Keep getting home improvement scam calls. Decided to have a little fun with one of them.

I'm in a single party state, so not relevant to me. Also, across state lines (and presumably international), state law may not apply since Federal is single party. If they spoof a local number, you might have cause, since the expectation would be that only CA law applies.

Two of the links were truncated upon posting, a common problem of this board. Both "Simply Hired" and CraigsList LA are hosting similar job ads for telemarketers for "a full-service Home Improvement company" which display that supplied phone number. Upon careful scrutiny I was able to isolate the CL post by its numeric ID, the part displayed in this thread but left out of the broken link. The same marketing jobs page has many lookalike posts for yet more "home improvement" boiler room offers, which don't point to the same clip on Vimeo and could be a different fraud shop. I haven't examined "USA Jobs" for lack of time, but my doubts are allayed.

So far as the common phone number element and a phone sales campaign, Mark was being accurate. Whether the company named should be racked for TCPA and TSR violations, I can't tell from the surface. I don't think the lack of obvious verification was reason enough to blank his comment. I do agree that keeping the correct number thread empty is not helping.

The ability to record these phone calls would be great. Very good evidence for the judge to hear. If I understand you correctly FYI if a state with single party calls another state with both party, the state that is called has dominance. Calif's laws are usually designed to protect the criminals you see.

That may not necessarily be the case.  I have not researched this extensively, but this might help:  https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/20 ... TIONS-CHART.pdf

I also have another website, but cannot locate the link at the moment.

Quote:

So far as the common phone number element and a phone sales campaign, Mark was being accurate

.

I don't recall the exact wording of the post and since I have no way to view it in a ppma state, I can't go do any thorough research on each link and try to find evidence there is a scam connected with the mentioned Home Center and phone number. Simply posting an ad on various sites looking for employees is not unusual or suspicious. I did not find any other reports of anyone being called from that number nor did I find anything on the name during a quick search of them.

My recollection is it could have been someone posting about a scam attempted on them, but failed to post any details of the scam attempted on them, on other people or in the number thread where people would find it if they searched the number, but thought it important to post several links to employment advertisements.
OR it could be an unsatisfied customer doxing the company, assuming this was a Consumer Review site and posting would arouse suspicions.
OR it could have been an employee disguising it as a vague scam report to spam links to the job advertisements.
I merely pointed those possibilities out.

Quote:

I don't think the lack of obvious verification was reason enough to blank his comment

.

I put "doxing or advertising" in parenthesis because it could have been either. I guess someone else thought so too and blanked the post, as I have no such abilities.
I didn't see a reason to go dig deep into why that person posted with such vague information and figured if it was something meaningful to them, they would come back and post in the number thread to give more details.
Until that person returns to provide more indepth information, whether its blanked or visible, I don't see the value in it "as is". Researching above and beyond to validate such a vague posting didn't seem to warrant the dedication required of me, just to justify if it was a valid posting at the time, so I didn't. I'll still remain skeptical until its been clarified by the OP.

I agree with your musing on potential ulterior motives. Mark failed to show his homework, how he connects one promoted phone number in the job ads with an illegal call campaign, which for certain would not use that same number. Nonetheless, in the past I've found my own links between call center job posts and bad actors, prompting me to offer limited doubt benefits.

I made a copy of the thing when it was eleven minutes old and parked it for study today, sensing that someone would yank the post from view.

Recording consent is a topic I've revisited many times around here, and one of keen personal interest. Documentation permeates my career(s), my legal fights, and my advocacy as a caregiver. I've also seen cases where the state with the more restrictive law wins a court wrestling match. I also don't believe in absolutes. The people who most often scream "Wiretap Act" the loudest are the ones who have the most to lose from their recorded sins being exposed. Many times the crybabies are shut down by a finding regarding the intent of recording and/or the expectation of privacy among discussion participants.

Prior remarks, bearing links to yet more related remarks:
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-5a8c4f644edce82 ... 469557962503480
https://800notes.com/forum/ta-5a8c4f644edce82 ... 436830717374929

You're thinking maybe of the legal support group for journalists? It's a comprehensive and articulate resource to toss in even if I guessed wrong.
http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/introduction

Yes, this is it exactly. Be neat if a thread could be started on this recording topic?  I am trying to find an acceptable recording device with the proper "beep" insertion (Im in Calif) Inserting a "beep" into the conversation is apparently all that is needed to make it legal.

That was not the one that I had, but I will read it.  The one I had was put up by a similar group.

There are 50 states and there are 50 different sets of laws regarding the subject.  You would not only have to study the statutes, but also the common law set by the courts.  That would be way too extensive for a forum thread, not to mention all the people that would post nonsense in it as well as the trolls that would add to the noise.  In the end, any discussion would not benefit anyone.

} discussion would not benefit anyone
If so, why do we keep having one hither and yon in parts of number threads? I don't have a problem with opening a forum umbrella. This is something which cuts across every nuisance call category. When in doubt we can find resources we like which get granular on state law and refer to those. Otherwise there is value in study of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and appeals court decisions which broadly affect interested 800Notes readers. Too much of the chatter begins in a state of fear that "the Feds" are all sweaty to send us to jail for pressing a red "Record" button. A reference point could be useful, like it is with fake payday loan goons, Jamaican "one rings", bogus computer techs, et cetera.

If we're going to be shy to discuss thorny matters for fear that trolls will mount a hijack, we might as well have Admin hand over the house keys to them, so to speak.

Kinda my thoughts. I am not sure just how different the other states requirements are, other than single v both party notification. BigA put a link to a great site regarding the laws state to state.  800 notes is the best site for this type of sharing telescum information. I would like to see it progress from people just stating "I blocked the caller" to a good resource where we can discuss court cases, recordings etc. Just brainstorming. I don't want to hijack this thread.

Circling back on this topic. Played along and wanted a home improvement. Number was sold to a bunch of people (some of which I let know the lead was illegally acquired). One of the companies that responded said they got the lead via Modernize, 804 Congress Ave #400, Austin, TX 78701, and I got a call from them couple of days later.

Other places were E-Local and "Home Improvement Leads", so it's been shared some. In any case, I'm happy to let them all know my lead was illegally acquired, and if that damages the reputation of the companies, so be it. It's their responsibility to vet the leads, and if need be, break relationships with the bad actors using illegal methods. I'd love it if this makes them want to clean up their act.

Complaints forthcoming to the FTC for all the companies involved, hopefully with enough information that they can subpoena all the right places.

"Home Improvement Leads" is probably a dba for Modernize, Inc.