred to the legal or press department. So unless this happens to you, you are at best going to be told to call the legal department and leave a message, which will get you a form letter if you are not a customer.

The essential point is that if, say, you were to get a $500.00 bill from 1-900-SEX CALL (a made up example) you would be told in most cases that this charge was put on your land-line bill in good faith, but that you were allowed to ask the local carrier to remove the charge from the bill, and have the 1-(900) SEX-CALL company bill you separately, and then fight the charge in small claims court, without it affecting your home service.

The Jamaica-call-back scam is essentially the same thing, but it's much easier to fall for, since many North American phone numbers follow the US format 1-(XXX) XXX-XXXX, and they did not by law require toll calls to have a 900 area code, and in this case a record will appear that you did indeed call that number. μηδείς (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for @Wnt:'s accusation it's the "phone company", what it is is a type of fraud Cramming (fraud) made possible by the 1996 Telecommunications Act which allowed non-subscribed (neither chosen local or long distance carriers with whom you had to sign up when you ordered land-line service) to add "third party" charges to your account as a convenience to you. Blame Trent Lott and Bill Clinton. See also Bernard Ebbers and the WorldCom fraud, which drove the original AT&T into bankruptcy, allowing Bell South to buy the former blue-chip stock at 1¢/share, and hence, acquire then name AT&T. μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention practices may have changed. I know NJ just basically deregulated their portion of the state Bell system, and my information is regarding landlines in NY regulated as a utility under the Bell system. Other carriers like cable and cell companies, or Bell companies in other states, may operate totally differently. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is the same thing? As far as I can tell, the 809 scam is not an extra charge by a third party. It's simply the rate for calls to those destinations. It's charged by your provider but part or maybe most of the charge goes towards the termination rates. I know the US or maybe most of the NANP has slightly weird charging practices (compared to the rest of the world) but as far as I can tell, for international calls things still largely work the same (albeit with some historic imbalance in rates related to the fact it would normally be the foreign company who pays for the line to the US). As for the reason this arises, it seems to be due to the NANP which means multiple countries share one country code. Per sources like [4], law changes which have affected have actually been those cracking down on domestic abuse meaning a move towards such foreign services where the regulations are more complicated. Note that [5] seems to confirm the rates are exaggerated and extra charges added by your provider like international call fees will usually be reversed (do US providers really still charge international call fees rather than simply the destination rate?). Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources like [6] [7] [8] which do claim that some of these numbers aren't simply normal international numbers but international pay-per-call numbers. However I haven't been able to find any sources with any real info on this practice like the actual regulations. It would seem weird that the US would allows international pay-per-call services without much regulation but introduce stringent regulation for local ones but I guess the US is weird at times. As said in my first two replies above, scams simply involving regular international destinations are definitely common (with large estimates on the amounts involved) although often these rely on larger volumes especially by using hacked phone systems etc. And some sources definitely seem to imply some of the one ring and similar scams are indeed simply normal international calls e.g. [9] and those earlier. Our Telephone numbers in the Dominican Republic article suggests similar, notably this source it uses [10] is especially doubtful (as I admit am I still) that any of these calls are actually anything other than regular international calls. The source is also doubtful of the highly inflated figures touted for some historic scams although I believe μηδείς claims these figures to be true albeit is reluctant to provide info due to outing concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify one of Nil's points, it depends on the carrier. The most expensive calls using VZ LD were to Cuba, and they were never near $10/min. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can say is that if you are making a regular overseas call, the rate is much lower if you pre-subscribe with your long distance caller. For example, Verizon charges something like 99¢/min to Cuba if you have a monthly plan, or $1.99 if you don't. The issue is the law in the country of destination. If you want a hooker or a psychic in the US and are willing to pay an extra fee to a third party provider for the call, they have 60 seconds to advise you if you do not hang up now, you will be charged a toll for the call. If you spend 15 minutes with Miss Cleo, good luck getting your money back. But I cannot comment on the laws of Caribbean countries that use the US/Canada three digit area code system. All I can say is that if you get a charge from a third party on your local phone bill, you can ask your provider to remove the charge and let the other party bill you separately; in which you go to small claims court. CAVEAT SALUTOR17:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)μηδείς (talk)

I forgot to mention, that at least with NYTEL, one could simply ask that all pay-per-call services be blocked, That would stand up if one took the matter to small-claims court. 22:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Why don't toilets have better safety features?

There should be a drain above the bowl inlet which should be lowered slightly to make room. If that would make the bowl too hollow the floor should be sloped to keep feces water in the corner and that should be provided with a drain. What's the point of my bathroom sloping to the wall if there's no drain there? Corners aren't unfillable cornucopias of sink. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're in an old building with sagging floors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wonderful tool generally keeps the water away from the overflow drain and the floor. It's safe, if used properly. If it's not, it's not. You might also be interested in Penguin toilets. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some fine-looking floor drains here. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nasty stuff was already in the pipe so I was going to plunge it later. It was running for an hour. What if I rushed to a flight and it overflowed for weeks or months instead? (Note to self: check that it stopped filling) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an overflow drain. If I ever design a house I'm definitely putting one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a shutoff valve for the incoming water? That would be your quick-fix to stop the water flowing, and you would have to do the real work once you get back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the things you’re asking for are possible of course but you will have to periodically check to see that they are functioning properly. I mention that, because you appear to have two problems with your toilet which you have so far ignored. Had you just had a constantly flushing or blocked toilet there are already sufficient "safety features" to cope.--Ykraps (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black gay women

I'm trying to learn more about gay black women. Culturally, there seems to be very little reference about them. It's almost as if they don't exist but I'm going to be politically correct and assume there's as many of them as there are with white women.

Do traditional gay roles also apply to them? A lot of gay white women tend to fall into butch or femme and some make it more apparent than others. (Short cropped hair, tomboy) etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.167.111.172 (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are over a hundred gay black celebrity women. So they exist. Some short-haired, some long. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caste system

Under the caste system in India, where would modern technical occupations (like those of engineer, mechanic, scientist, technician, etc.) fit in -- would they be considered Kshatriyas, Vaishyas or Shudras? (Inspired by the question on the Science ref desk re. whether engineers count as scientists -- and also by the novel Metro-2033 (what, no article???), where the Polis has a caste system much like that of India.) 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro 2033? —Tamfang (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that one! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has been created. The hyphen is quite popular in Google's results. Tevildo (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your caste is determined by your birth. Traditionally, the caste into which you were born then determined the jobs you were able to do. It was not the job which determined the caste, but vice versa. With the more modern jobs you list, caste is not the determining factor - though it may play a role in whether someone gets the education they need for such jobs, and how easy they find it to actually get employment once qualified. Wymspen (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So let me rephrase the question: If the caste system had not been abolished, which caste(s) would have been eligible for these occupations? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The caste system has not (unfortunately) been abolished. The castes you list are for the religious varna system, while employment is usually based on the social jati system. Guessing what might have happened if the old work systems were still in place is impossible. Wymspen (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I take it that the answer is "there's no way to know"? Thanks anyway! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]