Just a heads up for everyone regarding the latest in Visa fraud. Royal Bank received this communication about the newest scam. This is happening in southern Alberta right now and moving.
This one is pretty slick since they provide YOU with all the information, except the one piece they want..
Note, the callers do not ask for your card number; they already have it.
This information is worth reading. By understanding how the VISA & MasterCard telephone Credit Card Scam works, you'll be better prepared to protect yourself. One of our employees was called on Wednesday from 'VISA', and I was called on Thursday from 'MasterCard'.
The scam works like this:
Person calling says - 'This is (name), and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud Department at VISA. My Badge number is 12460, Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card which was issued by (name of bank). Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona ?' When you say 'No', the caller continues with, 'Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?' You say 'yes'.
The caller continues - 'I will be starting a Fraud Investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 1- 800 number listed on the back of your card (1-800-VISA) and ask for Security. You will need to refer to this Control Number. The caller then gives you a 6 digit number. 'Do you need me to read it again?'
Here's the IMPORTANT part on how the scam works - The caller then says, 'I need to verify you are in possession of your card'. He'll ask you to 'turn your card over and look for some numbers'. There are 7 numbers; the first 4 are part of your card number, the last 3 are the Security Numbers that verify you are the possessor of the card. These are the numbers you sometimes use to make Internet purchases to prove you have the card. The caller will ask you to read the last 3 numbers to him. After you tell the caller the 3 numbers, he'll say, 'That is correct, I just needed to verify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions?'
After you say no, the caller then thanks you and states, 'Don't hesitate to call back if you do', and hangs up. You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back. Within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we were glad we did! The REAL VISA Security Department told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497.99 was charged to our card. We made a real fraud report and closed the VISA account. VISA is reissuing us a new number. What the scammers want is the 3-digit PIN number on the back of the card. Don't give it to them. Instead, tell them you'll call VISA or Master Card directly for verification of their conversation.
The real VISA told us that they will never ask for anything on the card as they already know the information since they issued the card! If you give the scammers your 3 Digit PIN Number, you think you're receiving a credit; however, by the time you get your statement you'll see charges for purchases you didn't make, and by then it's almost too late and/or more difficult to actually file a fraud report.
What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from a 'Jason Richardson of MasterCard' with a word-for-word repeat of the VISA Scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up! We filed a police report, as instructed by VISA. The police said they are taking several of these reports daily! They also urged us to tell everybody we know that this scam is happening.. I dealt with a similar situation this morning, with the caller telling me that $3,097 had been charged to my account for plane tickets to Spain , and so on through the above routine.
It appears that this Is a very active scam, and evidently quite successful.
Pass this link on.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Indonesia Fund
Raisin money to get Indonesia on the rock climbing map. All money raised will be used to develop rock climbing in Indonesia, to help Indonesian climbers travel to climbing destination they normally couldn't afford, and to make existing routes in Indonesia safe with good quality anchors.
When enough funds are raised, Indonesian climbers will be able to ask for a grant to establish new routes in Indonesia. Grant received will be listed here and so will trip report. A separate site is being created to consolidate an English Climbing resource on climbing areas of Indonesia.
All I can do is provide my word that the funds will be used as stated above.
When enough funds are raised, Indonesian climbers will be able to ask for a grant to establish new routes in Indonesia. Grant received will be listed here and so will trip report. A separate site is being created to consolidate an English Climbing resource on climbing areas of Indonesia.
All I can do is provide my word that the funds will be used as stated above.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Rock climbing Sponsirship SIN??
I’m not sure when Scott wrote “Is Sponsorship a Sin,” but it’s making its way around the internet and seems to be bringing up various points of view. If nothing else, some conversations have been had. For me, is seems that Scott is just trying to write something that people will talk about so people show up to his slide shows and read his blog. Like many things today, it’s vague and lacks any real contributions. Even the slide presentation is held, from what I saw on the video, was lacking in any defiant examples.
Personally, I read just about everything I can get my hands on, and that includes Climbing Magazine. While I don’t read every single article and I don’t stare at every photo trying to figure out what gear is being used, I do enjoy seeing nice photos and reading about other climbers’ adventures. I especially like reading about places I haven’t seen or climbed yet. If that’s seen as athlete self promotion, so be it.
Athlete’s self-promotion and writing their own articles for magazines or in a blog is not unlike other industries. Let’s face it, being published on a regular basis makes you more credible and noticed. No-one is standing at the top of cliffs waiting for an athlete to send a new route or push a new grade. Personally, I’m glad of that. In the case of people publishing their adventures that are not on cutting edge routes, if the writing is good, I read it. I especially love to read about locations that are new, regardless of how hoard the routes are.
Scott wants thing that are “RAD” and “advances the sport.” To be honest here, I’m not sure how Scott decides what’s RAD and what’s not. I guess climbing on the high end of the scale is the key, but in climbing, the grades are suggestive. Besides, wouldn’t a 26 pitch 5.10 in Antarctica be more “rad” than a 60ft 5.14 sport route near downtown Boulder. Even a new 20 pitch 5.10 in a remote part of Indonesia is a contribution to the sport in my humble opinion.
During the last few years I’ve been developing routes in South East Asia. Of the over 1000 routes, 80% are sport routes. My routes range from 5.6 to 5.13c. When I see other climbers in these areas, most of them are climbing the sport routes that are 5.11 and below. My 5.13c has seen one other ascent; the 5.13 B has seen a dozen attempts in two years with no-one reaching the belay chains. When you consider the amount of people who climb and play on the 5.9-5.11 in the area, you could say that those routes have had more contributions to climbing than the hard sport routes. Like it or not, the far majority of climber don’t climb harder than 5.11, and most of us like to read about routes that we can do.
In my option, hard climbing is not the only thing that advances the sport, especially from a gear manufacturer’s point of view. Route development, especially in the recreational grades, advances the sport much more. I’m not sure about climbers across the world, but most climbers I personally know value esthetic lines over pure difficulty. Don’t believe me, check out how many people attempt to climb the Nose in Yosemite versus how many attempt the Reticent Wall around the corner.
Scott claims that athlete lie when they do their write up, if that the case, then shame on them. What I would like to know who these climbers are? Another words Scott, give me specifics instead of vague accusations.
I’d like to know who is lying to the climbing community?
Who is embellishing their stories?
I don’t know anyone who condones lying, but I know lots of people who enjoy reading about other people’s climbing adventure. When I read something, I know that the author is writing about it from his point of view. What’s hard for them might be easy or impossible for me.
In the 1990’s, I owned and managed a guide service in Tennessee. I often received guide resumes from very strong climbers that I would not hire. Their climbing skills were good, but their teaching skills were not. They could not understand or didn’t remember what it was like to be a beginner; this made it hard to teach new climbers. On the other hand, I had many climbers who were very safe but didn’t climb hard who made excellent instructors. They had the skills needed to teach beginners to climb, they were safe, and most importantly, they had a personally that people enjoyed.
Being sponsored is the same; the strongest climber might not know how to get his sponsors brand notices. It’s better to have a climber understand that sponsorship is about marketing the brand, not just climbing hard. Sponsorship is about getting the brand noticed, not just being the strongest and best climber. Because climbing is a sport where recreational climbers climb next to the elite climbers at the crags, individual personality and people skills are a factor in being sponsored. Regardless of how hard you climb, personality is important.
Personally, I find blind and random accusations more insulting and hurting to climbing, then someone who self promotes or writes about their latest climbing adventure.
Personally, I read just about everything I can get my hands on, and that includes Climbing Magazine. While I don’t read every single article and I don’t stare at every photo trying to figure out what gear is being used, I do enjoy seeing nice photos and reading about other climbers’ adventures. I especially like reading about places I haven’t seen or climbed yet. If that’s seen as athlete self promotion, so be it.
Athlete’s self-promotion and writing their own articles for magazines or in a blog is not unlike other industries. Let’s face it, being published on a regular basis makes you more credible and noticed. No-one is standing at the top of cliffs waiting for an athlete to send a new route or push a new grade. Personally, I’m glad of that. In the case of people publishing their adventures that are not on cutting edge routes, if the writing is good, I read it. I especially love to read about locations that are new, regardless of how hoard the routes are.
Scott wants thing that are “RAD” and “advances the sport.” To be honest here, I’m not sure how Scott decides what’s RAD and what’s not. I guess climbing on the high end of the scale is the key, but in climbing, the grades are suggestive. Besides, wouldn’t a 26 pitch 5.10 in Antarctica be more “rad” than a 60ft 5.14 sport route near downtown Boulder. Even a new 20 pitch 5.10 in a remote part of Indonesia is a contribution to the sport in my humble opinion.
During the last few years I’ve been developing routes in South East Asia. Of the over 1000 routes, 80% are sport routes. My routes range from 5.6 to 5.13c. When I see other climbers in these areas, most of them are climbing the sport routes that are 5.11 and below. My 5.13c has seen one other ascent; the 5.13 B has seen a dozen attempts in two years with no-one reaching the belay chains. When you consider the amount of people who climb and play on the 5.9-5.11 in the area, you could say that those routes have had more contributions to climbing than the hard sport routes. Like it or not, the far majority of climber don’t climb harder than 5.11, and most of us like to read about routes that we can do.
In my option, hard climbing is not the only thing that advances the sport, especially from a gear manufacturer’s point of view. Route development, especially in the recreational grades, advances the sport much more. I’m not sure about climbers across the world, but most climbers I personally know value esthetic lines over pure difficulty. Don’t believe me, check out how many people attempt to climb the Nose in Yosemite versus how many attempt the Reticent Wall around the corner.
Scott claims that athlete lie when they do their write up, if that the case, then shame on them. What I would like to know who these climbers are? Another words Scott, give me specifics instead of vague accusations.
I’d like to know who is lying to the climbing community?
Who is embellishing their stories?
I don’t know anyone who condones lying, but I know lots of people who enjoy reading about other people’s climbing adventure. When I read something, I know that the author is writing about it from his point of view. What’s hard for them might be easy or impossible for me.
In the 1990’s, I owned and managed a guide service in Tennessee. I often received guide resumes from very strong climbers that I would not hire. Their climbing skills were good, but their teaching skills were not. They could not understand or didn’t remember what it was like to be a beginner; this made it hard to teach new climbers. On the other hand, I had many climbers who were very safe but didn’t climb hard who made excellent instructors. They had the skills needed to teach beginners to climb, they were safe, and most importantly, they had a personally that people enjoyed.
Being sponsored is the same; the strongest climber might not know how to get his sponsors brand notices. It’s better to have a climber understand that sponsorship is about marketing the brand, not just climbing hard. Sponsorship is about getting the brand noticed, not just being the strongest and best climber. Because climbing is a sport where recreational climbers climb next to the elite climbers at the crags, individual personality and people skills are a factor in being sponsored. Regardless of how hard you climb, personality is important.
Personally, I find blind and random accusations more insulting and hurting to climbing, then someone who self promotes or writes about their latest climbing adventure.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Sponsorship a sin?
I'll post my view soon. For, watch the video and see what you decide.
Is Sponsorship a Sin? from Scott Semple on Vimeo.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
