txt message fraud

DUTR

zagfles wrote: »

Get T-mobile to put a bar on premium rate texts.

Some networks like to bar data if premium rate services are barred from the account, I know Orange did .

23n1th

thegoodman sounds like an idiot. "You need to be careful with Android phones because it is open source." Judging from your posts you must be a regular victim of the iphones predictive text.

Being opensource is nothing to do with the issue. Firstly the issue is not with Android its with the Market and even then its really a user issue. If you're willing to install anything without looking at the permissions it requires it really is the users fault.

wantmemoney

starM wrote:

Hi, while using my phone I had a pop up on android battery saver and it looked interested and revews was good so I clicked on it to install it. The next minute I receive a txt message saying I have subscribed to 4 a month 2 SMSNow for u. To stop send a txt to 60054. I immediately cancelled it. I also checked my txt messages and it looks initial txt was sent from my phone to 60054 with a message Tips which made the subscription. I did not sent the txt but I think when I downloaded the batter saver it autamtically sent that message. That is a complete fraud. I have checked my Tmobile account and it shows 4.20 charge now. What should I do? Thanks

a commercial transaction whether over the phone or counter has to comply with UK Consumer Law and UK Criminal Law, what is described here does not

Buzby wrote:

ANY software downloaded has the potential to contain malware. This has been the case ever since dial-up internet with PC's when connections were hijacked and re-routed via premium rated numbers, all without the explicit permission of the owner, but he ended up paying the cost regardless, as it remains his responsibility to secure his connection and the costs that may incur.

yes and it's also his responsibility to 'secure' his house, but that doesn't mean the TV legally belongs to the burglar if he manages to gain entry and bloody well remove it.

DUTR

This is what the OP more than likely saw, I love the way he has not been back, but it is clear it is a link

Cash-Strapped.T32

thegoodman wrote: »

No apps dont go through the itune. You dont even need a itune to install apps. This can be done direct from the phones. It is called App Store. iTune is mainly used for music etc.

Have you used the iphone at all?

My fault - I was typing quickly while thinking about the structure of my reply & not the detail, I mixed my terms up - My points regarding the distro model of Apple software versus the free for all used by other systems was clearly lucid enough so you understood me - I apologise for not proof reading though, that *was* sillier than the OP in all truth.


As to me personally, I don't own an iPhone, I'm familiar with my bosses' phone having sorted a few user issues for him so I have only a rough working knowledge of it from a user's PoV though I've looked into the OS with a serious view to writing software for it in the past.

I use an android phone currently, have owned two in a row & before that spent a lot of time modding Windows Mobile 6.


The silly thing is, I'm not even knocking the iPhone as a system (if you count the OS, distro model etc..), it's just a commercially successful take at an "all-in" sort of system that encompasses hardware, OS and software distribution.

Other systems use different models, and I think it's important that we as a user base understand this & don't try to argue over points in the respective models/systems which really aren't meant to be compared.
Like the attitude toward malware prevention for example.

I would venture that Apple's iOS had a good deal of safety attached because of the sandbox that protects users from apps directly accessing the handsets functionality - none of which Android benefits from. This doesn't make the OS worse IMHO, just that anyone using the handset needs to take greater care.

Basically, I was saying this; But with a slightly wider view, looking at how the "sandbox" is made up.

thegoodman

I don't care what model the os is based on. Most customer don't care.
The android os is the newest, the user should not be able to install fraud software.
I don't expect users to do the work for google at their cost, the google will only pull out the software once number of complaints have been received. The other os can control or stop the virus software being installed without users doing the police work for them.
Why do android users have to spend money on fraud first and than try to claim it back?
Don't care if some of you think I am anti android or anything. The users should be protected from virus software and DO NOT EXPECT ANDROID USERS TO DO THE POLICE WORK FOR GOOGLE.

From the photo shown above I can see how android users are tricked into paying. It seem like battery upgrade is available when only purpose of the software is to charge.
How come other os apart from Android have found a way to stop this type of software being install?

If 1% users click on that thinking it is an upgrade, the company will make a lot of money.
No wonder dogy companies are targeting android phones more than any, it's a magnet for them

Guys_Dad

thegoodman wrote: »

Don't care if some of you think I am anti android or anything. The users should be protected from virus software and DO NOT EXPECT ANDROID USERS TO DO THE POLICE WORK FOR GOOGLE.

From the photo shown above I can see how android users are tricked into paying. It seem like battery upgrade is available when only purpose of the software is to charge.
How come other os apart from Android have found a way to stop this type of software being install?

Well, someone has to pay for this policing if it came in. Who? Google? And as they are not the Bank of England, then they would have to pass their costs on. Guess who to?

Before long, they would be as expensive as Apple.

Look, we live in a cyber world. As said, smartphones are a version of PCs and with all the cyberscams in the PC world, smartphone users need to apply the same self-protection as with PCs.

Having read this forum for a while, I am even more convinced that a significant number of smartphone users do not need them or know what they are actually exposing themselves to. Huge roaming bills, data charges out of bundle, scam texts and apps, woeful battery life when all they really need is the ability to make call, keep their contacts and exchange texts. All at a fraction of the monthly contract costs they pick up with smartphones. Contracts that become a millstone round their necks when their economic situation deteriorates.

As the Sgt said in my favourite TV show, Hill Street Blues, "Hey - let's be careful out there"

DUTR

thegoodman wrote: »

I don't care what model the os is based on. Most customer don't care.
The android os is the newest, the user should not be able to install fraud software.
I don't expect users to do the work for google at their cost, the google will only pull out the software once number of complaints have been received. The other os can control or stop the virus software being installed without users doing the police work for them.
Why do android users have to spend money on fraud first and than try to claim it back?
Don't care if some of you think I am anti android or anything. The users should be protected from virus software and DO NOT EXPECT ANDROID USERS TO DO THE POLICE WORK FOR GOOGLE.

From the photo shown above I can see how android users are tricked into paying. It seem like battery upgrade is available when only purpose of the software is to charge.
How come other os apart from Android have found a way to stop this type of software being install?

If 1% users click on that thinking it is an upgrade, the company will make a lot of money.
No wonder dogy companies are targeting android phones more than any, it's a magnet for them

This is the same app on the ipod touch, as you may choose to ignore the advertising banner is the same



which negates your point on many counts, I stand by the OP acted unwisely to click on the advertising link, even if he had an iphone the same thing would have happened.

thegoodman

DUTR wrote: »

This is the same app on the ipod touch, as you may choose to ignore the advertising banner is the same



which negates your point on many counts, I stand by the OP acted unwisely to click on the advertising link, even if he had an iphone the same thing would have happened.

Please stop making things up to make the android look as safe as others. On the iPhone it would not have happen as either the advert need to install the app or gain access to the text service. The iPhone will stop both being done. That's why you don't hear this type fraud on iPhones. The blackberry, Nokia and windows phone also have the same process as iPhones. You do not see the battery app on iPod, do you?

I can understand your feeling for android phones and how you have been trying to make each and every negative point into something positive but don't start making things up.

All phones have goog and bad points, it's just that the fraud can be done just by a one click and the customer is down by just under £5.0 is not good for android or google, mainly when other os can stop this kind of things happening to their users.

DUTR

thegoodman wrote: »

Please stop making things up to make the android look as safe as others. On the iPhone it would not have happen as either the advert need to install the app or gain access to the text service. The iPhone will stop both being done. That's why you don't hear this type fraud on iPhones. The blackberry, Nokia and windows phone also have the same process as iPhones.
I can understand your feeling for android phones and how you have been trying to support each and every hold such as virus

Nothing made up, both are banners which the OP clicked, they are often on free apps.
Earlier you mentioned I did not have an apple product, I have android and symbian too, seems you have egg on your face now