SPAM SMS(es) .. how do u handle ?


Status
Not open for further replies.

AhV

Senior Member
Jun 10, 2004
2,141
0
36
Northland
#1
I quote

<REMINDER> Your Return Air Tickets to Phuket with 5D/ 4N Luxurious Accomodations still unclaimed!!! Pls call 9487 5599 to activate your gift now!! SERENE


<REMINDER> Your Return Air Tickets to Phuket with 5D/ 4N Luxurious Accomodations still unclaimed!!! Pls call 8367 5293 to activate your gift now!! CONNIE

Unquote



Both came from +6590043168 :think:


any1 received these irritating SMS-es lately ? blardy nuisance .... esp when we are working.. i noticed the text is standard except the number and name ?

Anw, spoke to my service provider ... they classify these as nuisance SMS-es :devil: and i need to lodge a report .. its the hassle that bothers me... any quicker resolution ?
:think:
 

Jul 22, 2003
436
0
0
41
Visit site
#4
Sign up some free phone s*x line using the server number. With the tons of horny uncles out there, they prob will bring the server down with the tons of calls
 

AhV

Senior Member
Jun 10, 2004
2,141
0
36
Northland
#5
buttie , I LOVE your idea ! :devil::devil:
 

blazer_workz

Senior Member
May 8, 2006
3,118
0
0
ClubSNAP Community
#7
I quote

<REMINDER> Your Return Air Tickets to Phuket with 5D/ 4N Luxurious Accomodations still unclaimed!!! Pls call 9487 5599 to activate your gift now!! SERENE


<REMINDER> Your Return Air Tickets to Phuket with 5D/ 4N Luxurious Accomodations still unclaimed!!! Pls call 8367 5293 to activate your gift now!! CONNIE

Unquote



Both came from +6590043168 :think:


any1 received these irritating SMS-es lately ? blardy nuisance .... esp when we are working.. i noticed the text is standard except the number and name ?

Anw, spoke to my service provider ... they classify these as nuisance SMS-es :devil: and i need to lodge a report .. its the hassle that bothers me... any quicker resolution ?
:think:
Send "UN" to unsubscribed? :bsmilie:

I avoided all lucky draw contest..
 

scud

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2003
1,808
0
0
Singapore
www.fotolightbox.com
#8
Send "UN" to unsubscribed? :bsmilie:

I avoided all lucky draw contest..
never subscribe to anything or any contest, but i do get emails that says:
'If you can't read this, please visit our website at: http://www........com. Should you wish to enquire about our products, change your email address or unsubscribe, please email us ONLY at info@......com. We apologise if you have unsubscribed and are still receiving emails from us. We need the exact email address to unsubscribe. Thank you for understanding"
:angry: :angry: :angry:
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#11
The Spam Control Act does cover sms-es, in addition to emails. Too bad that the SCA is a toothless tiger.
 

Jan 28, 2008
421
0
0
#12
The Spam Control Act does cover sms-es, in addition to emails. Too bad that the SCA is a toothless tiger.
Care to elaborate? Been recieving some stupid nuisance calls/sms/emails too... How can we use legal means to stop all these rubbish?
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#13
In my view, the SCA is next to useless for the following reasons:

1. Only civil liability is imposed, there is no criminal liability.

2. Because of (1), what this means is that any aggrieved person will need to file proceedings in court to take any action against the errant person.

3. Court actions are very expensive, and will be at least a couple of thousands at the absolute minimum, after you factor in the lawyer's fees.

4. Under the SCA, there are only two remedies against an errant company - injunction or damages.

For injunction, it means a court will order the errant company to stop sending (duh!).

For damages, you will need to show what damages you suffered as a result of the spam.

I think it will be hard to say "Oh I lost S$X because your of your spam message". Maybe if the fella send 100000 messages and crashes your network, then you have some claim. For the average Joe, it will be hard to quantify damages.

But pro-govt pple will say "But the Act provides for Statutory Damages! Meaning no need to show real damage". However, under the SCA, statutory damages are capped at S$25.00 per message.

If you receive only one message, are you going to spend S$XXXX to get back S$25? Does not make sense right?

If the Govt is serious about spam, they will impose criminal liability. Criminal liability makes it easier and cheaper and far more effective at targetting these low $$$ value things.

However, they did not, which to me, just sends the signal that they still want the companies to thrive here, at the expense of the small man. Yet when pple criticise Singapore, they can safely say "But we have a Spam Control Act to stop these things", without telling you the other side of the story which I already told you above.

There are many such official bodies who often only present the good side, and keep the bad side safely tucked away.

Hence, I say its a toothless tiger.




Care to elaborate? Been recieving some stupid nuisance calls/sms/emails too... How can we use legal means to stop all these rubbish?
 

Jan 28, 2008
421
0
0
#14
In my view, the SCA is next to useless for the following reasons:

1. Only civil liability is imposed, there is no criminal liability.

2. Because of (1), what this means is that any aggrieved person will need to file proceedings in court to take any action against the errant person.

3. Court actions are very expensive, and will be at least a couple of thousands at the absolute minimum, after you factor in the lawyer's fees.

4. Under the SCA, there are only two remedies against an errant company - injunction or damages.

For injunction, it means a court will order the errant company to stop sending (duh!).

For damages, you will need to show what damages you suffered as a result of the spam.

I think it will be hard to say "Oh I lost S$X because your of your spam message". Maybe if the fella send 100000 messages and crashes your network, then you have some claim. For the average Joe, it will be hard to quantify damages.

But pro-govt pple will say "But the Act provides for Statutory Damages! Meaning no need to show real damage". However, under the SCA, statutory damages are capped at S$25.00 per message.

If you receive only one message, are you going to spend S$XXXX to get back S$25? Does not make sense right?

If the Govt is serious about spam, they will impose criminal liability. Criminal liability makes it easier and cheaper and far more effective at targetting these low $$$ value things.

However, they did not, which to me, just sends the signal that they still want the companies to thrive here, at the expense of the small man. Yet when pple criticise Singapore, they can safely say "But we have a Spam Control Act to stop these things", without telling you the other side of the story which I already told you above.

There are many such official bodies who often only present the good side, and keep the bad side safely tucked away.

Hence, I say its a toothless tiger.
OIC, ok thanks alot! Very informative indeed... But, well at the end of the day there is still nth we can do..... That's a very sad thing:cry:
 

.Hack

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
716
0
0
www.doggiehaven.sg
#15
Never receive spam SMSes before.
But receive spam calls a number of times.
Most of the time is say win prizes lah all these stuffs.
And i notice most of the callers are China women, can hear from their accents.
This is how i deal with them most of the time.

Me: Hello
China Woman: &#21890;&#65292;&#20844;&#21916;&#20320;&#36194;&#20102;&#25105;&#20204;&#30340;&#22870;&#21697;&#12290;&#20250;&#35828;&#21326;&#35821;&#21527;&#65311;
Me: &#19981;&#20250;&#35828;&#12290;(And straight away hung up)

Sometimes just hang up when i hear their accent and the prizes crap.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#16
Spam calls are unfortunately, not covered even by the toothless Spam Control Act.
 

Mar 5, 2006
262
0
0
#17
tell them wrong number, then tell them hold the line, shout across some @#$@#$@# words kick some tables and chairs, come back to line, say sorry but you just killed the assistant.... then ask her in mandarin: so do you sell insurance for murder?:bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom