I not a scam but pleze call my scam competition

General Discussion Court
, ,
22

With respect to you, I understand your point, it is true technically, but is still does not justify a direct violation of the Privacy rules of the forum. There are individuals entities in that post have no relation to this business and having their names dragged though mud is not appropriate.

Additionally, the assumption the US citizens practically have no rights to privacy is again misinformed for instance an attempt to dox government entities will make you a criminal under 18 USC § 119
as for regular citizens then you will find 18 U.S. Code § 2261A to protection my rights.

Not withstanding the fact that anyone on this platform is bound by the rules set on the website not just the US Law, especially when as not all users here can be assumed to be US citizens.

As mentioned by you :The Freedom of Information Act allows citizens to request all sorts of private information from government entities

…except the records that are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions contained in the law or by one of three special law enforcement record exclusions.

The nine exemption categories that authorize government agencies to withhold information are:

  1. classified information for national defense or foreign policy
  2. internal personnel rules and practices
  3. information that is exempt under other laws
  4. trade secrets and confidential business information
  5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges
  6. personnel and medical files
  7. law enforcement records or information
  8. information concerning bank supervision
  9. geological and geophysical information

In any case
I highlighted the main violation, but points #1 and #3 were included in the violation; you should know since #3 here is actually #5 under the Content Standards

You may not submit content to the forum that violates the law…violates anyone’s privacy, or breaches agreements you have with others.

You may not use the forum to disclose information that you don’t have the right to disclose, like others’ confidential or personal information.*

The post was in clear violation of both standards,

Please re-evaluate your judgment, I respect and value your work and I hope you will understand my concerns.

23

You requested an investigation in your own words, it was forwarded here. What was to be investigated was not made clear and you keep claiming the OP didn’t disclose all of the ‘private’ discussion, but then neither did you.

1 Like
24

The title was not written by me, it was the OP. As for poor grammar, this and the recipients of the email operate a casual forum and typos are common, and being nitpicky on grammar alone is hardly a reason. I am not spelling because ,becuz " or virus :“wirus.”

I admit calling scammers competition was a means for confusion and probably what prompted this whole issue in the first place. My intent was to call a specific competitor , who runs a legitimate company as far as I know, “a scammer” for trying to flood the company with robocalls, the emails were written in haste and state of worry and a generalization was made.

I hope this clarifies it for you.

25

I did not call all competitors scammers, I gave a list, and made a general claim that half of these companies/websites are shady , why do you think there is a confidence scale mentioned in the first place?! there was nothing claimed with certainty, and there was no retaliation “demanded,” if and only if fact evidence was found.

There isn’t going to be anything else because this was a first time incident, and people learn from mistakes and error of judgments and learn to set the right protocol and rules to prevent mishaps from happening again.

You clearly did not read what I posted, if you research the numbers you will see for yourself. I hold and believe anyone who initiates and launches the first to attack a company or business by harassing them by floods of spam calls are spammers themselves.

What differentiates us is that we operate openly legally, and don’t resort to cheap tactics as spoofing and spamming their sites. This was the first and “private” attempt to have them investigated for their attempt to sabotage a competitor.

I stand my case. and I agree there isn’t much further to be said.

26

I clarified to them , and to you if you find them to be “responsible.”
I’ve have said what I needed to say. You don’t seem to want to have a conductive conversation, I won’t post the rest because the conversation was private to begin with and has been resolved privately on their end.

They had the numbers removed (after OP) was made and told me to explain my case on this forum to have this page removed. I have laid out everything I needed, I am not concerned about the Original post as much as I am with your doxxing post, which I am hoping you will remove. Having such information on this forum is clearly an attempt at harassment and exposing people to access and put in harms way innocent individuals, and honestly is causing me anxiety for their sake.

Please consider what I have said.

27

Oh I read what you said very clearly. You submitted numbers of a competitor you suspected to have submitted yours, but did not know if it really was them or not.

This is exactly what you have done based on speculation, not knowing who submitted your number(s).

Yet you maintain you only “suspect” them with high probability, but don’t know if they did. So by your own statement, you are the one who “resorted to cheap tactics as spoofing and spamming” by submitting their numbers without knowing any fact if they were the ones or not. This is an intended retaliation against those you suspected by submitting the numbers whether privately or openly, when you really had no valid reason other than you speculated they submitted yours. Maybe you don’t want to see it that way, but I bet others will, such as your competitors.

Note: You are the one who reached out to a website designed to spam scammer numbers, to report your numbers were submitted by mistake, accused a competitor of doing so under mere speculation that they did and submitted theirs as a retaliation for doing it to you. Your competitor does the same thing you do, sells anti-virus software, in the same manner. It doesn’t take much for anyone to clearly see this is a competitor “tit for tat” campaign. You put yourself into the spot light when you submitted their numbers in retaliation for submitting yours.
If you had never submitted their numbers for “investigation” based on speculation, then none of this discussion would have occurred.

2 Likes
28

You don’t need the “have” in the ‘I’ve have said what I needed to say’ for example. Nor do you need sentences with a , ← that spaced out. Legitimate companies especially their employees, owners etc are always expected to have excellent English and grammar, important for said customer service, meetings/getting points across etc.

You appear to be a scam, we already know and no one is buying what you say. Accept it, close down your shady shit and just move on. You are simply going round in circles with your “responses”.

1 Like
29

Ah, I see you completely edited your post to @MehNamesJeff to be a response to me now. You say the matter was resolved with the OP and want me to remove my post that shows a direct correlation to those who operate your website here in the US.

Why would they ask you to come here and explain anything if the issue was resolved on “their end”? Why didn’t you ask them to delete the OP here then? I will remove my post if the OP is removed or at least comes to clarify the issue as resolved. This will show me that you are not just trying to be deceptive in getting the post removed. Please excuse me if I don’t trust you.

3 Likes
30

image
image1177×513 17.7 KB

I can’t answer those question only they could, see for yourself, now whoever is handling or has access to the Technical support team’s messages “I assume” deliberately went against BobRTC rules, approval, or awareness as can be seen from the correspondent in the email above, as the message clearly claims they have "NOTHING to do with them (scammer.info) yet how is it possible the OP posted this “private message” onto this forum if they have no correlation what so every, so clearly OP acted against their policies or accessed private information and posted it publicly.

You are excused, as I know you are being as scrupulous as possible. I hope the picture suffices.

31

Hi @ospkemon,

so I’ve checked the case and I have some issues:

  • on isecuremart.com the images under “brand partners” where you claim to be resellers do not link to any confirmation that this is the case. Usually, if a company uses some partnership logos when you click on them they will lead to a page on the partner’s website, confirming the connection. Here this is not the case which makes it hard for outsiders to check the legitimacy of your claims. As a suggestion, I would advise you to add a hyperlink to the images. I’ve seen confirmations in this thread for some of the resellers, i.e. Bitdefender and Avast, but not for McAfee and Norton. If you can, please provide this for us to confirm.

    1105×237 19.9 KB

  • on isoftwarestore.co there is barely any mention of the site being affiliated with iSecure Mart LLC. In fact, the only place I found it was buried in the text under https://isoftwarestore.co/terms-conditions/. I think to improve the legitimacy, you should add it to more places, such as the footer or under the “About Us” section which is obviously the first place I would check to see who I’m dealing with. It comes across shady if a business is pretty much hiding their identity in all the places.

All in all, I don’t see a clear evidence for scam but I don’t understand the above-mentioned issues and I’d like you to explain these and suggest you to fix it.

To the other scammer.info users, if we have any call recordings which contain evidence for misleading sales practices or anything illegal or similar, please share.

1 Like
32

@ospkemon

The original post was actually meant to be send to the admin team for scammer.info but was sent to BOBRTC and they have been adding and misrepresenting the posts here.

How so? All yaliqmadiq did was post the email YOU sent us, he has not deleted or added anything else to it.

So I replaced the the number of the company I suspected was initiating the robocall .
I told my dev team to change the number
I was not aware a the dev put best buy number’s

??? Sorry i don’t understand this part.

but be that as it may NO customer or client or real visitor visited the website when the number was changed

I visited the website. Multiple times. What counts as a “real visitor” exactly?

I personally did not approve of this changing of numbers nor was made aware

Quote, from YOU:

So I replaced the the number of the company I suspected was initiating the robocall
I told my dev team to change the number
I was not aware a the dev put best buy number’s

Anyway, here is the last contradiction

You are confusing the two separate business, they are completely separate and and unrelated and I would appreciate it if you could please remove the post with personal information (under your research section) please at least do this much

If you are referring to that ton of taxi stuff, they are yours.

While the website was down, i visited it and saw this error message

Please contact the server administrator at [email protected] to inform them of the time this error occurred, and the actions you performed just before this error.

Going to said website (baskingridgecab.com) shows an AWFUL looking UI, so bad, it hurt my eyes, but what matters, is that if you clicked on the reservation button, you got redirected to book(dot)mylimobiz(dot)com/v4/1800limo4us

Sounds familiar? because it is.

Syed Haider
Website: crownheightstaxi.com
Phone: (732) 646-5740, (732) 645-1405
Email: [email protected], [email protected]

By the way, here are the numbers from baskingridgecab.com
732-548-1141
1-800-546-6487

2 Likes
33

Thank you NeeP, and I appreciate you taking the time to verify. As I mentioned before in my post where I screenshot our reseller portal that Norton and McAfee have not opened any direct reseller partnership a, therefore we acquire our licenses in bulk and/or on an as-need debases from other local/online vendors and distributors.

In the discussion I had with the BobRTC support team I mentioned I am on the works of acquiring more licenses and working with more distributors, but as I mentioned before a lot of the detail were left out which took place after the first email post done (the one posted by O.P).

I appreciate the suggestion and I will work towards having those UI/UX adjustments and implementations made , I hope to redesign and make big improvements when budget and time permits.

34

The email was send to the admins, and it was assumed private information is not made public without prior notice nor correspondence or approval.

The Quote you mentioned does point out a contradiction I admit. So to clarity, I am aware that when spammers flood calls , the number is taken down or changed, I do not however know real-time when this this changing of numbers occurs , but the dev team has authority as this is simply a security measure to help mitigate spam, but what I wasn’t aware in this particular case was the nature of the number being replaced. It was only until after the fact this was brought up (since I was focused and occupied in the aftermath of this whole situation (within 24 to 48 hours). I responded here real time, and some confusion for me was lifted and I answered accordingly. Therefore I apologize if I sound distraught and my arguments don’t follow fully as I mentioned my biggest concern was and still is the publicizing of personal / private and familiar information.

As for the hosting and connection to the Taxi websites , This is because it’s shared hosting within family
.
As for your comment on the Taxi websites, these are local listing and the websites are simple, because its a reservation website , they are not trying to compete with UBER/Lyft , you can criticize the horrible UI and it will be constructive criticism, it was a simple website for a simple task.

They are not related in the sense that these are two totally unrelated businesses operating as a separate entities, you don’t find any backlinks to these websites what so ever.

In any case please can you clarify how he had access to the mail you guys sent, I already addressed my concern as to why I found it odd that a private message was made public.

I hope you understand my concern and I apologize if I have misunderstood anything.

35

Year old post
New Delhi IP

36

image (13)
image (13)1318×610 25.2 KB

image (14)
image (14)1266×610 24.2 KB

image (5)
image (5)694×677 39.7 KB

I think it is clear, you are not authorized by these companies.

6 Likes
37

@ospkemon As per my interpretation of the law you posted from law.cornell.edu under no circumstances has the law been broken.

Doxing itself isn’t illegal, It boils down to How the information was obtained, Who’s obtaining it, Why it was obtained, What will be done with the information after it was obtained.

Nobody is

  1. Stalking you
  2. Stalking you/Placing you under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate anyone.
  3. gathering Information about your company is obtained illegally.

No proof of network intrusion or cohesion was/has been used has been provided.

However: “I not a scam but pleze call my scam competition” is Asking people to harass/disrupt others. Regardless of that, I’ve read the entire thread, I’m almost certain I’ve seen requests to preform DDoS Attacks via VoIP or other software to carry out such attacks.

However you’re information can be acquired via google so it’s not private and is considered publicly available. Nobody doxed you either

4 Likes
38

I can understand a few such websites just for a booking portal, but I listed at least 70 of them in a web search of just one number (800-546-6487). Many had addresses on them to strip malls, auto repair shops and even to a medical office building. I see that same “pattern” of creating many websites with false addresses in scam operations, so naturally it raises eyebrows. This is what I meant in an earlier post about it goes to creditability. You say it is family, so you do know all about what they do and when they do it. You said it was your “dev team” before, but now you say it is family. They registered your iSecuremart only a few months ago in NJ, but you have been operating iSoftwarestore using a Nevada address and I could not find any registrations for it.

You want to know why your request was forwarded here, but only the OP can answer with any certainty of a reason. Lets try to put things into perspective from what people might perceive from what happened. You found out somehow that your numbers were on BobRTC and reported it as abuse.

This is where you list numbers. Since both you and your competitors have an anti-virus reseller business, then it is perceived as the same practices are used by both of you and you provided no evidence of scamming at this point, just pointed fingers saying they were. Even have similar names: ISoftwarestore (you), iSoftwareshop (them).

How would they investigate any of the numbers you submitted towards being responsible for submitting your numbers to them? Whether you want to admit it or not, here is where you made it clear you wanted your competitors call flooded. Maybe you didn’t come right out and say it that way, it was implied as what you wanted to happen

So you thought doing the same thing to your competitors was justified? You could have left out all those numbers and simply said you believed it was a competitor without pointing fingers at them as scammers.

You said it was not you who made that title, but it does seem like an approriate summary based on the perspective that you were calling your competitors scammers and saying you were not, despite both doing the exact same business, without any evidence of scamming provided.

If I was in the same shoes as @yaliqmadiq, I think I would have posted your complaint here too with a similar title, based on how I perceived your complaint. Maybe you can’t see it from an outsider’s perspective and somehow thought you were doing everyone a favor by submitting what you believe were scammers as was most likely the same thought the submitter had about your numbers. I see it as you pointing fingers at competitors in retaliation, believing they submitted yours and you don’t really know if they did or not.

3 Likes
39

Emails that you send can be subject to publication by the party you send them to, or by anyone who receives a copy of the email from the recipient.

Just because you typed the email doesn’t make it private.

You sure do have a lot of fast excuses for impersonating Best Buy Geek Squad on your website and others have pointed out to you–Norton has confirmed that you are not a business partner of them yet you are using their marks on your website.

And then there is that whole thing where you asked for a bunch of phone numbers to be listed.

3 Likes
40

I do not however know real-time when this this changing of numbers occurs
but what I wasn’t aware in this particular case was the nature of the number being replaced.

Okay, but you told us that the dev team changes the number when you ask it to, right?
Where did they get the number then? You didn’t list the Geek Squad as “one of your competitors’” number
Even if you accidentally google it, the real geek squad comes up

You didn’t answer as to how yaliqmadiq was “adding and misrepresenting the posts here”
You didn’t answer as to what counts as a “real visitor”

Also, @alesthebait’s point. How do you guys not come up on MOST the partnership searches? I even searched it up myself, and nothing
edit1: I did find ISecure Mart LLC on bitdefender too, i just mistyped ISecure Mart as ISecureMart (take a look at MKHNT’s post below)

Even the real Avast support told us that you are not partnered

42

I had checked on those “authorized reseller” partners as well and only found the Bitdefender as the only one that had iSecure Mart LLC.

avast.com
avast.com689×543 29.5 KB

bitdefender.com
bitdefender.com798×497 25.7 KB

partnersearch.kaspersky.com
partnersearch.kaspersky.com605×590 15.7 KB

1 Like