Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Scammed on CL - Out a (functional) 5S - where to next?
- Thread starter runningtowin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
IMEI can get blocked for many other reasons, like some (even small) remaining balance on an account where it used to belong. Or the original owner who sold it decides to scam the system and reports it as lost or stolen to get an insurance replacement. Both of those situations aren't all that uncommon actually. In no way do you have stolen goods in those situations or should be responsible for anything.
As for CL, seems like we are splitting hairs here on terminology given that you did definitely say that phones on CL are "very frequently" are stolen, not sure how saying that "most" wouldn't essentially equate to that as that's what either one really implies. And even if a good amount of phones might be stolen that makes it a useless service and people should fall prey to the fear of it all and just not use it? Seems like a blanket statement that would apply to flea markets and any "non-official" market of which there are plenty in the work for ages now. That's certainly how you seem to be pushing it all, which is just overgeneralized and hyperbolized and becomes pretty much meaningless.
Last edited:
It's probably an insurance scam. They can probably get more for the phone on Craigslist than the deductible for a new phone through the insurance, so they sell it, get a new one paying the deductible, and pocket the difference. I wouldn't be surprised if there's people out there who do this a couple times a year, or however many times the insurance allows. It's crappy, but some people just don't care if they screw people over.
This is what the T-Mobile rep told me. Said it's pretty common to see. Ah well. I sold it, made $50, and will hold out for the 6 (back to the ol' iPhone 4).
I personally would not buy a phone from Craigslist unless I met at the carrier store and have the phone transferred under my name. If it is out of contract.
First, T-Mobile and the other big carriers in the US do *NOT* blacklist an IMEI just because a balance on the wireless account has not been paid. That is completely untrue.
Second, if your neighbors house was burning down, you wouldn't refuse to call 911 because there's an incredibly small chance that it could be an insurance scam. So even though it's a chance, it's very unlikely and that does *NOT* give you the right to knowingly sell property that has been reported as stolen.
Are you honestly gonna sit here and try and tell me that he shouldn't have tried to return it to the original owner because it *might* have been an insurance scam!? Seriously? If you're gonna try and say that this is a common occurrence, go ahead and prove it, because I don't believe you at all.
I said "very frequently stolen", not "most are stolen". If you have trouble understanding the difference in terminology, that's your problem.
And yes. If you purchase an iPhone off of craigslist, you shouldn't be shocked and stunned when it turns out it was stolen. This happens *ALL THE TIME*. It's what happened in this very thread. Do you honestly disagree with the fact that phones sold on craigslist are very frequently stolen phones? Do a google search and within 5 seconds you'll discover how wrong you are.
I work in the wireless industry and at least once a day I see someone walk in with a phone they just bought (IN almost every case from craigslist) that has been blacklisted. And every time I've looked up the IMEI it turns out it was reported as lost/stolen. I deal with this every day, I know very well what I'm talking about. You obviously don't.
----------
Why do you think that the IMEI blacklist system actually exists?? It's meant for stolen phones. If you buy a phone with an IMEI blacklist, you shouldn't just go out and sell it because there's a doubtful possibility that it might be some bizarre insurance scam. That's a pathetic excuse to avoid doing the right thing. A sad rationalization. You should try to return it to the person who actually owns the phone.Well I don't think we should assume it was stolen either.
We get it, you work in the wireless industry. You have told us like 10 times today. Not to discredit your opinions, but I've talked to some true fools that work in the *wireless industry*
*have a nice night*
*have a nice night*
Scammed on CL - Out a (functional) 5S - where to next?
Phones also get blacklisted for non payment, like if you stop paying on a next plan etc. We understand you would have tried to get the phone back to the original owner, not sure how you'd track them down though.
The OP did what anyone else would do, sell it for parts. It's not his problem he got a bum deal on Craigslist and it's not his job to be the phone police.
Phones also get blacklisted for non payment, like if you stop paying on a next plan etc. We understand you would have tried to get the phone back to the original owner, not sure how you'd track them down though.
The OP did what anyone else would do, sell it for parts. It's not his problem he got a bum deal on Craigslist and it's not his job to be the phone police.
Last edited:
Thank you. Glad others feel this way. Our friend in the wireless industry is driving his point home. I'll dutifully wait for the iPhone 6 now I suppose. Is it so foolish to wish for a 4" model?
There's you saying that phones don't get blacklisted for remaining balance and things of that nature and then there's the reality of it happening to people for years. It seems most will stick to reality as far as believing what can and does happen.
As far as some fire happening and not calling 911 because of potential insurance scam, if you are even trying to imply that's somehow related let alone a similar enough example to something like this, then certainly most of rationality has been removed from the discussion right then and there.
And as far as "very frequently" and " most" comparison, if you are trying to imply there's some meaningful difference in the meaning between those in this context and that they aren't essentially the same thing, then I believe most really wouldn't know where to go with that one.
Thank you. Glad others feel this way. Our friend in the wireless industry is driving his point home. I'll dutifully wait for the iPhone 6 now I suppose. Is it so foolish to wish for a 4" model?
Glad it somewhat worked out for you.
Think about this for a minute.... how would the carrier know that you waited a month to report the phone?
There is no way they could enforce a cut off. And even if they tried there could be a long gap between when it was lost and when it was noticed gone.
What we need is a way to transfer a phone. Call Apple or who ever and ask Is this phone stolen. Then ask the seller for his drivers license of other ID and copy it. If the phone is reported stolen the police get the guy's ID.
You are 100% completely and totally wrong.
The four major US carriers DO NOT block IMEI's for non-payment. All that happens is that the line gets disconnected and the account is sent to collections, and the owner is unable to unlock the phone for use on another network (official unlock, that is). They only block the IMEI and enter it in to the database if it has been reported by the owner as being stolen.
It's a rumor that has been floating around macrumors and a few other forums for years, and it makes the carriers look all big and evil, but it is JUST NOT TRUE.
So no, this phone didn't get on the IMEI blacklist because the previous owner didn't pay his bills
It's sad how you keep trying to pin such dark motives to whoever reported the phone as lost/stolen in order to rationalize not doing the right thing (turning it in to the police as a stolen item). Let's face the facts: it was almost certainly reported as stolen because...THE PHONE WAS STOLEN!
It's the same exact thing. Just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean you should assume it is the case, unless that possibility is an overwhelming likelihood. And in this case, we have NO reason to suspect insurance fraud.
You keep making points to discredit the previous owner of the phone who reported it as lost/stolen, which is sad and despicable. Just because there are a few rotten apples out there who will commit fraud like that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who reports their phone as lost/stolen should receive the same treatment.
I know one thing. If you had your phone stolen, and someone bought it from the thief and couldn't use it because you had the IMEI blacklisted, you would want the person to turn it over to the police so that it could be returned to you. Oh, you can try and act all laissez fair about it and say you wouldn't care, but we both know you would be angry if the person who bought it off the thief sold it again, knowing it was stolen property.
"Very frequently" means...well...exactly what it says. It means something happens often. The fact that you are confusing this with "more than 50% of the time" (ie. "most") is your misunderstanding.
I've had friends with blacklisted phones for unpaid balance. So again, you can say anything that you want, but reality is reality, and it can't be escaped and certainly doesn't change just because you say that it's not the case, even in red letters. Perhaps it shouldn't be happening, but even then it doesn't change the pure reality that it has and does happen nonetheless.You are 100% completely and totally wrong.
The four major US carriers DO NOT block IMEI's for non-payment. All that happens is that the line gets disconnected and the account is sent to collections, and the owner is unable to unlock the phone for use on another network (official unlock, that is). They only block the IMEI and enter it in to the database if it has been reported by the owner as being stolen.
It's a rumor that has been floating around macrumors and a few other forums for years, and it makes the carriers look all big and evil, but it is JUST NOT TRUE.
So no, this phone didn't get on the IMEI blacklist because the previous owner didn't pay his bills
It's sad how you keep trying to pin such dark motives to whoever reported the phone as lost/stolen in order to rationalize not doing the right thing (turning it in to the police as a stolen item). Let's face the facts: it was almost certainly reported as stolen because...THE PHONE WAS STOLEN!
It's the same exact thing. Just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean you should assume it is the case, unless that possibility is an overwhelming likelihood. And in this case, we have NO reason to suspect insurance fraud.
You keep making points to discredit the previous owner of the phone who reported it as lost/stolen, which is sad and despicable. Just because there are a few rotten apples out there who will commit fraud like that doesn't mean that EVERYONE who reports their phone as lost/stolen should receive the same treatment.
I know one thing. If you had your phone stolen, and someone bought it from the thief and couldn't use it because you had the IMEI blacklisted, you would want the person to turn it over to the police so that it could be returned to you. Oh, you can try and act all laissez fair about it and say you wouldn't care, but we both know you would be angry if the person who bought it off the thief sold it again, knowing it was stolen property.
"Very frequently" means...well...exactly what it says. It means something happens often. The fact that you are confusing this with "more than 50% of the time" (ie. "most") is your misunderstanding.
As for frequently and most, if something happens frequently it means it happens more than 50% of the time, right? Otherwise it wouldn't be frequent. And if by your very definition most is something that happens more than 50% of the time, you yourself just admitted that they are essentially the same. Clearly trying to make up something illogical to argue it some other way would be pointless.
Lol. This thread is so entertaining. As long as the moderator doesn't shut this down I will look forward to more entertainment from here as the evening continues XD
XD
Do you have any actual evidence that this is happening besides "it happened to my friend" or "this guy on X forum says it happened to him"?
Didn't think so. Cause it doesn't.
Alright, I've about had it with the dumb semantics. If you believe that the terms "very frequently" and "most of the time" mean the same thing, you have the right to be wrong.
As opposed to evidence of you just saying so. Pretty clear which one of those actually carries more in it.
As for semantics, it seems that reality also spoke for itself there. Not seeing it or acknowledging it doesn't change it.
In any case, enough of going in unnecessary circles for no reason at this point.
Yep...can't cite any evidence at all, can you? That's because it doesn't happen. The big 4 carriers here in the US do not blacklist IMEI's for nonpayment.
I can't provide evidence of having it seen personally happen to some of my friends. And clearly people stating it has happened to them in all kinds of forums and other places online isn't anything to you as you mentioned. So there's nothing that would convince you anyway. But reality that I've come across many places and witnessed myself is more than good enough for me, and similarly it would seem many other people who ground what they know based on what actually happens not based on what someone says should or shouldn't happen. On that note, your word on its own is certainly less evidentiary than any of that, so there's certainly that on top of it all too.
If your friends told you that they "saw a ghost", would you immediately believe it? Well, maybe you would. Point is, if it were true, you'd be able to find something proving it online. An engadget article, gizmodo, ars technica...SOMETHING. But no, you cannot find one single authentic source. Want to know why? Because it just doesn't happen. So your unfair attempt to ascribe dark motives to whoever reported the phone as lost/stolen has backfired.
Better just to admit it when you're wrong rather than get to the sad position of saying "my friends said it and I believe them cause they're my friends!"
So "having it seen personally happen" means I heard a friend tell me about it (and just went with it)? If that is not a completely obvious misreading or likely purposeful misstatement of what I said just to fit in with some statement I don't know what is. That alone is further showing the emptiness of what any points that are being attempted to be made.
You keep on ignoring plenty of people talking about this in many places online and mentioning they are all essentially mislead and don't know better and only offer your word to negate what has been seen and accepted as reality by many, and clearly avoid supporting it any way yourself. That speaks more than plenty.
In any case, as I've mentioned before, this pointless running in circles is tiring and and, well, pointless. I don't see much of a point of repeating it over and over again as that is the only thing that seems to happen, for no reason.
Yeah.
You continue and continue to NOT cite any sources at all to prove that carriers are blacklisting IMEI's for non-payment (hint, it doesn't happen). You can keep saying "I know people who have had it happen", and I will continue to not believe you. There is ZERO evidence that this actually happens. If it did happen I would be the first person to know it because of my job.
If you cannot post any ACTUAL evidence, I am done with you.