 |
|
|
|||||
Unwanted phone calls are out of control. Whether it’s a robocall trying to sell you something or spam calls from scammers trying to rip you off, it’s enough to make you want to stop answering your phone. So what can you do to stop them?The scourge of unwanted phone calls has been branded an epidemic by consumer groups, while the Federal Communications Commission says it’s the top consumer complaint. The calls are a nuisance to many ordinary people, some of whom have complained to the Associated Press.“I need help on getting spam calls to stop,” one reader said in an email. She’s getting up to 14 calls a day despite the countermeasures she’s employed.As the name implies, robocalls are automated calls to deliver recorded messages to a large number of phones. A robocall purely to deliver a message or collect a debt is allowed under U.S. regulations, but the Federal Trade Commission says robocalls with a recorded voice trying to sell you something are illegal unless you’ve given explicit written permission to receive them. Many robocalls are also probably scams, the FTC warns.If you’re flooded by unsolicited calls, here are some ways to fight back. Phone settings Smartphone users can turn on some built-in settings to combat unknown calls.Apple advises iPhone users to turn on the Silence Unknown Callers feature. Go to your “Settings,” then scroll down to “Apps,” and then to “Phone,” where you’ll see it under the “Calls” section. When you turn this on, any calls from numbers that you’ve never been in touch with and aren’t saved in your contacts list will not ring through. Instead, they’ll be sent to voicemail and show up in your list of recent calls.Android has a similar setting that allows you to block calls from private or unidentified numbers, although you will still receive calls from numbers that aren’t stored in your contact list.Just keep in mind that you could also end up not getting important calls, which sometimes come from unknown numbers.If an unwanted call does get through, both Android and iPhone users can block the individual phone number by tapping on it in the recent callers or call history list. You can also enter numbers directly into your phone’s block list. Do not call Sign up for the national Do Not Call registry, which is a list of numbers that have opted out of most telemarketing calls. The Federal Trade Commission, which runs the registry, says it only contains phone numbers and holds no other personally identifiable information, nor does the registry know whether the number is for a landline or a cellphone.The FTC says there are some exemptions, including political calls, calls from nonprofit groups and charities, and legitimate survey groups that aren’t selling anything. Also allowed are calls from companies up to 18 months after you’ve doneor sought to dobusiness with them.But it also warns that while having your number on the registry will cut down on unwanted sales calls, it won’t stop scammers from making illegal calls.Other countries have similar registries. Canada has its own Do Not Call list while the U.K. has the Telephone Preference Service. Carrier filters Check whether your wireless carrier has a call-blocking service. Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T, three of the biggest U.S. networks, all have their own call filters for customers to block robocalls and report spam. There’s typically a free basic version and an advanced version that requires a subscription fee. Try an app If your phone company’s filters aren’t good enough, try third-party apps to weed out unwanted callers.There are a host of smartphone apps available that promise to block spam calls, like Nomorobo, YouMail, Hiya, RoboKiller, TrueCaller, and others. Many charge a monthly or annual subscription fee but some offer a free basic option. Some also can be installed on landline phones, but only if they use VOIP technology, not copper cables.The Associated Press hasn’t tested any of these apps and isn’t making specific recommendations. We recommend you read user reviews and try some out for yourself.Apple says the apps work by comparing a caller’s number with a list of known numbers and labeling them, for example, spam or telemarketing. Then it might automatically block the call. “Incoming calls are never sent to third-party developers,” the company says. Report calls Did you know you can file a complaint with the FCC about specific spam calls? You can do so easily through an online form. It might not give you immediate satisfaction, but the National Consumer Law Center says data on complaints is the best tool federal agencies have for determining how big a problem robocalls are. Just say no While companies you’ve done business with can make robocalls to you, the National Consumer Law Center says it’s probably because you gave consentpossibly hidden in fine print. But you can also revoke your consent at any time.Just tell the company representative that you want to “revoke consent,” and if that doesn’t stop them, contact customer service and tell them that you don’t consent to receive calls and want your number added to the company’s “do not call” list, the center says. Hang up You might be tempted to try to engage with the call in an attempt to get your number off the call list or be put through to a real person. The FTC warns against doing this and recommends that you just hang up.“Pressing numbers to speak to someone or remove you from the list will probably only lead to more robocalls,” the agency says on its advice page. “And the number on your caller ID probably isn’t real. Caller ID is easy to fake” and can’t be trusted, it says.Cybersecurity company Kaspersky advises not even saying anything when you receive what you think is a robocall. We’ve all received scammy calls that start with something like “Hello, can you hear me?” to which you’ve probably replied “yes” without thinking.Scammers “can then store the recording of your confirmation and use it for fraudulent activities,” Kaspersky says. “So, avoid saying yes where possible.” Is there a tech topic that you think needs explaining? Write to us at onetechtip@ap.org with your suggestions for future editions of One Tech Tip. Kelvin Chan, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
The European Union on Thursday pushed back hard against allegations by U.S. President Donald Trump that the 27-nation bloc was out to get the United States, and warned that it would vigorously fight any wholesale tariff of 25% on all EU products.The tit-for-tat dispute following the vitriolic comments of Trump aimed at an age-old ally and its main postwar economic partner further deepened the trans-Atlantic rift that was already widened by Trump’s warnings that Washington would drop security guarantees for its European allies.Thursday’s EU pushback came after Trump told reporters that “the European Union was formed in order to screw the United States. That’s the purpose of it, and they’ve done a good job of it,” adding that it would stop immediately under his presidency.Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, went on a counteroffensive.“The EU wasn’t formed to screw anyone,” Tusk said in an X post. “Quite the opposite. It was formed to maintain peace, to build respect among our nations, to create free and fair trade, and to strengthen our transatlantic friendship. As simple as that.”And Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez added fiery fuel to the debate.“We will stand up to those who attack us with unfair tariffs and veiled threats to our sovereignty. We are committed and prepared to do so,” he said in northern Spain.The EU also warned that the moment that tariffs are announced, it would trigger tough countermeasures on iconic U.S. industries like bourbon, jeans, and motorcycles.“Spain and the EU have been together working for months, and we will adopt measures to respond firmly. We will do so as a bloc,” Sánchez said.European Commission trade spokesman Olof Gill also said that the EU would stand up to the Trump administration if tariffs are announced.“The EU will react firmly and immediately against unjustified barriers to free and fair trade,” Gill said in a statement. “We will also protect our consumers and businesses at every turn. They expect no less from us.”Trump said in comments late Wednesday that the United States stood ready.“We are the pot of gold. We’re the one that everybody wants. And they can retaliate. But it cannot be a successful retaliation, because we just go cold turkey. We don’t buy any more. And if that happens, we win.”Gill also countered Trump’s caustic comments on the inception of the EU and its development as an economic powerhouse.“The European Union is the world’s largest free market. And it has been a boon for the United States,” he said, adding that the EU has “facilitated trade, reduced costs for U.S. exporters, and harmonized standards and regulations,” which makes it easier for U.S. exporters.The EU estimates that the trade volume between both sides stands at about $1.5 trillion, representing around 30% of global trade. Trump has complained about a trade deficit, but while the bloc has a substantial export surplus in goods, the EU says that is partly offset by the U.S. surplus in the trade of services.The EU says that trade in goods reached 851 billion euros ($878 billion) in 2023, with a trade surplus of 156 billion euros ($161 billion) for the EU. Trade in services was worth 688 billion euros ($710 billion) with a trade deficit of 104 billion euros ($107 billion) for the EU.The figures are so big that it remained essential to avoid a trade war, the EU has said.“We should work together to preserve these opportunities for our people and businesses. Not against each other,” Gill said. “Europe stands for dialogue, openness and reciprocity. We’re ready to partner if you play by the rules.” Joseph Wilson in Barcelona, Spain, and Vanessa Gera in Warsaw, Poland, contributed to this report. Raf Casert, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
An attorney for a Texas pipeline company said Wednesday at trial that he will prove various Greenpeace entities coordinated delays and disruptions of a controversial oil pipeline’s construction in North Dakota, and defamed the company to its lenders.Attorneys for the Greenpeace defendants told a jury there is no evidence to back up the claims by Dallas-based Energy Transfer, which seeks potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from Greenpeace.The case is tied to protests in 2016 and 2017 of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its controversial Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe has long opposed the pipeline as a risk to its water supply. The pipeline was completed in 2017.Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access allege trespass, nuisance, defamation, and other offenses by Netherlands-based Greenpeace International and its American branch, Greenpeace USA. The lawsuit also names the group’s funding arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.Greenpeace paid professional protesters to come to the area, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told untrue things to stop the pipeline from being built, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Trey Cox, told the jury in his opening statement.“They didn’t think that there would ever be a day of reckoning, but that day of reckoning begins today,” Cox said in opening statements.Attorneys for the defendants emphasized what they said are distinctions between the various Greenpeace entities, such as what they do and how they’re organized.They said Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund Inc. had zero involvement in the protests, while Greenpeace USA had six employees at Standing Rock for five to 51 days. Greenpeace is committed to nonviolence, and only got involved at Standing Rock because of tribal outreach, the attorneys said.“This was an Indigenous-led movement by the Native tribes, and we wanted them to have the spotlight,” said Greenpeace USA attorney Everett Jack Jr.One of nine alleged defamatory statementsthat Energy Transfer desecrated burial grounds and culturally important sites during constructionwas made many times by the tribe before any of the Greenpeace statements, he said.Cox said that statement was included in a letter sent to Energy Transfer’s banks and signed by the executive directors of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA.He added that Energy Transfer made 140 adjustments to its pipeline route in order to respect sacred sites.“Our goal was to be a good corporate citizen in North Dakota,” Cox said.More than 500 organizations from more than 50 countries signed on to that letter, said Greenpeace International attorney Courtney DeThomas, who described it as an act of free expression.No financial institution will testify that it received, read or was influenced by the letter, which was signed after thousands of protesters were already at Standing Rock, DeThomas said.Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.Greenpeace says the lawsuit is going after $300 million, citing a figure from a previous federal case. The lawsuit complaint asks for damages in an amount to be proved at trial.Because of Greenpeace, Energy Transfer incurred over $82 million in security, contractor and property costs, and lost $80 million of profits, Cox told jurors. The pipeline was supposed to be completed by January 1, 2017, but wasn’t moving oil until five months later, he said.Greenpeace’s “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and Energy Transfer lost half its banks, he said. The company suffered over $68 million in lost financing and spent $7.6 million for public relations “to deal with these problems and lies” from the “whisper campaign,” Cox said.But Jack said Greenpeace had nothing to do with the company’s delays in operating or refinancing. He also disputed how Energy Transfer is claiming or calculating its damages. The company also has no expert to back its claim of reputational harm, he said.Jury selection took place earlier in the week and the estimated five-week trial is now underway. Nine jurors and two alternates will hear the case in Mandan, North Dakota.The company filed a similar case in federal court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Energy Transfer subsequently filed the lawsuit now at trial in state court.Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed an anti-intimidation suit in the District Court of Amsterdam against Energy Transfer, saying the company acted wrongfully and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “meritless” litigation. Jack Dura, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||