Bora Bora Free Vacation Scam

Wow! You just got a Facebook message saying you could win a free vacation to Bora Bora. The message will have something like the following text:

We're flying one person off to the Bora Bora along with 3 friends staying in one of our 5 star villas + $3,000 spending cash.The winner will be announced on 5th Sep!

Want to win? Simply follow the steps below to enter the competition:

Step 1) Like this Page
Step 2) Share on your wall (Very important)
Step 3) Click the "Sign Up" button on our page!

One share will be chosen at complete random!

Winners will be selected based on their wall post.
Thank you for joining. More power!

Sorry, it's a SCAM.

Legitimate companies running contests do it for the publicity, yet there is no name of the airline from which you will have to get airline tickets and no name of the resort where you will spend the vacation. Why would ANY company do this and remain anonymous?

The scam is almost identical to one that was recently put on Facebook as an American Airline (yes they forgot the "s") promotion. (See http://www.hoax-slayer.com/american-airline-free-tickets-facebook-scam.shtml). The  pictures used in that scam AND HERE are from the Four Seasons Bora Bora (see http://www.bespoketraveller.gr/en/destinations/australia-south-pacific/tahiti-french-polynesia/four-seasons-bora-bora).

So why, you may ask, would scammers go to all of this trouble just to collect Facebook likes? In fact, a Facebook Page with high numbers of likes is a valuable commodity.

Once it has gained a lot of likes, such a Page may be used to launch survey scams, which can earn the scammers money via dodgy affiliate marketing schemes. The Page may also be used to launch other types of scams, or promote the owner's suspect products or services to a large potential audience.

Alternatively, the now like-heavy Page can be sold on the black market to unscrupulous Internet marketers. The new owners can re-purpose the Page to further their own nefarious goals.

Scams like this one are very common on Facebook. Scammers have created fake pages promising free tickets and trips from several major airlines. Be wary of any Facebook Page that promises valuable prizes such as airline tickets, vacations, or luxury cars just for liking, sharing, or participating in online surveys.

Do not like or share this information. It's a scam.

Fraud Warning - NOTHING IS FREE!!!

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Have you been a victim of this "free tickets" scam? We all like free stuff and when a "coupon" appears in our email or on Facebook offering free stuff, we are all tempted to take advantage of the offer, As in this illustrated example, information is scarce, so you click on the coupon and it tells you that YOU ARE A WINNER and there are only a limited number left (in this example, on 144 left). 

HARD CODING:

Oddly enough if you go back to the website after completing the survey, there are still 144 tickets left. After analyzing the source code, I can confirm that the message "144 tickets left" is HARD CODED and will never change. Here are some other hard coded data:

Comments are HARD CODED and fake:

• Eunice Garza: wow great !
• Bryan Odum: It was busy at Cineplex today. It seems like many people have won these tickets.
• Bruno Pinho: Great entertainment.
• Jason Caesar: Yeeess, i will be there with my friend #Juliette.
• John Brooks: Thank you, Cineplex.
• Wallace Porter: Aah my family loves Cineplex.
• Deleon Sandra: My Husbands favourite place.
• Brenda Vaughn: thank you Cineplex.
• Sabrina White: Who would have thought I could win free tickets from cineworld. (I thought they were from Cineplex?)

Note that I copied all these comments from the SOURCE CODE, they were never entered on the website as real comments.

What should make you suspicious this offer is fake?

First off, the coupon itself:

1. Note that this is a CINEPLEX coupon, which is a CANADIAN COMPANY ONLY, yet the small text says that tickets are valid in AMC THEATERS ONLY IN THE USA.
2. There are a few AMC Theaters in Canada, but CINEPLEX is the much larger chain and has no connection to AMC. 
3. The coupon has no expiry date. All legitimate coupons ALWAYS HAVE AN EXPIRY DATE.
4. Note the phrase "to celebrate 30th anniversary." According the Wikipedia, Cineplex was founded in 1999, 17 years ago. It would only be celebrating it's 30th anniversary in 2029.

The website:

1. A quick check of the WHOIS Domain Registration database shows that the website that this coupon links you (winndixiecard.com) to is registered in Panama, not Canada.
2. There is only the "survey" at this website, no HOME page, ABOUT page, etc., although at the top of the page there appear to be links to other pages.
3. The links at the top of the page "Contact - Free Tickets - Careers" are fake. None of them are hyperlinks that open other webpages. They're just added to make you think there is a complete website there, when there isn't.

Here is what the first webpage looks like:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Why would any company ask such mundane questions that provide them with virtually no useful information - and give away 5 free tickets to boot which will be a serious financial drain on the company. Note that if you never receive the tickets, there is no contact information for you to use to contact the provider.

So what just happened?

1. You clicked on the link and answered the questionnaire, then clicked submit. 
2. As a result, the survey collected your answers in a database in Panama, along with other information that would have been automatically embedded in your reply like your email address, your Facebook address or your messenger address.
3. While you can't be certain how this information will be used, you may suddenly start receiving a lot of unsolicited emails, Facebook requests or messages, and these will be trying to entice you with more fraudulent offers.

What about Malware or Viruses?

This scam has been used successfully with theater chains in the UK and USA. In those particular cases, the survey part did not upload malware (like viruses) to the user's computer, although that is still possible depending on the code used. However, malware WAS UPLOADED when the user clicked on a link to redeem the coupon, which was sent to the user shortly after completing the survey.

DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINK TO REDEEM ANY COUPON FOR FREE MOVIE TICKETS FROM THIS OFFER.

Finally, a warning from Cineplex's own CONTACT US webpage:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

For future reference, nobody on the Internet gives anybody something for nothing. There are no free airline tickets, luxury cruises, iPhones, laptops, or free movie tickets, unless you enter a legitimate contest offering these as prizes. Companies do not give out massive freebies without a lot of publicity ON THEIR OWN WEBSITES. Be skeptical. Read all offers carefully and, if in doubt, just say NO CLICKING - NO DEAL.

The Trans Canada WIFI Highway - A Proposal

I just posted this comment on the CRTC's "basic telecommunications needs" topic page (see:http://consultation.crtc.gc.ca/en/consultation/40/how-can-it-be-ensured-canadians-basic-telecommunications-needs-are-met).:

We are moving to a wireless world. As the capacity and speed of wireless systems increases, I can see a world in the near future where companies abandon their expensive and difficult to maintain wired systems and switch to wireless only. I don't see replacing cooper wires with optical fibre to the home as a long-term solution.

The future will be wireless. High-speed wireless internet will dominate, and we will all switch again to a different platform to use exclusively in connecting Internet, TV, phone and other services. The existing service providers will aggressively protect their turf to keep the customer bases they have now, and that means the high cost for those services will just be transferred to this new paradigm. Many would like to promote existing wireless technology currently used for cell phone and mobile data as the future wireless connections for TV, Internet and home phone.

It doesn't have to be this way. If the federal, provincial and municipal governments considered the Internet Highway as vital as the existing road highways then new wifi infrastructure costs could be more effectively controlled, and the infrastructure would belong to and benefit all Canadians.

Internet connections in the home would be made directly from one's computer to a government high-speed wifi connection close by. Companies like Aruba (owned by Hewlett Packard) are already selling outdoor wifi systems they claim to have speeds up to 2.5 Gigabits per second (see:http://www.arubanetworks.com/…/ne…/access-points/330-series/). It would be easy for municipalities to install these systems everywhere on the top of power poles or light standards, and local residents would be able to connect without any cables running to their homes or be forced to buy or rent any modems.

Companies like Rogers and Bell could still provide services like cell phones, but would be relegated to content providers for the TV and movie products they own and license. This would truly bring in a pick-and-pay system where "all-you-can-eat" systems like Netflix would compete side by side with single show/movie rent/own systems like Apple TV. This system is more in line with what customers truly want. By controlling the delivery system (wireless wifi everywhere), governments could eliminate the oversight regulation of content and leave it up to the consumer to pick and choose what they want to watch. This is the only system that makes any sense moving forward.

Years ago, the federal government connected almost every school and library in Canada with Internet fibre optic cable connections (CANARIE system). Upgrading and deploying local rural and neighbourhood wifi connections to that backbone would truly make Canada one of the few countries in the world with inexpensive high-speed internet available everywhere. This, in my opinion, is the most valuable infrastructure project that this or any future government could undertake to transform the Canadian economy.

Because many rural residents have been under-serviced, they, instead of high-population municipalities, should be placed on the priority list for this new service. This would mean that residents in Plaster Rock NB, for example, would finally be able to get the true high-speed internet service that has been denied them because both Bell and Rogers have decided that offering the high-speed internet and additional TV channels, that the rest of us enjoy, is not cost effective in this rural community.

As municipalities that have done this have found (See CBC article:http://www.cbc.ca/…/…/fast-fibre-optic-internet-arrives-in-m...), average cost to the consumer comes in at $50 or less for unlimited Internet at fibre optic speeds. This service could easily handle Internet, TV, home phone and other services, like security alarm systems. Subsidies for low income families could lower that price to as little as $10 per month. But the most important thing is that the system would not be driven for profit and the only shareholders would be the Canadian public who would also be the primary beneficiaries of such a system.

We would never ask private companies to build and maintain the Trans Canada Highway. Why would we ask private companies to build and maintain our Trans Canada WIFI Highway?

Are Cable TV or bundle bills out of control?

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cable-tv-internet-bills-discounts-customers-savings-1.3514746

CBC News interviewed me last week for a blog posting that appeared on their website this morning. I'm much happier with this article and am featured more prominently than I was in the Marketplace program. Overall, it's a good article on how to manage your bills for TV, Internet, Home Phone and Cell Phone.

I also hold clinics at The Good Companions Seniors Centre in Ottawa to look over bills with seniors on a 1 to 1 basis. Appointments are limited. You can reserve your spot by calling 613-236-0428.

As always, your feedback about the article is welcomed.

Are Donald Trump's supporters all just lemmings?

Originally broadcast in 1985 at the Superbowl, the Apple “Lemmings” commercial is undoubtedly the worst commercial of all time, in stark contrast to Apple’s “1984” Superbowl commercial the year before which is often called the greatest commercial of all time.

In Apple’s commercial, supporters blindly following their leader, and everyone in front of them, to their death as they blindly plunge over a cliff, until one follower stops and takes off his blindfold to see what’s happening. While the message in Apple’s commercial is about computers, it is not hard to convert this argument to politics and suggest that the lemmings are following Donald Trump to their ultimate doom. In Canada, we might make the same suggestion about Kevin O’Leary.

The triumph of Trump is that people are exhilarated by his aggressive, bombastic, provocative and outrageous style – the content of his speeches seem almost irrelevant to his followers. If he has not yet insulted every minority group in the United States and the citizens of every other country too, give him time. The Presidential election will not be held until November 8th, 2016. For a fire to continue spreading, it is necessary to find fresh fuel after the old fuel has been completely consumed. Mr. Trump will be ignored if he continues to rant about the same thing over and over again, so he has to find new targets to inflame his passion and get the kind of media attention he craves.

Politics in the US, and in Canada too, have been stuck in this “same old, same old” mold for generations. We are all tired of talking heads saying the same things over and over again, and breaking promises after elected. We are cynical about the control that powerful interests continue to maintain in the offices of power. We are tired of living in a surveillance state where police dispense justice on the streets, and we are helpless to stop them in spite of being able to record the details of their abuse. While Trump doesn’t address any of the real problems Americans face, the presentation of his message is so bizarre it is actually attracting a broad range of the population who somehow feel he would bring that brashness to a Presidency that could fix all these things. Have they forgotten that the current President will not even be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice because of opposition in the Senate Chamber?

Americans, as well as Donald Trump, seem to believe that the President runs the country by himself, and that there is no negotiation or compromise. According to just a few of the insane promises Mr. Trump has made without any consideration to legislation difficulties, he would instantly ban all Muslims from entering the USA and would build a wall between the USA and Mexico and make Mexico pay for it. In fact the more you listen to the raving American, he is sounding less and less like a Democrat (or like someone who believes in a Democracy) and more and more like someone who wants to be a dictator. Actually, strike that – if he’s willing to get in public spats with the Pope and declare infallibility in everything he says, he might as well run for the position of God.

By the way, you can see the whole Apple “Lemmings” commercial at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGJ0mp4kRVo.

Sexting – just say no: It is never okay!

Perhaps it’s just my generation. I cannot get my head around sexting. When I was a teenager, the closest we came to sexting was with Polaroid pictures. People who tried to take pictures with conventional cameras, often had their developed pictures and negatives turned over to the police, who then charged the amateur photographer with breaking “common decency” laws. Of course these pictures did receive unauthorized circulation from the minimum-wage employees who ran off extra prints at the print shop, before calling the police, and then secretly sold them to their friends or customers. Those pictures did get out there – kind of like what is happening with sexting today.

But with Polaroids, it was different. This was a playful activity between two consenting adults (or one adult who was trying to impress another adult). The Polaroids were almost never duplicated since that would mean creating a negative and then risking exposure by the clerk doing the prints from that negative. This meant there was one, and only one original and no copies. On breakup of a relationship, the person who did not want their naked bits shown to others would demand the pictures back. The pictures were returned, no copies existed and therefore no possible future embarrassment. If return of the photos was problematic because both parties appeared in compromising situations, then a mutually witnessed destruction, like burning all the Polaroids, could also provide closure. But no weapons of mass destruction exist for digital pictures conveyed by sexting, and so potential participants should just say, “No!”

In a UK article, “Teen girls, sexual double standards and ‘sexting’: Gendered value in digital image exchange” (Ringrose et al.), the authors end the report by asking, “What would it mean for us to live in a world where teen girls could unproblematically take, post or send an image of their breasts to whomever the wished” (Ringrose et al. 320)? In a world were teenage boys collect and trade pictures, like my generation used to trade baseball cards, a feminist stance is not going to fix this. If the nude pictures are out there, they are going to get traded and collected.

The report “Sexting as a media production: Rethinking social media and sexuality” (Hasinoff) tries instead to understand why teenagers and adults sext and also addresses the matter of consent. The author argues that “If social media content producers have ownership over their private images, then the focus of sexting safety campaigns should clearly be to reduce unauthorized distribution” (Hasinoff 460). Reproduction or distribution of these images then becomes a matter of copyright violation, but enforcement would become difficult and costly.

Sexting becomes a messy problem when the party (usually men) who demands the pictures (usually of women) decides to use them in ways that were not consented to at the time they are sexted or afterwards. The pictures become embarrassments and the “distributors”, usually only concerned with raising their own popularity currency, happily collect and trade more pictures of more women. Unfortunately there is never just the original and no copies, and a ritualistic bonfire to destroy them all is not possible.

The safest bet, as stated earlier, is just say “No!” No sexting, no pictures, no embarrassment. But I will send you an amusing picture of me (fully clothed) and my zen-cat, and you can think of me and smile whenever you look at it. And I promise you I will never ask you to sext me – and if it happens by accident (and I have heard of cases where teenage girls accidentally did sext pictures to their father), I promise I will completely delete the message, pictures and block and de-friend you to prevent it ever accidentally happening again.

Works Cited: 

Hasinoff, A. A. “Sexting as Media Production: Rethinking Social Media and Sexuality.” New Media & Society 15.4 (2012): 449–465. Web. 

“Teen Girls, Sexual Double Standards and ‘Sexting’: Gendered Value in Digital Image Exchange.” Feminist Theory 14.3 (2013): 305–323. Web.