Scams targeting elderly on the rise

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted June 15, 2013, at 12:18 p.m

The call to a woman in eastern Maine last Thursday sounded legitimate. The caller claimed to be with the Eastern Area Agency on Aging (EAAA) and inquired about the woman’s arthritis.

As the conversation went on, the caller claimed to have access to a “tool” that could help relieve the woman’s pain. All the woman had to do, the caller said, was to provide her Medicare number. When the woman refused (smartly), the caller hung up.

The people from EAAA are understandably upset. There’s no way they would call out of the blue and ask for someone’s personal and financial information. They’re doubly angry, because the scammers are preying on seniors.

However, the targets are not just older Mainers. Troy Morton is Chief Deputy of the Penobscot Sheriff’s Department and chairman of the local TRIAD, an alliance of police and senior citizens groups aimed at protecting our older citizens.

“It’s really flooded the area again,” Morton said of the scam calling.

He said on Friday the calls are going to seniors and non-seniors alike, and the scammers are tailoring their sales pitch depending on who answers their call.

He said scammers will use key terms to gain a person’s trust. They might cite “Part B” coverage when referring to Medicare; using such terms tends to make people think the caller is familiar with the subject, and so is trustworthy.

The moment of truth comes when the caller delivers the pitch: “Give me your Medicare number, and I’ll get the paperwork going,” or words to that effect. The insistence for immediate action — divulging personal or financial information, revealing credit card or bank account numbers — is a tipoff that this is a scam attempt.

“If somebody’s trying to sell you a service, they’ll sell it tomorrow too,” Troy Morton said. People should always be suspicious of “cold calls” and doubly so when the caller turns on the pressure to act right away.

Everyone who advocates on behalf of seniors (and consumers generally) urges them to take a breath and say to themselves, “What’s the worst that could happen if I wait?”

Then, as with any purchase, do your research. Call the business or agency where the offer supposedly originated and see if it’s genuine. Check with family, friends or other trusted people and learn from their experiences; if they’ve been burned, leave it alone.

The scam arthritis call came just a day after Gov. LePage signed a proclamation noting that June 15 is Elder Abuse Awareness Day. The Governor called attention to what has been termed “the crime of the 21st century” because it’s so pervasive and potentially disastrous for victims.

The Maine Council on Elder Abuse has just launched a website at
http://elderabuseprevention.info/
with information about preventing all types of abuse of seniors.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

 

Seniors should be wary of medical alert device scam

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted June 02, 2013, at 3:35 p.m.

At first we thought we were out in front of the story: People posing as representatives of a medical alert company were cold calling Maine seniors and offering them free medical alert devices. All the seniors had to do was fork over some personal financial information (and, in the process, open their bank accounts to the callers).

Then, last Wednesday, Maine Attorney General Janet Mills issued a news release calling the whole thing a scam. She cautioned seniors not to give any personal or financial data to these frauds calling their company Life Watch, or anyone else who called out of the blue. Not only that, she said the officers of sound-alike Life Alert are suing a couple of outfits it says are misrepresenting themselves.

“Legitimate companies do not operate like this,” Mills said in the release. “This scam is particularly insidious because it trades on the well-known brand of Life Alert, which is intended for very vulnerable senior citizens.”

There are several tip-offs that the call is not on the level. First, as Mills pointed out, honest companies don’t make random robot calls, putting a sales person on once the phone is answered and turning up the heat. A second clue concerned the pitch itself.

When the first call came to our home, a heavily-accented seller needed prompting before revealing that, while the alert device itself is “free,” my service plan would cost about a dollar a day. The second flag went up when, asked about the cancellation policy, she said, “Just give us a call.” That’s scammer code for, “We’ll just ignore you.”

I asked to speak with a supervisor, and another thickly accented person (who told me his name was “Mr. Lennie Allen”) said his firm was the “only EMT-certified” provider of “the preferred medical alert monitor” (EMS officials we spoke with weren’t sure what those terms meant). “Lennie” added that his firm had “100 percent customer satisfaction” (probably the first ever in our notebook) and that it was “endorsed by the American Diabetes Association.” A call to that organization confirmed that it “does not test advertised products, does not conduct independent scientific reviews and does not ensure the safety and efficacy of their claims.” Pants on fire, Lennie.

A second caller to our home asked for my wife by her legal name, which she never uses. “Where did you get my name?” she asked.

“Uh, well, we make random calls…”

“But I’m on the National Do-Not-Call list.” A hurried apology, and away the caller went.

The people who really run Life Alert are so steamed they’re suing the folks they say are responsible for thousands of seniors nationwide being ripped off and their company’s reputation suffering “tremendous” damage. They’ll have lots of ammunition; the Better Business Bureau says in February 2011 it requested that Life Watch “cease and desist all unauthorized use of the BBB name and logo in its promotional materials.” During our conversation, “Lennie” told me his firm had an A-plus rating from the Bureau (pants now in ashes).

Maine seniors who believe they have been a target of this scam should call the A.G.’s Consumer Protection Division at 1-800-436-2131 or email consumer.mediation@Maine.gov.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Maine to benefit from disability claims settlement

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 26, 2013, at 6:48 p.m.

Working Mainers whose disability insurance coverage is provided by one of three companies will likely be treated differently if they file claims in the future.

Maine’s Superintendent of Insurance, Eric Cioppa, announced last week that Maine is one of five states that settled a dispute with Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Co. (formerly known as Alta Health and Life). In some cases, those companies will be taking a second look at claims they had previously denied.

Cioppa said Maine and the four other states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania) all took close looks at the three Cigna companies and found that “they were not using available information to appropriately process disability income insurance claims.” While the companies admitted no wrongdoing by entering into the negotiated settlement, they did agree to change the way they decide whether to approve claims. (Some disability attorneys have alleged that the companies deny benefits without examining a claimant’s physical condition and that the companies use unauthorized video surveillance to show that claimants should be able to go back to work.)

As part of the multistate agreement, the companies are re-evaluating certain claims; they have set aside $48 million in case the reviews show that they need to pay additional benefits. The companies have also set aside an additional $29 million for claims that are open now.

During an interview, Cioppa was unable to estimate how much of that money might be coming to Mainers. He said denied claims from all five states will be sampled for review, and Cioppa said Maine will be “actively reaching out” to other states to become parties to the agreement.

Another part of the agreement requires the companies to pay Maine $175,000 in fines. The state will get an additional $100,000 to cover costs associated with examining cases.

There will be a 24-month monitoring period, during which the insurance departments of the five states will conduct random sampling of claims. They’ll be checking to see that the companies have improved the claims handling process for current policyholders. There will also be a remediation program, with the improved procedures applied to “certain previously denied or adversely terminated claims” for residents in participating states.

Following the monitoring period, Maine and other monitoring states will conduct what’s called a re-examination. That process is designed to measure the effectiveness of the companies’ improved claims review process and could take up to six months.

Eric Cioppa says the Bureau of Insurance is willing and able to help people who feel they may have been wronged in the past. “If they know they have some rights they may not have been aware of, they can always call us,” he added.

You can reach the Bureau at 1-800-300-5000 or online at www.maine.gov/pfr/insurance.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

 

Don’t take the bait: Avoid phishing scams

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 18, 2013, at 1 p.m.

 

There’s a kind of social engineering designed to part consumers from their hard-earned money.

It’s called phishing, and it’s become one of the most common scams. It was the fourth most common scam reported to the National Consumers League fraud center last year, and — when lumped in with all “imposter scams” — it ranked No. 8 in the top 10 frauds reported to the Federal Trade Commission.

Phishing involves a number of ways that con artists gain people’s trust and thereby gain access to their personal and/or financial information. Once that’s done, it’s a short step to stealing someone’s identity, cleaning out their bank account or otherwise wreaking havoc on their financial lives.

The director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America says new phishing schemes are popping up every day.

“We want people to realize that it should be no different when someone approaches you online or by phone asking for that information,” Susan Grant said in a news release last week.

For whatever reason, some of us are more trusting of nameless, faceless people who hit us up by email or over the phone. Most of us would not think twice about refusing a request for personal information from someone who rang our doorbell; when that person makes an electronic approach, we might think twice.

That’s what the con artists want. They pretend to be someone they’re not: an employee of your bank, a government official or an officer of the company where you work. They call or email you with what sounds like a legitimate request for information; instead, it is a (sometimes) cleverly disguised way to get you to reveal your Social Security number, bank account number or other personal data that they can use.

The approach by telephone might be the easiest phishing attempt to ward off. You can simply say, “Sorry, I don’t do any business over the phone,” and hang up. It may be a little tougher when the come-on appears in your email.

It might say that you’ve left something off your income tax return: “Don’t delay your return — click here.” Or you may be asked for an account number “to pay the administrative fee on this prize you’ve won.” The variations are endless … and so is the phishing.

A common theme among phishing attempts: They are not what they seem to be. If you’re asked to click on a link, picture or anything from a source you don’t know, DON’T DO IT. You might be downloading malicious spyware onto your computer. You also could be redirected to another, unknown website where trouble awaits. A request to “join my social network” might really be a hook that someone is using to try to reel you in.

The Consumer Federation has a new video summarizing these and other helpful hints at www.consumerfed.org/fraud. If you think you have been a victim of identity theft, visit www.IDtheftINFO.org to find out what to do. There’s more information about scams and protecting your identity at the FTC website, www.consumer.ftc.gov.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Thieves target children as easy victims of identity theft – Bangor Daily News

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 12, 2013, at 12:46 p.m.

Here’s a quick quiz: Which of the following scenarios means your child has become a victim of identity theft?

• You receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service that your child did not pay income taxes, or that the child’s Social Security number was used on another person’s income tax return.

• You or your child are turned down for government benefits because benefits are being paid to another account bearing the child’s SSN.

• You get bills or collection calls for goods or services that you did not order.

The correct answer is: “All of the above.” Each scenario could be an example of a child’s identity being stolen.

A study by Carnegie Mellon CyLab in November 2011 found that 10.2 percent of more than 40,000 juveniles who were studied experienced some kind of identity theft or fraud. The comparable rate among adults was 0.2 percent.

Why the big difference? Children are routinely issued SSNs as infants; if a child’s number is stolen, the theft may not become apparent for months or even years. Those numbers are prime targets for thieves, who look for SSNs with clean histories. With them, thieves can commit financial fraud, do an end-around bad credit ratings and get around constraints placed on illegal immigrants.

Theft can also occur within families. A driver whose license is suspended or revoked might “borrow” the child’s SSN to establish a new identity and regain a license. A person might assume the identity of another family member to repair credit, apply for a job or to avoid arrest.

When a parent discovers that the child’s ID has been stolen, he or she bears the burden of proving that the child is in fact a child, and that the child did not run up the bills that someone else is trying to collect. The parent becomes lead investigator, trying to figure out how the child’s personal information got into the wrong hands while setting the record straight.

When a person turns 18 and applies for financial aid for college or tries to rent an apartment, only then might he or she discover that his or her identity was stolen years before. The investigation becomes a cold case, with a fraudulently obtained credit history in shambles and no way to find out exactly what happened. The thief often uses the identity until the credit history is destroyed and the thief can no longer get credit using that identity.

Parents are urged to check their child’s credit history when the child is no older than 16, to make sure that history is clear (access the three major reporting agencies for a free annual report at www.AnnualCreditReport.com).

The nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center (www.idtheftcenter.org) says sometimes parents who get in financial trouble use the SSN of their own child in an effort to rebuild their financial lives. They may think they will pay off their bills in time, so that their child’s credit history won’t be damaged; that may or may not be the case.

Identity theft was the Federal Trade Commission’s leading complaint last year (the 13th straight year the crime ranked number one), with over 369,000 complaints. The FTC has step-by-step help at its website:
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0014-identity-theft
. The Maine Attorney General’s website (
http://www.maine.gov/ag/consumer/index.shtml
) has a checklist of action steps as well. Victims may also contact the Identity Theft Resource Center at 888-400-5530.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Free legal help can be a phone call, or library, away—Bangor Daily News

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted May 04, 2013, at 1:44 p.m.

Please, no wisecracks about lawyers. The need for affordable access to legal help is no joking matter.

Sarah Ruef-Lindquist, president of the Maine Bar Foundation, says financial pressures on everyone have prompted a look for help.

“Maine’s legal services community has learned that the most effective way to help is to work with each other and the private community to create solutions to the challenges we face with access to justice,” she wrote in a recent Bangor Daily News guest column.

Ruef-Lindquist cited several examples. The most widely accessed source of help may be Maine’s libraries, through a project called Lawyers In Libraries. The aim is to put volunteer lawyers in touch with library patrons who might otherwise not have access to legal assistance.

The Volunteer Lawyers Project has secured grant money to offer free seminars on topics of wide interest. The sessions are designed for low-income people, but they’re open to anyone. Most seminars are held by video conference, so that people in different libraries can hear a presentation, then ask questions directly of the attorney through the video hookup.

A video conference at 3 p.m. May 8 will deal with preparing for an unemployment compensation hearing or appeal. A session at 3 p.m. May 22 will deal with family law issues. Check to see if your local library is taking part.

The Maine Justice Action Group has been working to make events like the video conferences happen. On Law Day last week, JAG coordinated statewide attorneys’ visits to libraries, where people could meet with and ask questions of the attorneys. The sessions fill a growing need, according to Maine Supreme Court Justice Andrew Mead.

Twenty-five people attended the Lawyers In Libraries session in Bangor, and Mead said that “clearly sends the message that there are plenty of people out there in need of legal assistance.”

The judge said concerns about cost, or simply not knowing how to find a lawyer, keep many people in need of legal help from getting it.

Lawyers volunteer in other ways, including helping people deal with tough foreclosure issues. Maine Attorneys Saving Homes is a collaboration of the Maine Volunteer Lawyers Project, or VLP, and Pine Tree Legal Assistance. If a foreclosure was filed after Jan. 1, 2010, and the homeowner meets several requirements, that person may be eligible for a court mediation program — see the Pine Tree Legal Assistance website, www.ptla.org, and search “foreclosure.” You may also call the Maine Foreclosure Prevention Hotline, 1-888-664-2569.

VLP also offers a legal hotline, with phones staffed for free advice to qualified callers at certain times each week. Calls are taken 5:30-8 p.m. Wednesdays and 1-4 p.m. Fridays for family law problems. VLP and Pine Tree Legal work cooperatively to provide legal services to Maine’s tribal members. The Penobscot County Bar Association runs a free clinic dealing with family law, bankruptcy, defending against debt collection and other civil matters by appointment — call 1-800-442-4293 or 942-9348 in the Bangor area.

There’s a bottom-line issue at work in all this. In a report from the Maine Justice Action Group, the authors wrote of the need for “identifying civil legal problems where early ‘upstream’ intervention will bring about a resolution that avoids more costly and time-consuming contested legal proceedings.”

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit 
http://necontact.wordpress.com
 or email contacexdir@live.com.

The story of a “bad” check

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted April 28, 2013, at 2:08 p.m.

Here’s the story of a local consumer that we’ll call Sue. She wrote a check for a purchase she was making at a Bangor-area supermarket; the clerk scanned the check, which was rejected.

Sue was surprised, since she had more than enough money in her checking account to cover the purchase. The customer service person gave Sue a contact number and asked her to call Certegy Check Services. Before calling, Sue went to her bank and verified that there were sufficient funds to cover her check.

Then she called Certegy, and things got interesting. The instructions on the contact card asked callers to provide a driver’s license number, full name, current address, telephone and check numbers, check amount, checking account number and bank name. Sue was reluctant to provide that information.

After three calls a Certegy official explained the start of the problem.

It seems Sue had written a check six days earlier to the local branch of a major chain store. The check came back as having come from an invalid account. When Sue learned this, she and her husband went back to their bank and inquired further. The bank representative found that the check had never been received by the bank. The representative called Certegy, tracked down Sue’s check and asked for the account number. It turned out the account number did not match Sue’s account.

It appears that the problem originated with Sue’s check at the major chain. A scanner may have misread the account number, or a clerk may have copied it incorrectly. Whatever the case, it was not Sue’s fault. Certegy said the check for the chain store purchase would be re-submitted and that her account would be in good standing again. Originally, Sue had been told her check writing privileges would not be restored for seven days, as a matter of company policy. This concerned her, as she writes checks for prescription medications.

Sue wrote to Northeast CONTACT, and we forwarded her details to David Leach, principal examiner with Maine’s Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection. He explained that Certegy, a licensed credit reporting agency in Maine, has been in business for nearly 30 years and is the largest check approval company in the United States.

Leach talked with an official at Certegy, who said his company had not been aware of Sue’s concerns regarding her prescriptions. Had Certegy been made aware of those concerns, the official said, Sue’s check writing privileges would have been restored immediately.

“As regulators, we hardly ever hear of such situations,” Leach told us. He said the check certification system generally works well and has prevented the passing of a large number of “bad” checks. Leach said the system is “designed to take the merchant out of the equation” and let the customer deal directly with Certegy or another similar firm.

He called Sue’s case an “outlier” situation, one which happens in a small minority of cases. On Friday, Sue said she has had no further problems cashing checks.

Sue is among a minority of vocal consumers who criticize Certegy’s multi-stop phone complaint system (call, explain, get transferred, explain again). Many who rant on blogs say they tire of the treatment and simply give up. Businesses using the service may consider a few customers’ anger worth the avoidance of a rising number of fraudulent checks.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Case of spying computers sparks privacy concerns

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted April 20, 2013, at 4:08 p.m.

 

It was bad enough when criminals were trying to access consumers’ personal information. When some businesses were caught peeking into people’s rented computers, authorities came down hard.

Last week, a settlement was announced between federal investigators and seven rent-to-own, or RTO, companies, plus a software design firm and its two principals. While the settlement allows the companies to avoid admitting they did anything wrong, it requires them to stop doing the things that created all the fuss.

Those things stemmed from the companies’ apparent efforts to cut their losses from theft of their rented computers. According to the Federal Trade Commission, which investigated, the RTOs licensed software from a firm called DesignerWare. That software — installed without the customers’ knowledge — contained a “kill switch” that allowed RTOs to disable a rented computer if, in some cases, even a single payment was missed.

Even more upsetting to consumers may have been the add-on feature in the software called “Detective Mode.” When activated (again without the users’ knowledge) the RTOs could track a computer’s location, log a user’s keystrokes, even turn on a built-in camera to photograph the renter, sometimes in his or her most private moments. It also displayed a fake “registration screen” that tricked consumers into providing their contact information.

The FTC probe determined that the cyberspying gave RTOs access to usernames and passwords for email accounts, financial institutions and social media websites; private emails to doctors; Social Security numbers; bank and credit card statements; data from social media sites; and those photographs that most consumers probably wouldn’t want others to see.

The settlement forbids the companies from using monitoring software and from deceptively gathering personal information. There is to be no geophysical tracking without a consumer’s consent, and the information gathered improperly has to be destroyed (unless it becomes evidence in legal proceedings).

At least one of the companies does business in Maine. You can see the list at
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/04/designerware.shtm
.

The companies will have to keep good records detailing compliance; the FTC plans to keep tabs on them for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, people who keep an eye on such matters say, since many of us willingly offer up private details, the day is not far off when the law won’t take much notice of privacy violations.

Brian Kabateck and Evan Zucker, attorneys in Los Angeles, wrote an article about the RTO cyberspying. “Everyone must be prepared for a day when these kinds of violations are no longer considered a violation of any right at all because the invitation of so much monitoring technology has completely stripped away any expectation of privacy,” they wrote.

In the Daily Journal, a news service for the legal profession, Kabateck and Zucker urged diligence in protecting consumer information and making sure consumer laws are enforced when breaches occur, “to safeguard these important rights.”

There’s this from the FTC website: “The law balances your right to privacy with a company’s need to provide information for normal business purposes.”

Consumers need to watch carefully, as definitions of terms in the preceding sentence evolve.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Corporate Records Service scam targets, dupes small businesses

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT

Posted April 07, 2013, at 11:25 a.m.

 The people in Maine’s division of corporations, a department within the Secretary of State’s office, have been a busy in recent weeks.

Responding to calls of concern, they sent a number of emails to corporations regarding a scam that’s been making the rounds nationwide. The goal, as in most scams, is to get unsuspecting recipients to send money in exchange for, well, nothing.

An outfit calling itself Corporate Records Service (CRS) sent letters to a number of Maine businesses, and those letters were more than a little official-looking. Printed on legal-size paper, the letters told business owners that CRS would “prepare and provide corporate minutes” that allegedly meet requirements of state law.

“As soon as we learned of it, we knew it wasn’t legitimate,” said Barbara Redmond, Maine’s chief deputy secretary of state. As the division of corporations pointed out in a recent news release, “Maine corporations are not required to file corporate minutes with the Secretary of State’s office.”

While corporations do have to file annual reports by June 1, they do not have to file meeting minutes. And they certainly don’t have to pay an unknown party $125 to do so.

The division’s news release and mass emailing to corporations cautioned, “We want to alert all entities [for-profit businesses and nonprofits] of this deceptive solicitation to prevent entities from feeling compelled to complete the form and send payment to a mailing center post office box address by the deadline on the form.”

Northeast CONTACT was alerted to the scam by a Bangor-area business that had complied with the solicitation. On learning it was a scam, the owner canceled his credit card as a precaution (meanwhile, the mailbox service had flagged the unauthorized mail recipient — CRS — and returned the mailing to the owner).

Business owners might be duped by such a scam for several reasons. Forms that appear to be matters of official business carry more weight than “junk mail.” Small businesses by definition have a limited number of employees; they may be doing several jobs and may not be trained to spot scam attempts.

Finally, the sheer volume of mail that many businesses receive makes attention to such details problematic. Businesses are targets of a number of schemes, notably offers to sell office supplies at better-than-believable prices. One offer — to print all government-required employee notices on one laminated sheet — is often outdated nearly as soon as it’s received (get them free at www.maine.gov/labor/posters/index.html).

Cara McCormick of Belfast owns two corporations in Maine. Recalling the fines for missing a previous annual report filing deadline, she had filled out two of the bogus forms, enclosed checks and was ready to mail them. She checked her email and found the warning from the division of corporations. “They deserve to be commended for their timely response,” McCormick said.

All entities on record with the Secretary of State may want to check filing requirements at
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/corp/helpful.html
and call the division of corporations at (207) 624-7752 with questions.

Inspector Michael Desrosiers of the Postal Inspection Service in Portland says the service has not investigated this particular mailing. He advises average citizens and business people alike to be sure they know who they’re sending money to, and that if it’s a scam, “you will never get that money back.” For more, visit the Inspection Service website, www.deliveringtrust.com.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit
http://necontact.wordpress.com
or email contacexdir@live.com.

Google Maps settlement reveals privacy concerns

CONSUMER FORUM

By Russ Van Arsdale, Executive Director, Northeast CONTACT
Posted March 31, 2013, at 11:03 a.m.

Last month, the attorneys general of 38 states, including Maine, announced a $7 million settlement of charges that Google engaged in unauthorized collection of data from wireless networks. Of most concern to privacy advocates was the collection that took place in residential neighborhoods, from unsecured Wi-Fi networks of home Internet users.

The collecting happened as part of Google’s Street View effort. Google announced the program five years ago, saying it would give viewers the ability to take a 360-degree look around places on all seven continents. It was supposed to help people looking to find a home, explore places they’d never been, or simply gawk.

To collect the data for Street View, Google dispatched a fleet of vehicles equipped with cameras and computers. They roamed the streets of the United States, photographing whatever could be seen from public streets. The intent was not to invade people’s privacy, but in some cases the data collection was, shall we say, vigorous.

Some of Google’s colorful cars gathered electronic data from wireless computer networks in residential areas. The information that they collected included what is termed “payload data,” including email texts and addresses to Web pages people were viewing. It’s likely that more than a little business content was captured as well.

As soon as the unauthorized data gathering was discovered, Google management said it was not aware that it had been happening; that the company isolated the data once it was discovered; and that the company never used payload data in any of Google’s products or services.

It seemed that was good enough for the Federal Trade Commission, which said in May 2010 it would “take a very, very close look” at Google’s actions. The FTC ended its investigation that October, apparently without examining the data Google had gathered. The Electronic Privacy Information Center ( epic.org) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FTC the following February, settling the case after the FTC turned over documents suggesting that it lacked enforcement authority.

Connecticut’s attorney general led the legal action by the states and the District of Columbia; the upshot was the settlement announced March 12. Under the terms, Google will not use any of the data that had been collected and segregated in its products or services; that data will be destroyed. The company will train employees about privacy and confidentiality of user data and run an ad campaign to help educate consumers about securing their personal information when using wireless networks.

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills called the settlement “a reminder that people should take steps to protect themselves from unwarranted intrusions of their personal and financial matters. Password-protecting your home or business Wi-Fi networks is a simple first step.”

To make sure your wireless network can’t be accessed by unwanted or unknown parties, read PC World’s article, “How To Lock Down Your Wireless Network” ( find.pcworld.com/72367). You may also want to contact your Internet service provider for help.

Maine’s share of the settlement is just over $106,000. That money may be used to pay for litigation or for future consumer protection or privacy enforcement and education.

Consumer Forum is a collaboration of the Bangor Daily News and Northeast CONTACT, Maine’s all-volunteer, nonprofit consumer organization. For assistance with consumer-related issues, including consumer fraud and identity theft, or for information, write Consumer Forum, P.O. Box 486, Brewer 04412, visit 
http://necontact.wordpress.com
 or email contacexdir@live.com.