Month: June 2020

Warning from FCC regarding scammers

Oh wow! I am amazed at how sophisticated the scammers have become. Faking the caller id to match the actual business they are pretending to be and then taking control of the unsuspecting scammee’s accounts, phone, etc. Some of these scams are just too well done to believe.

So, I will repeat some of the advice offered by an FCC representative who put on a small seminar on how to avoid or survive the current family of scams and scammers. First, if someone calls you and identifies themselves as being from a particular agency or business, hang up on them. If you feel there is reason to believe the call was valid, look up the published number for that agency or business, call that number and inquire about any issues. I can not stress this strongly enough, there is no way to know where an incoming call has actually come from and you simply can NOT trust that the call is in your best interest. Once again, hang up, do not provide the caller with ANY information.

As another repeat, Microsoft does not have any teams or facilities to call computer or device owners to alert them of any issues. You will never receive a phone call from Microsoft, any calls that seem to be from Microsoft are a SCAM.if you do become aware of a phone-based scam, or heaven forbid get involved in one, the FCC would like to know about it; your local law enforcement may want to know about it also. The FCC has a customer portal available through www.fcc.gov (https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us) where you can make a report with any information you may have.

The FCC has several facilities to assist you in identifying or dealing with scams and scammers (start at www.fcc.gov). In addition, they are in the process of making new rules to assist in scam prevention and (hopefully) prosecution. Additional information about FCC activities follows: The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau is seeking comments for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the one-ring scam. Comments are due June 19, 2020. Reply Comments are due on or before July 6, 2020. More information is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/cgb-announces-comment-dates-one-ring-scam-nprm.Chairman Ajit Pai’s May 18, 2020 blog regarding the digital divide is available at https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2020/05/18/bread-and-butter.The fifth meeting of the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council VII (CSRIC VII) will meet electronically on June 10, 2020. More information is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-csric-vii-meeting-june-10-be-held-electronically.The FCC has partnered with the Institute of Museum And Library Services to address the digital divide during COVID-19 by working together to keep libraries and their communities connected.

More information is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-imls-partner-support-libraries-and-address-digital-divide. The FCC and the Federal Trade Commission demand that robocall-enabling service providers cut off from routing COVID-19 related international scammers. These scams include COVID-19 related funds, loan reductions, and social security threats. Gateway providers who do not cut off this kind of traffic face serious consequences. More information is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-ftc-demand-robocall-enabling-service-providers-cut-scammers.Please be careful and remember to never give out your social security number, account passwords, or other critical access information over the phone.

Sudden Jeopardy for Social Networking users?

I wonder how many people appreciate what happens when you post something on social media. Doing so is publishing that information. Yes, you can restrict the audience (in general terms) by carefully setting and managing your privacy settings. I read through a change in privacy policy recently tagged from Facebook and noticed one glaring change; photographs are now considered the property of Facebook when they are stored on Facebook (in a post or on your personal page).

I have long been concerned that someone would pull the rug out from under the various protections we as users (publishers) on social media have (perhaps inappropriately) enjoyed. A 1996 law that essentially holds publishers, social media system operators, Internet service providers, and portal providers (those who make internet cafe machines available) harmless for the content published on social media. My notion of the worst-case situation here is that everything ever posted (and not permanently deleted) would suddenly be exposed to a plethora of legal challenges from both law enforcement and civil opposition.

It now appears that the Whitehouse is going to test its ability to modify laws once again by altering those protections through Presidential action to modify “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act”. Now that act may not have been aimed at protecting the true authors of memes and other posts; but, it has certainly protected the services (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and allowed the posting public to assert or state most anything one might imagine with little to no expectation of reprisal.Waking up one morning and learning that you need to be more circumspect in your posts is one thing, and frankly, I have no issue with this becoming the case; but, suddenly being liable (no coincidence in my choice of words here) for everything you have ever posted, is a very different can of worms and one we are likely to face very soon.

So, to my way of thinking, two threats to our long-standing practices on social media; one, photos we upload may get used in a manner not in keeping with our privacy settings and two, we may all suddenly be held accountable civilly and legally for all content we have posted over the years.