DeathAwaitsU wrote:
Not to rub it in or anything but when you see http://www.freewebs.com from someone giving out a job you can assume it's fake. If they make such huge profits why would they need freewebs? Giving $20 an application, thats enough after 5-10 applications to get a kick ass site, why free webs? | |
Except, they're not doing it to get a kick ass site. They're doing it to score a quick buck. The sort of people who think "Hmmm... Freewebs? Suspicious" aren't the sort of people they're targetting, anyway. Plus, anything you pay for online is a trail that leads back to you.
| |
Strawgate wrote:
There are actually some people who make millions by shaping schemes to there advantage. Indeed. They're called con artists. Fraud is fraud; if you get in on it knowing it's fraud, you've perpetrated a crime. If for example Shades were now to send on that ad and actually try to see if the company would send him money, he'd be guilty of fraud himself. Lummox JR | |
Yeah, but they don't do it by taking on unnecessary expenses (like, "a sweet site"), or leaving an easily followed trail (like, "a sweet site"), or doing things that will make the sort of people who give things a second look give them a second look (like, a "sweet site.")
This scam depends on pulling in the naive and the easily fooled, and it can't last long in one form or place, so it also relies on the scammers being able to "pull up tent stakes" and move on periodically... which is another reason they use free sites. A very similar scam to this was responsible, a few years back, for the roads being littered with "work from home! all you need is a computer!" signs, handbills, etc... it was the same deal. You went to the address and it explained all you needed was a "business starter kit", and if you paid the fee, you would get a few sheets of paper explaining how to sell business starter kits. :P (And no, I didn't "invest" in the starter kit.) There are legitimate work from home jobs, but almost all of them involve logging into a phone bank... i.e., doing telemarketing or answering 800 (or 900) lines. Even then, you have to check out a prospective employer. Some of those lines have got in trouble for not actually paying their employees. There is a nationally recognized and reputable company called West Corp that recently (in the last year) launched an "agent at home" program that's worth checking out, for people who don't mind doing telemarketing but are desperate for a job they can do from home. I was formerly employed by this company in a completely different capacity, but I can say that they're on the level. :P | |
Yeah fine, rub it in my face, I feel stupid enough, but hey, at least its something I can learn from.
Usuaully I dont fall for all this stuff, I dont know what I was thinking. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Any prospective employer pays for your training; they don't require payment from you. I'm pretty sure that the government actually helps employers pay to train employees (which might be different in the US). Well trained people pay for themselves in the long run. | |
Shades wrote:
Yeah fine, rub it in my face, I feel stupid enough, but hey, at least its something I can learn from. I don't think anyone is trying to rub it in your face. More disecting your mistake so that you (and others) can learn the most from it. [Edit] Oh, and just for the record there are legitimate businesses that use free webspace. They're usually ran by people who don't have big budgets or much internet experience. The ones who know the internet is an important tool, but not how to use it. Also I wouldn't feel too bad falling for this. They've basically lied to you. It's not like they told you that you have to scam people to make money with this. They offered you a job entering data, you had to pay for training, they took your money and ran. The only reason to feel bad is if you decided to scam others to get your money back. | |
The US government doesn't subsidize employers training employees, but we do have laws that allow you to pay trainees less than minimum wage in certain circumstances... which is kind of similar, only more evil :-)
| |
nick.cash wrote:
The US government doesn't subsidize employers training employees, but we do have laws that allow you to pay trainees less than minimum wage in certain circumstances... which is kind of similar, only more evil :-) Wow. That's rather weak. I guess it encourages employers to train their employees, but I don't see too many employees being able to afford to live through training. It's sort of a catch 22. You need more money to pay the bills, but to get more money you need better training, which means taking less money so you can't pay the bills. That must lead to a lot of problems. It'd be very easy to get rid of an employee without having to worry about unfair dismissal claims. Just tell them they need some new training to be able to do their job, take away as much of their pay as you can, then wait for the bills to pile up and their forced to quit. Not to mention the problems of trapping people in low level positions. | |
the red flag that was noticeable to me was the use of 'notepad' and 'wordprocessor' in the same sentence.
:p | |
Ya, and it mentioned Paypal in the first Email and StormPay in the next. A GOOD fraud needs to be consistent.
I hate to say it, but I could've picked up on this one a mile away. This isn't just fraud, its very bad fraud! --Vito | |
Shades wrote:
Yeah fine, rub it in my face, I feel stupid enough, but hey, at least its something I can learn from. Another good sign is when something keeps saying, "Really this isn't a scam!" and then cites various bills and such to prove it's legal. I've never seen such a citation in something that was actually legal, and even when the citations point to something that exists, it's usually some bill that never got out of committee and is not actually law. I actually got spam that legally proved that I was "not allowed to complain about this spam". Wow, some powerful legislation, that! | |
I got a letter from the FTC
Dear XXXXXXXX: Thank you for recent correspondence. The Federal Trade Commission acts in the public interest to stop business practices that violate the laws it enforces. Letters from consumers and businesses are very important to the work of the Commission. They are often the first indication of a problem in the marketplace and may provide the initial evidence to begin an investigation. The Commission does not resolve individual complaints. The Commission can, however, act when it sees a pattern of possible violations developing. The information you have provided will be recorded in our complaint retention system. This computerized system enables us to identify questionable business practices that are generating numerous complaints and may be in violation of the law. Thank you for providing information that may be used to develop or support Commission enforcement initiatives. Sincerely yours, Consumer Response Center | |
I also went to storm pay and posted a comsumer claims report, but their is some warning I just found, the in claims report FAQ that claims they will only help those who have been ripped off, if what they purchased was tangable.
| |
nick.cash wrote:
The US government doesn't subsidize employers training employees Maybe the federal government doesn't, but some states definitely do. California is one. I can remember several years now where my employer made a pretty big deal about making sure they used all their state-allocated training fund, and we had to keep proper documentation to be reimbursed by the state. | |
Firstly, I still can't believe you thought it was legit, even after they listed two different payment systems!
Shades wrote: God, this isn't my greatest moment ever online, and it sucks, since it looks like there is nothing I can do about it, except maybe try and rip enough people off to make my money back. :P Anyways, don't bother ripping people off(for fear that somebody may talk to an online community that suggests to talk to somebody important). Why not make it legit. Leave ads that talk about the training(much as you received), but leave out anything that says you will be giving them a job; let them assume. Have them go through the non-refundable-payment-for-training thing, possibly telling them that afterwards they could be working a position that makes $50,000-$75,000(or more!) a year. Then give them access to a members-only site(NOT FREEWEBS) that offers just what you promised, computer training. Teach them C, C++, VB, HTML, or whatever you know. Then leave something like: Note: We do not offer jobs, only training and your little idea will get you're money back 100% legally, assuming that the only things you promised them was the training. By the way, that is mean and morally wrong. RD | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
Ya, and it mentioned Paypal in the first Email and StormPay in the next. A GOOD fraud needs to be consistent. Everyone keeps on mentioning this but the chances are they wouldn't pick up on it themselves. Right now you're reading the two e-mails next to each other, so it's really obvious. However by the time Shades got the second e-mail he'd probably summerized the first into his memory. If he already has a PayPal account he wouldn't have taken much notice of it in the first e-mail, so it would become a 'get paid using an online account'. So when reading the second one and seeing Stormpay instead of PayPal he'd probably just figure that he'd just heard 'online bank account' and filled in the blanks to get PayPal. It's a good sign that somethings fishy, although even legitimate businesses make mistakes like that, but it's not the big neon "scam" sign that people are making it out to be. | |
Rurouni Dragon wrote:
and your little idea will get you're money back 100% legally, assuming that the only things you promised them was the training. It's not legal in the slightest. To pass on the information in the same way and ask for payment would be to commit the fraud yourself. Lummox JR | |
But yeah I do stuff like this all the time.