90 Miles From Tyranny

Friday, December 2, 2016

Girls With Guns

The Curious Case of Bogus Amazon Sellers

I’m sure I’m not alone in admitting that I generally love Amazon. The access to massive product variety, frequently great prices, the whole Prime feature, and a sense that you can really trust the entire framework just makes Amazon easy to appreciate. But that trust thing… well, lately I’ve had it rocked a little bit when it comes to Amazon. Here’s the executive summary:

I have found multiple clearly fraudulent sellers in the “used” category
I’ve engaged Amazon’s customer service and investigations staff, had my suspicions confirmed and told by Amazon they’d get rid of the bogus sellers
The same sellers keep coming back, and they are pretty convincing if you don’t know better
There seems to be no way for Amazon to keep them out
Dealing with Amazon in this regard is kind of like talking with children who speak another language, and who also happen to be watching TV or something as you speak to them

Now let’s look at a real-world example.

Please note the instructions for how to engage this seller- you have to leave the Amazon framework and communicate through Gmail. We’ll go there in a bit, but also note the seller’s name “Lin.Martone”. This one has also shown up as:

LI N Martone
LinMartone

and each variant has a different gmail account to go with it. On this item, there have been NUMEROUS bogus sellers that come and go, all with the same “email me if you want this” and all with a price that’s too good to be true (hence the draw). All of this has been shared with Amazon via emails and calls. In each case, Amazon agrees fraud is in play, yet it it keeps coming back.

Being a veteran of many an investigation, I decided to follow one of these out before enaging Amazon for the first time. Here we go… bogus seller here is ter.kansey@gmail.com (you’ll love the spoofed Amazon page that’s coming):

Realize- we’ve already broken Amazon’s rules here, by leaving the web framework and communicating directly. The response- a sloppy cut and paste of a reply to somebody named Shane.

Here is where it gets good- sent in my inbox, a very official looking “Amazon page” complete with bogus order number. I have to think that at this point, many shoppers might be fooled.

This person was trying to get me to buy an Amazon gift card, and read them the number as payment for an item that would most assuredly never come. When I called Amazon and shared this all with them, I found a number of challenges in dealing with customer service.

You can’t share any of these sorts of screenshots- only email headers (which I did)
When I mentioned fake order numbers and well-crafted fake phishing style pages being provided via email, I don’t know if it even registered with the person I was speaking with
I pointed out over multiple calls and online reports at least half a dozen bogus “sellers” on this item alone, all with same methodology
You get the general feeling that Amazon could really care less, and that you are a bit of a bother when you engage them on this over the phone
The same “sellers” keep coming back
That anyone can join the Amazon used market as seller and then be allowed to tell customers to go through email and break Amazon’s rules WITHOUT AMAZON THEMSELVES CATCHING IT is bewildering

And that’s it. I’ll still use Amazon for new items, but am thoroughly spooked at how loose and sloppy this end of their used market is. I hope this blog can help even one person not to get scammed by what seems to be pretty common on Amazon.

Cheers!

ADDENDUM- Thanks, Stephen Foskett for taking this issue up on your own blog, and summarizing what to watch out for: (lifted from Stephen):

Here are the hallmarks:

Too-low round-number prices roughly half the retail cost
Items sold as used but with specific notes that they’re actually new
Instructions to email to begin the transaction rather than using the Amazon site, including obviously obfuscated gmail addresses with spaces between letters
“Just Launched” seller profiles with no ratings

Be careful out there!

https://wirednot.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/the-curious-case-of-bogus-amazon-sellers/

CNN HOST ALISYN CAMEROTA: WEAR HIJAB IN SOLIDARITY WITH MUSLIMS

CNN host, former Fox News host, Alisyn Camerota recently suggested Americans should wear hijabs stating:

Maybe there will be a movement where people wear the head scarf in solidarity. You know, even if you’re not Muslim.

Has she lost her mind?

Will she self-mutilate her genitals also?

For months during the presidential campaign, comedian Rosie O’Donnell stood up to President-elect Donald Trump, matching him insult for insult.

However, within only a few days of Melania Trump firing a legal shot across the bow of the creator of a YouTube video O’Donnell promoted that suggested Trump’s son, Barron, has autism, O’Donnell made an abject apology.

“I was insensitive in my RT- i am sorry for the pain i caused – it was not my intent – i am truly sorry,” she tweeted Thursday.

The Washington Times reports White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Munoz told amnesty advocates that President Obama will not pardon illegal aliens prior to leaving office. She said a pardon does not apply to immigration cases and is not a permanent solution.

Days after the election, illegal-alien advocates started pressuring Obama to pardon all illegal aliens before he leaves office. Congressional Democrats issued their plea shortly thereafter for the 740,000 participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

But in a podcast today Munoz said, “It’s ultimately not [the way to protect illegal aliens] for a couple reasons. One is that pardon authority is generally designed for criminal...

The Canadian Broadcasting Company, commonly referred to as the CBC, recently put out a puff piece about a Syrian refugee family in Canada.

The CBC tours the families house, a three bedroom home that is honestly nicer than most homes.

It turns out the average Syrian refugee receives $3600 from the Government of Canada, or $43,000 per year, while the average Canadian makes a mere $27,100.

So much for taking America’s “fake news” problem seriously.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, there’s been an abundance of hand-wringing over the “fake news” that supposedly is rampant on social media.

Yet missing has been any kind of serious searching among the mainstream media about whether it could learn any lessons from this election—and whether reporters and editors are holding themselves accountable to their supposed values of objectivity and rigorous reporting.

And a new “study” presents Exhibit A as to why the mainstream media should reconsider its own practices.

The Southern Poverty Law Center—an organization that calls the Family Research Council an “extremist group” because of its socially conservative views on LGBT matters—reported Nov. 29 that “in the 10 days following the election, there were almost 900 reports of harassment and intimidation from across the nation.”

“Many harassers invoked Trump’s name during assaults,” the report continued, “making it clear that the outbreak of hate stemmed in large part from his electoral success.”

Cue the widespread coverage:

“Nationwide, there have been more than 867 incidents of ‘hateful harassment’ in the first days following the election, the Southern Poverty Law Center says,” reported CNN.
“In the 10 days following the November election, SPLC said it collected 867 hate-related incidents on its website and through the media from almost every state,” wrote the Associated Press.
NBC News headlined its piece on the study “Southern Poverty Law Center Reports ‘Outbreak of Hate’ After Election.”
The Washington Post’s headline blared, “Civil rights group documents nearly 900 hate incidents after presidential election.”

There’s just one issue: The Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t confirm these “nearly 900” incidents actually happened.

“The 867 hate incidents described here come from two sources—submissions to the #ReportHate page on the SPLC website and media accounts,” the SPLC report states. “We have excluded incidents that authorities have determined to be hoaxes; however, it was not possible to confirm the veracity of all reports.”

In other words, who has any idea if these incidents actually happened or not?

Yet, the fact that there was no verification of these incidents didn’t stop the media from covering this “study.”

And let’s not pretend there’s no to very little chance that a Trump opponent would make up a hate crime story.

Just consider this reported hate incident in November: “The men used a racial slur, made a reference to lynching, and warned him this is Donald ‘Trump country now,’ according to the report he gave police,” reported the Boston Herald.

Yet the man wasn’t telling the truth. The Herald reported that Kevin Molis, police chief of Malden, Massachusetts, said “it has been determined that the story was completely fabricated.”

“’The alleged victim admitted that he had made up the entire story,’ saying he wanted to ‘raise awareness about...