Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

elasto
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby elasto » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:17 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
elasto wrote:In this day and age, isn't it possible to have a virtual number that forwards to her real number?
That may or may not be sufficient, depending on whether or not she needs to make outgoing calls. She'd need caller ID spoofing too. And that's a real racket the phone company has got.

Can't she make outgoing calls on Google Voice too?

I'd suggest she simply withhold her number but not sure if there's a cultural divide between the US and UK in that regard - maybe in the US people simply don't answer calls from withheld numbers?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby ucim » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:38 pm UTC

Google's web site doesn't say (but it does have YUGE! buttons to get the app). From wikipedia:
Caller line identification

As a call forwarding service, Google Voice also forwards the caller line identification (CLID or caller ID) of incoming calls to the user's telephone service. A user can choose whether to display a caller's CLID, or their Google Voice number, when receiving calls via the service.

Google Voice uses the caller's Google Voice number as the CLID on outgoing calls when the user places a call by calling the user's own Google Voice number and using the service's menu choices,[54] or when the web-based account portal is used to place a call.[55] With the introduction of the Google Voice application on iPhone, Android and BlackBerry phones, Google Voice users can directly dial from the Google Voice app with their Google Voice number as the outgoing CLID.


So it appears so. But it also appears to require a smartphone or a computer. You can't configure a flip phone.

It also requires her to use google. That should be a showstopper right there. I would not want google to have any more information about me than they already have. Much better to have an actual company phone that is not linked to the stalked employee's personal life.

As for withholding the number (caller ID block), in the US CID is a crock. You pay to get it, you pay to block it, you pay to break through the block, you pay to block people from breaking through the block, and in all cases it can be spoofed (which is what scummy telemarketers do). I've been a victim of this on both sides (seeing spoofed (usually local) numbers on the display, and having my own number be trumpeted as the origin of scummy calls.)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby freezeblade » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:45 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I'd suggest she simply withhold her number but not sure if there's a cultural divide between the US and UK in that regard - maybe in the US people simply don't answer calls from withheld numbers?


Unless I am expecting a call from someone I know has a usually-withheld number, I will not answer it. Whoever is calling can leave a message containing a number where I can reach them.

Pretty much everyone I know has similar thinking on the subject. Withheld numbers, in my experience at least, are usually telemarketers, scammers, or other calls that you don't typically want to entertain or answer.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

elasto
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby elasto » Fri Jan 05, 2018 11:07 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:Unless I am expecting a call from someone I know has a usually-withheld number, I will not answer it. Whoever is calling can leave a message containing a number where I can reach them.

In which case she can leave her business number for them to call back.

ucim wrote:It also requires her to use google. That should be a showstopper right there. I would not want google to have any more information about me than they already have. Much better to have an actual company phone that is not linked to the stalked employee's personal life.

Well, Google Voice wasn't my suggestion. Surely there are other virtual phone number providers if Google is too scary - perhaps ones that can service on a corporate basis? If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.

Personally I'd find carrying two phones around everywhere to be too annoying. I'd rather have two sim cards in one phone if a virtual number wasn't an option.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby ucim » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:51 am UTC

I withhold my cell number because I don't want people to know what it is. I do not want to be reached by cell; when I'm out, I'm out. I don't want to be bothered. (I have the cell for other purposes). I generally don't pay attention to incoming CID; I just answer. But if I have a spate of calls from somebody who's... er... "overly enthusiastic about reaching me", CID is a convenient way to duck them. It's only happened once. I find most scum telemarketers spoof CID anyway.
Spoiler:
There are now outgoing interactive voice systems that pretend to listen to you and cough up an "appropriate" response before launching into their spiel, to fool you into thinking it's a person for just a bit longer. I can usually name that tune in one note. Sometimes I'll ask them a surprisingly dumb non-sequitor question when they call; humans handle that differently than robots.
elasto wrote:If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.
Not massive. LIke Han Solo Luke Skywalker, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.
elasto wrote:I'd rather have two sim cards in one phone if a virtual number wasn't an option.
Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

Back on topic, I wonder if it was a man that decided that. :twisted:

Jose
edit: It was Luke who was insufficiently frightened, not Han.
Last edited by ucim on Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

elasto
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:26 am UTC

ucim wrote:
elasto wrote:If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.
Not massive. LIke Han Solo, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.

So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?
Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

You do? A SIM card here is free from some providers and about £1 from the rest. Why wouldn't every provider want you to choose them after all?

It's the same reason all providers subsidise locked phones (which you can then unlock for next to nothing...)

elasto
Posts: 3194
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby elasto » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:07 am UTC

ucim wrote:
elasto wrote:If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.
Not massive. LIke Han Solo, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.

So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?
Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

You do? A SIM card here is free from most providers and about £1 from the rest. Why wouldn't every provider want you to choose them after all?

It's the same reason all providers subsidise locked handsets (which you can then unlock for next to nothing...)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby ucim » Sat Jan 06, 2018 2:32 am UTC

elasto wrote:So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?
I don't know. I am not a telemarketing scumbag. CID should not be able to be spoofed; this is a flaw in the telco's system, and they have no reason to fix it. And to answer any "why don't they {good thing}?" question, it's sometimes instructive to ask "they did {good thing}, how can I {bad thing} with it?". When the internet, with all its promise, came out, I wondered how it would be corrupted and turned into mass media propaganda. AOL gave me a hint, and Trump hit me with a clue bat.

But virtual numbers would be nice for good people to have.

elasto wrote:A SIM card here is free from most providers and about £1 from the rest.
In the Dominican Republic they are $5 to $10. And if you have a prepaid card and only go there once a year, you have to buy a new one every time. In the old days you could just use a vacant (or obsolete) NAM for free.

Dunno how much they are elsewhere.

But I don't mean to derail the thread.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jan 06, 2018 12:02 pm UTC

There's no Parole Board Misbehaviour thread, so here's this, spoilered for length and [trigger: rape]:
Spoiler:
John Worboys: Parole chief apologises to victims

The chairman of the Parole Board has apologised "unreservedly" that some victims of sex attacker John Worboys were not told about his release.

The former black-cab driver served ten years after being convicted of 19 offences, including one rape, although police believe he attacked many more.

The CPS said 83 complaints were made during the initial investigation, but many did not pass the evidential test.

Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwick said hearing the decision must have been "horrible" for the women, but the board was "confident" 60-year-old Worboys would not reoffend.

"We look at a whole range of evidence - both what happened in the original offences, the judge's sentencing remarks, the programmes or work a prisoner has done, reports from people who know the prisoner well," he said.
The Met Police revealed in 2010 that 19 other victims had come forward in the wake of Worboys's conviction.

Officers suspected he had attacked more than 100 women between 2002 and 2008.

These allegations were investigated, but no further action was taken on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police said.[/quote]
John Worboys: alleged victims ready to bring fresh prosecutions, lawyer says

Alleged victims of the serial sex offender John Worboys are ready to bring fresh prosecutions against him and send him back to jail, according to their lawyer.

Women targeted by Worboys are devastated by the imminent release of the black-cab driver, who “denied his heinous crimes and then forced [victims] to endure the torment of a criminal trial”, said Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon. Scorer represents eight of Worboys’ alleged victims who were not included in the original criminal prosecution.

On Friday night the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that while it had prosecuted Worboys for attacks on 14 women, it had dropped cases involving three other women, even though it assessed they “passed the evidential test”, because there were sufficient counts “to enable the judge to impose an appropriate sentence”.

Worboys, 60, has spent nine years and nine months in prison, including time on remand. He was given an indeterminate sentence, which had a minimum term of eight years, for drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, including raping one of them. He is likely to be freed within weeks.

After he was jailed in 2009, police also told prosecutors about another 19 alleged victims, but the CPS advised that it would be in the public interest only to prosecute allegations of rape.
Release of cabbie rapist accused by 102 women defended by Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service are defending the release of a black cab rapist who was accused of sexual assault by more than 100 women.

Black cab rapist John Worboys, 60, is to be released after just nine years, prompting anger from victims and questions around why not all of the 102 complainants had their cases brought to trial.

One woman who said she had a narrow escape from the sexual predator said police dismissed her when she told them of her ordeal in 2002.

In a comment piece for the i newspaper, Hannah Roberts said it was six years on before she was given the opportunity to identify him and make a statement.

Criticising the CPS, she said: ‘Many of the women who came forward to accuse Worboys were ignored or not believed by police at the time of their attacks.

‘Now the same unheard women whose cases did not get to trial may feel slighted for a second time by suggestions that their cases did not meet the evidential test.

Chairman of the committee, Conservative MP Bob Neill, called for the Parole Board’s processes to be made more transparent, saying it is ‘ridiculous that the current rules prevent the board making public the reasons for their decisions’.
John Worboys prison release: Lawyer for alleged victims calls for fresh prosecutions against black cab rapist

Victims’ groups and charities have condemned the decision to free the 60-year-old, who in 2009 was found guilty of 19 charges of drugging and sexually assaulting 12 female passengers, and the rape of one woman, at Croydon Crown Court.

Police said the following year that they believed he had attacked 102 women between 2002 and 2008, after more people came forward following his conviction.

Worboys served 10 years in jail before his release earlier this week.

Mr Spencer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represents some of his victims, said the Parole Board “must now reveal publicly whether Worboys has finally admitted his crimes and shown any remorse whatsoever.”

He said: “If he still denies his crimes, then he clearly poses a continuing risk to women.”


Somewhat irrational musing follows: Ten years. Five weeks per victim. Richard Huckle got "at least 25 years" for 71 admitted, 91 charged, 200 suspected victims. Sylvia Hardy got seven days in jail for failing to pay £63.71 in council tax arrears, so that works out at £9 a day, or £315 per victim for Worboys.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

Postby Ginger » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:03 am UTC

Unsolicited girly-girly feelings, triggers warnings all over the places, twisted thoughts on the justice system you have been warned.

Spoiler:
I had to pay like $75 to the courts when they prosecuted me based on my threats. And it felt like paying rape dollars because the man in question paid me to spank him several times and more? And um. Now I gotta pay because He wants to have a restraining order and the prosecutor wants to sue little little bad bad G? Okay then. They should be obligated to tell people that might be victimized that he's getting out for one. I thought they had services like that these days? And two: I know it's gonna sound like sympathy for Lucifer but if some of the cases can't pass the muster evidence wise and they're confident he won't re-offend then.... Anyways reading more.

It really really looks like someone in power is protecting him though. And in my opinion the trials about rape turn into boys' clubs if boys get involved. They start talkin'/chattin' you up about your slutty clothes and behaviors. Your past sexual partners. Your tendencies for lying/mental illness. And then they force you to pay up to maintain their war machine because that's the costs of courts apparently. And the woman the police dismissed in 2002? Police Never believe rape claims. They are always always dubious and always always assume you brought it on yourself. I only ever got "helpful advice" from cops instead of them actually punishing my stabbers/beaters/people touching or harassing me sexually.

And actually I got really really creepy feeling when they Order You to show remorse for your crimes. I don't wanna. I LIKED threatening that guy on a primal, animal level. So why do I have to cop to remorse when he fucking harassed me anyways? Not the case for the man we're discussing, as he clearly assaulted women, however I still think confessing to your crimes in front of the courts to show proper ladylike proper remorse is fucking a sick side show/circus we don't need. Especially if they consider prosecuting you again if you DON'T show, "Proper Remorse."
She/It/They/NO Male Stuffs

Before the rush to my blood was too much and we flat lined.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: idonno, Thesh, ucim and 12 guests