Miss-Delectable
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 17,160
- Reaction score
- 7
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060129/NEWS/601290314/1001
In November, Communication Service for the Deaf implemented a new policy aimed at cracking down on the fraud that plagued Internet-based relay service for the deaf.
Because the Federal Communications Commission requires that calls placed through the relay system be as private as other telephone calls, communication assistants were obligated to repeat, word for word, what overseas scam artists said as they bilked American companies out of thousands of dollars in merchandise.
CSD's solution: It allowed relay supervisors to warn potential victims.
Once a call meets certain criteria noted by the employee, a supervisor is notified and issues a warning to both parties. CSD does not terminate the calls.
It appears to be a simple fix, but deaf advocates say that monitoring the content of calls is tantamount to eavesdropping.
So far, CSD spokesman Rick Norris said, it's working.
"Based on the feedback I've gotten from employees, it sounds like the numbers have gone down. They said they've noticed a decline," he said.
The problem is not unique to CSD. Frustrated employees at a number of relay providers formed online forums and chat rooms to rant about being forced to become silent partners in obvious fraud.
Norris said that the policy CSD implemented might have saved its employees from many of the calls, but "somebody else's numbers might be up."
Karen Peltz Strauss, a CSD consultant in Washington, D.C., said the prevalence of fraud was unfortunate. Strauss has been an advocate for deaf access to telecom since the 1980s, she said, and is working on a book about the subject called "The New Civil Right."
"We've tried to get (to) the FCC - we've been talking to them for about a year now - and asked for some guidance. They've been interested but slow. ... It's just aggravating," she said.
At first, Strauss said, she was vehemently opposed to limitations or monitoring on the service.
"I feel differently now," she said. "I've witnessed what's gone on. ... We've reached a point where somebody has got to do something to save the service."
Kelby Brick, president of the National Association of the Deaf, said in an e-mail that stopping the scammers should not come at the expense of privacy rights.
"We do not want the burden of solving this problem to be on consumers," he said. "Businesses are responsible for verifying sales made by telephone. This requires them to check credit card numbers and make sure they're legit."
Brick said his association is suing businesses that have begun refusing relay calls.
"Businesses who fall victim to scams have only themselves to blame for being more than willing to ignore well-established procedural safeguards in order to gain a few additional dollars," he said.
"This is a really hard issue," Strauss said, and though FCC regulations seem to bar any impingement on the transparency of relay calls, she said the FCC was aware of the policy and hasn't objected.
Both Strauss and CSD CEO Benjamin Soukup see the policy as a stopgap. A real solution, Soukup said, could be a registration system for access to the service.
In November, Communication Service for the Deaf implemented a new policy aimed at cracking down on the fraud that plagued Internet-based relay service for the deaf.
Because the Federal Communications Commission requires that calls placed through the relay system be as private as other telephone calls, communication assistants were obligated to repeat, word for word, what overseas scam artists said as they bilked American companies out of thousands of dollars in merchandise.
CSD's solution: It allowed relay supervisors to warn potential victims.
Once a call meets certain criteria noted by the employee, a supervisor is notified and issues a warning to both parties. CSD does not terminate the calls.
It appears to be a simple fix, but deaf advocates say that monitoring the content of calls is tantamount to eavesdropping.
So far, CSD spokesman Rick Norris said, it's working.
"Based on the feedback I've gotten from employees, it sounds like the numbers have gone down. They said they've noticed a decline," he said.
The problem is not unique to CSD. Frustrated employees at a number of relay providers formed online forums and chat rooms to rant about being forced to become silent partners in obvious fraud.
Norris said that the policy CSD implemented might have saved its employees from many of the calls, but "somebody else's numbers might be up."
Karen Peltz Strauss, a CSD consultant in Washington, D.C., said the prevalence of fraud was unfortunate. Strauss has been an advocate for deaf access to telecom since the 1980s, she said, and is working on a book about the subject called "The New Civil Right."
"We've tried to get (to) the FCC - we've been talking to them for about a year now - and asked for some guidance. They've been interested but slow. ... It's just aggravating," she said.
At first, Strauss said, she was vehemently opposed to limitations or monitoring on the service.
"I feel differently now," she said. "I've witnessed what's gone on. ... We've reached a point where somebody has got to do something to save the service."
Kelby Brick, president of the National Association of the Deaf, said in an e-mail that stopping the scammers should not come at the expense of privacy rights.
"We do not want the burden of solving this problem to be on consumers," he said. "Businesses are responsible for verifying sales made by telephone. This requires them to check credit card numbers and make sure they're legit."
Brick said his association is suing businesses that have begun refusing relay calls.
"Businesses who fall victim to scams have only themselves to blame for being more than willing to ignore well-established procedural safeguards in order to gain a few additional dollars," he said.
"This is a really hard issue," Strauss said, and though FCC regulations seem to bar any impingement on the transparency of relay calls, she said the FCC was aware of the policy and hasn't objected.
Both Strauss and CSD CEO Benjamin Soukup see the policy as a stopgap. A real solution, Soukup said, could be a registration system for access to the service.