What does a recording of your input have to do with anything?
Many companies DO use that software. My power company (Wisconsin Public Utilities) does; my cable/internet/phone company (Charter) does. I find it maddening, since their software understands almost nothing I say, so I am encouraged to repeat it. Again. No response. Again. Then I realize it may be smart enough to understand a single word, “agent” if said once, followed by a long pause. But “Agent…agent…agent…agent” drives it crazy and it doesn’t understand anything. So I try to drive it crazy as soon as possible to make it give up and get me a human.
Non-monopolies – companies that really want your business and don’t want to alienate you – don’t use this kind of software, because people don’t like it.
The utility and cable companies aren’t trying to disguise the robot, because you have no choice but to work with them, but the scammers are trying to fool you, because they don’t want you to hang up without getting your money. That’s pretty much the only difference.
I have been collecting phrases the robots are trained to recognize. Usually it’s “yes” or “no” or numbers, but some of the scammers throw a little something else in the mix. Apparently some callees suspect the caller is a robot, and may say something like, “Are you a computer?” or “I think you’re a computer!”, so if the robot hears the word “computer,” you are likely to get a response like (and this is an actual transcript of several of my recordings) “Ha! No, I am not a computer; I just use one to help me.”
That would be like this kind of dialogue:
Callee: Are you a fraud?
Caller: No.
Callee: OK, then. I guess you’re not a fraud because if you were, you would say so, right?
None of the robo-callers that I get are that sophisticated. Either it’s the usual “There is no problem with your account” shit and you can tell it’s recorded because you can hear the recording start to play, or it just delays for a second while Ranjir Rip-off picks up and starts lying to me.
The only one I got that attempts to sound real is some voice actor ass-product who starts off in a gruesomely fake-cheery voice "Hi! How you doing?’ and then a pause. Not hard to recognize, and I had a few minutes to waste on pointless pretense, so I responded “Fine - I just got out of prison for murdering telemarketers” and the recording responded “Great!” So I knew it was legit.
I played along for a bit, telling the recording that my name was Zamphir, Master of the Pan Flute, but it turned out that I got the same canned responses no matter what I said so I got bored quickly and hung up.
The live person who tells me that he works for Windows and that my computer is infected is more fun to fuck with. I started a thread about it on the Dope once - I had him on the phone for about half an hour and he only wised up when I started reading him the warnings on a Google search about “the Windows phone scam”.
I have, for the most part, not directly answered my phone in 30 years.
Back in the day, I had an answering machine with the volume turned up. Everyone who knew me knew that I never answered the phone, just start leaving a message and if I’m there and able to, I’ll pick up. Or I’ll go through my caller ID (when that became available) every now and then and see that you had called (but be less likely to call back if you did not leave a message, as clearly the call wasn’t important).
Now it’s voicemail and caller ID on my cellphone. If you’re in my contacts or if I know you’re calling, like the auto shop last week when I had my brakes done, I’ll answer. But the call from Florida during the same time period? Ignored it.
The Telephone is a Tool that exists for your convenience.
When it stops being convenient, stop using it.
I think you may have misread my sentence (quoted below); I was referring to the pre-recorded responses to what I said (‘my input’ meaning ‘what I said’), not to my input being recorded:
(I should have typed “pre-recorded” instead of “recorded”.)
Right, but the discussion was that the difference you mention is probably an expensive one, or all companies that use automated systems would use the ‘hard to tell from a human’ software instead of the ‘obviously using an automated system’ software. Even utility and cable companies would use the upgraded type if it weren’t expensive. (Their costs are not decreased when customers are disgusted by the clumsiness of the automated system, after all.)
That’s me, too. I don’t answer the phone unless I recognize the caller-ID as someone I want to talk to.
But I’m posting in this thread because the scammers DO sometimes leave a message–most recently it was “you are about to be arrested, this is the Internal Revenue Services” or such.
What really annoyed me was that when I entered the number they said to call (which I did not call, of course) into Google search, I got a bunch of ‘phone number ID’ sites that said flat out it was a scammer’s number, and the scam was to pretend to be the IRS…which indicates this number has been in operation for long enough for a bunch of ID sites to have labeled it.
What on earth are the phone companies doing, selling phone service to someone who is THAT established as a scammer?!?!!?
(That’s a rhetorical question–I know what the phone companies are doing. They’re making a profit.)
I had that experience! I interrupted – it took a while for the recording to stop, and then the voice said, “How can I help you?” I asked “Are you a robot?” There was a pause, and then, almost exactly what you heard, the voice said, “Ha! No, I am not a robot.”
Recently, I got a call and asked, “Are you a real person.” She was, and said, “Yes, I am a live agent, but I am electronically limited to a script.” I said “Thank you,” and hung up.
I did that once, and the guy just bluffed on. “Your computer has signalled us with a security problem.”
Technically, that would have been true, assuming that the system uses a live actress to record all the phrases that will be entered into the system (to be spit out in response to whatever the caller may say). She was a live agent at the time she was recording that limited script full of phrases!
Here’s a robocall I recorded yesterday. Note that some words in the recording may offend some extremely sensitive people. The phone number on CID was "920 312-7008 (which might be fake), and the CID display said “CCI”.
This is a good example of a dynamic robo program. 100% of this (the caller) is computer generated. Note how the program handled various situations, and it has several “generic” responses if it doesn’t understand exactly what was said, but thinks there is still a sucker on the line.
Also note the rather long pauses between responses. The robo program was parsing the audio and trying to figure out the best response. With today’s technology, that takes a little time, as computers aren’t as fast as human brains just yet.
Here’s a transcript of the conversation:
1 According to this site, the caller is number 38 on the list of the “world’s worst charities”. Only 6% of the money received goes to the cause they represent; 94% goes to the scammers who make the misleading phone calls.
2 It also means a lot to the telemarketers. How are they going to pay for their yachts and multiple Mercedes’?
3 In my infinite wisdom as a computer program, I just detected an anomaly. Are you mocking me? If so, can I reach into your wallet anyway?
4 This is what’s known as “robo risability.” We robots are a fun bunch, y’bet!
5 My sisters are Carmen and Rachel. They sit in the next cubicle, and their racket is to convince credit card holders to pay for nonexistent services like interest rate reduction. We compete to see who can drain bank accounts the fastest.
6 Helping impoverished women with 6 cents of every dollar donated, a dubious amount of assistance. Helping the rich telemarketers with 94 cents, a much more generous contribution.
7 Sure, we could help. But we won’t. Our motto is, “making it look good is better than actually helping!”
8 Yeah, it’s that time of year, all right. Have pity on us. We need to pay for our luxury beachfront condos in Miami, and every million dollar helps!
I’ll remember that the next time they call. And they will, because they don’t give up. I wonder what the response will be? Do they have a planned retort to the detection of “KY” and/or “bend over” or will we just get the default error script, like “Have a nice day, buh-bye”?
Thanks for that, Musicat. I tend to think that the effort of documenting this stuff does real good–perhaps saving someone who might have been leaning toward believing it was legitimate from taking dollars out of the hands of genuine charities (by giving their money to the scammers, instead).
It would be interesting to know what proportion of the world’s adult, employed population is employed in scamming and fraud, in general. Certainly they (in all likelihood) find a way to feel good about what they are doing, whether it’s making the original recording used in calls, servicing the phone system, buying the lists of numbers to call, or any other of the scam-supporting tasks so essential to acquiring cash through deception.
Once I happened on a message board run by and for those who made their living as domain squatters–a line of work not entirely unlike phone scamming. (Neither is illegal, apparently, but both are pretty unscrupulous.) It was striking to note the strong strain of “what we do is a SERVICE that ultimately HELPS people” in all the discussions. I suppose the same would be true of message boards run by and for patent trolls, professional astroturfers and product shills, and other unsavory types.
I had that exact same phone call last week. And it was Maria. I was surprised by the opening line (which was exactly the same).
I thought something was off, and I finally agreed to give twenty bucks. Then I was transferred to “Sarah,” who wanted me to use a credit card, which I kept refusing to do. And “she” kept going back to her script. I could tell she was a bot.
Anyway–I said mail me the stuff, and that was a week ago. Nothing has arrived in the mail.
So, either they were really collecting for that company, or were scamming for credit card numbers.
I suspect “Sarah” was a real person, but only slightly more flexible than “Maria.” After all, if “Maria” was capable of accepting credit card numbers, why hand off to another bot?
With the state of computer art as it exists today, a real person is needed in the loop somewhere as closer, but it’s a low-paying, probably overseas job, so don’t expect much beyond reading a script.
Remember that the anticipated target is a generous, elderly, retired person, perhaps lonely, certainly clueless, with too much money, a good heart, and not enough skepticism. If the first voice sounds robotic-American, the second voice can be Indian without arousing much suspicion.
If you want to challenge the system, try asking for IRS form 990, the mandatory disclosure form for all charities in the USA. Legitimate charities will not hesitate to provide it immediately, by email, fax, or mail. Non-legitimate charities will absolutely refuse, give an excuse, or promise what they will never deliver. Anyone looking at a 990 can see, without being a CPA, how fraudulent the outfit is. And it’s doubtful that many solicitors ever file the 990 anyway.
Never give ANYTHING to ANYONE without seeing the form 990 first!
