A new type of scam.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Enkidu, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. Enkidu

    Enkidu Guest

    I had someone ring me up and claim that they had the contract to support
    "the computer in your house". Well, we have five of them. I didn't
    believe a word of it so I asked her what the model number and serial
    number of the supported computer was and she just hung up!

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Dec 7, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Enkidu

    Donchano Guest

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:14:05 +1300, Enkidu <>
    shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >I had someone ring me up and claim that they had the contract to support
    >"the computer in your house". Well, we have five of them. I didn't
    >believe a word of it so I asked her what the model number and serial
    >number of the supported computer was and she just hung up!
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Cliff


    Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.
     
    Donchano, Dec 7, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Enkidu

    John Little Guest

    Cliff reported:

    > >I had someone ring me up and claim ...


    Donchano replied:

    > Do you have Caller ID on you phone?...


    I got a couple of these calls, and at my daughter's insistence I
    checked the caller id. It was 001234567890.

    Regards, John
     
    John Little, Dec 7, 2010
    #3
  4. Enkidu

    PeeCee Guest

    On 8/12/2010 9:14 a.m., Enkidu wrote:
    > I had someone ring me up and claim that they had the contract to support
    > "the computer in your house". Well, we have five of them. I didn't
    > believe a word of it so I asked her what the model number and serial
    > number of the supported computer was and she just hung up!
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Cliff
    >



    The Mrs got something similar the other day and just hung up on them.
    Unfortunately I wasn't home, I would have loved to string them along.

    Paul.
     
    PeeCee, Dec 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Enkidu

    Gib Bogle Guest

    On 8/12/2010 9:14 a.m., Enkidu wrote:
    > I had someone ring me up and claim that they had the contract to support "the
    > computer in your house". Well, we have five of them. I didn't believe a word of
    > it so I asked her what the model number and serial number of the supported
    > computer was and she just hung up!


    Pretty obvious, wouldn't you say?
     
    Gib Bogle, Dec 7, 2010
    #5
  6. On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:19:26 +1300, Allistar <>
    wrote:

    >Donchano wrote:


    >> Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    >> "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    >> solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    >> default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    >> callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.

    >
    >We don't answer "private" or "unlisted" calls at all. We just let them ring.


    There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #6
  7. Enkidu

    victor Guest

    On 8/12/2010 3:57 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    > Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:19:26 +1300, Allistar<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Donchano wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    >>>> "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    >>>> solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    >>>> default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    >>>> callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.
    >>>
    >>> We don't answer "private" or "unlisted" calls at all. We just let them
    >>> ring.

    >>
    >> There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    >> Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    >> confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    >> lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    >> doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    >> members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.

    >
    > Our policy is that if it's important then they will leave a message.


    LOL
    How can you tell ?
     
    victor, Dec 8, 2010
    #7
  8. On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:46 +1300, Allistar <>
    wrote:

    >Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:19:26 +1300, Allistar <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Donchano wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    >>>> "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    >>>> solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    >>>> default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    >>>> callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.
    >>>
    >>>We don't answer "private" or "unlisted" calls at all. We just let them
    >>>ring.

    >>
    >> There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    >> Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    >> confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    >> lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    >> doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    >> members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.

    >
    >Our policy is that if it's important then they will leave a message.


    You don't get it! They won't leave a message because that would
    potentially divulge to all & sundry at that address that person x had
    consulted their doctor. That would be breaking doctor patient
    confidentiality.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #8
  9. Enkidu

    Donchano Guest

    On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:48:05 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:57:46 +1300, Allistar <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:19:26 +1300, Allistar <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Donchano wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    >>>>> "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    >>>>> solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    >>>>> default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    >>>>> callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.
    >>>>
    >>>>We don't answer "private" or "unlisted" calls at all. We just let them
    >>>>ring.
    >>>
    >>> There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    >>> Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    >>> confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    >>> lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    >>> doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    >>> members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.

    >>
    >>Our policy is that if it's important then they will leave a message.

    >
    >You don't get it! They won't leave a message because that would
    >potentially divulge to all & sundry at that address that person x had
    >consulted their doctor. That would be breaking doctor patient
    >confidentiality.


    Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    had to utilise over the past couple of years.
     
    Donchano, Dec 8, 2010
    #9
  10. Enkidu

    Richard Guest

    On 8/12/2010 3:50 p.m., Malcolm Moore wrote:

    > There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    > Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    > confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    > lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    > doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    > members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.


    Then they dont get to call me either on the 09 number or the mobile.
     
    Richard, Dec 8, 2010
    #10
  11. Enkidu

    John Little Guest

    On Dec 8, 9:22 pm, whoisthis <> wrote:

    > yep, 99% of hidden numbers are telemarketers or other conmen


    But there are those who regarded the loss of anonymity when caller id
    was introduced as an encroachment on their privacy, and opted to
    permanently suppress their caller id; my mother-in-law was one. (I
    thought it was mildly stupid to do so at the time, and how things have
    turned out have confirmed my opinion.) That's why hidden numbers show
    as "private" on many handsets. A significant proportion of our calls
    that show "private" are calls we want, sort of;).

    What I'd really like is Telecom's call minder service to automatically
    divert calls with hidden numbers to a message that explained my
    dislike of them, and gave instruction on how to override the
    suppression of caller id, if they really want to call us.

    Regards, John
     
    John Little, Dec 8, 2010
    #11
  12. Enkidu

    Richard Guest

    On 8/12/2010 11:59 p.m., John Little wrote:
    > On Dec 8, 9:22 pm, whoisthis<> wrote:
    >
    >> yep, 99% of hidden numbers are telemarketers or other conmen

    >
    > But there are those who regarded the loss of anonymity when caller id
    > was introduced as an encroachment on their privacy, and opted to
    > permanently suppress their caller id; my mother-in-law was one. (I
    > thought it was mildly stupid to do so at the time, and how things have
    > turned out have confirmed my opinion.) That's why hidden numbers show
    > as "private" on many handsets. A significant proportion of our calls
    > that show "private" are calls we want, sort of;).
    >
    > What I'd really like is Telecom's call minder service to automatically
    > divert calls with hidden numbers to a message that explained my
    > dislike of them, and gave instruction on how to override the
    > suppression of caller id, if they really want to call us.


    Slingshot offer it, but so many telemarketer assholes call with made up
    caller IDs so I have my asterisk machine set to put anything with under
    6 digits of caller ID on hold with music that I have processed to about
    +20dB so it sounds like crap. Its either beat it or that cranberrys song
    that sounds like a truck backing at the start...
     
    Richard, Dec 8, 2010
    #12
  13. On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:47 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:
    >
    >On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:48:05 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    ><> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>You don't get it! They won't leave a message because that would
    >>potentially divulge to all & sundry at that address that person x had
    >>consulted their doctor. That would be breaking doctor patient
    >>confidentiality.

    >
    >Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    >ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    >our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    >had to utilise over the past couple of years.


    You may regard it as OTT-PC but the medical profession don't. Patient
    confidentiality is regarded as extremley important.

    From The Royal NZ College of General Practice
    http://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/assets/doc...s/Managing-Patient-Test-Results-July-2005.pdf

    on page 4 (page 6 of the pdf)

    <quote>

    A - Patient notification

    ....

    Ensure that the most appropriate way to notify the patient is
    discussed at the time the test/investigation is ordered
    and that it is documented in the notes. This needs to take into
    account privacy issues.

    <end quote>



    It's entirely possible you have received messages on behalf of others
    in your household, however that is because they have given their prior
    consent.
    If that consent is not given then you will not be contacted and so
    your claim that your doctor doesn't bother with such niceties is a
    nonsense, you have no way of knowing ;-)

    If your doctor is ignoring such guidelines, give her your best wishes
    if she is hauled before the Medical Council, but please don't
    recommend your lawyer to her.

    You may also like to read my reply to WorkHard.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #13
  14. On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:01:15 +1300, "WorkHard" <> wrote:

    >Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>
    >> There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be
    >> "unlisted".

    >
    >So, they can leave a message.
    >
    >> eg
    >> Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    >> confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone
    >> of their
    >> lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact
    >> between a
    >> doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged
    >> to other
    >> members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.

    >
    >Bullshit. Absolute nonsense.


    You obviously don't believe me, but have a read of
    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...q=patient confidentiality "caller id"&f=false

    <quote>

    Chapter 3
    Don't let your telephone system compromise patient confidentiality.

    ....consider blocking your practice's "caller identification(ID)" when
    calling patients. When you call patients to remind them of their
    appointment or report that their test results have arrived, your
    practice's name and number may appear on the recipient's caller ID
    display. This identification could compromise the patient's
    confidentiality if others in the household or business see it.

    <end quote>

    For a NZ perspective see my reply to donchano.

    I do know that our local Medical Centre does block caller ID for those
    reasons.
    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #14
  15. Enkidu

    victor Guest

    On 9/12/2010 8:04 a.m., Allistar wrote:
    > victor wrote:
    >
    >> On 8/12/2010 3:57 p.m., Allistar wrote:
    >>> Malcolm Moore wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:19:26 +1300, Allistar<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Donchano wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Do you have Caller ID on you phone? When we get a call from any
    >>>>>> "Private Caller" whose voice we don't recognise (a neighbour who's a
    >>>>>> solo mum with two teen girls blocks her number on all calls by
    >>>>>> default) we simply say, "We don't accept calls from annonymous
    >>>>>> callers. Goodbye." Saves a lot of time.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> We don't answer "private" or "unlisted" calls at all. We just let them
    >>>>> ring.
    >>>>
    >>>> There are good reasons why a legitimate caller will be "unlisted". eg
    >>>> Medical Centres will often be unlisted to preserve patient
    >>>> confidentiality. They may merely be ringing to inform someone of their
    >>>> lab test results, but the fact that there has been contact between a
    >>>> doctor and patient is confidential and should not be divulged to other
    >>>> members of the household. Caller ID does divulge that.
    >>>
    >>> Our policy is that if it's important then they will leave a message.

    >>
    >> LOL
    >> How can you tell ?

    >
    > By definition: if they don't leave a message then it wasn't important enough
    > :) And no, our doctor does not block their number.


    It might be important to you but not to them.
    I never bother with caller ID at home, but I do use the last caller *52
    on TC if I miss a call. Plenty of calls I want to take come up as
    private. Most govt departments, my wife's employment, my mum, other
    businesses, paying customers, relatives in top secret jobs. Once you
    have one regular call who has their number blocked, then the others look
    the same.
     
    victor, Dec 8, 2010
    #15
  16. Enkidu

    victor Guest

    On 9/12/2010 10:08 a.m., Malcolm Moore wrote:
    > On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:47 +1300, Donchano
    > <> wrote:
    >>
    >> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:48:05 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    >> <> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>> You don't get it! They won't leave a message because that would
    >>> potentially divulge to all& sundry at that address that person x had
    >>> consulted their doctor. That would be breaking doctor patient
    >>> confidentiality.

    >>
    >> Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    >> ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    >> our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    >> had to utilise over the past couple of years.

    >
    > You may regard it as OTT-PC but the medical profession don't. Patient
    > confidentiality is regarded as extremley important.
    >
    > From The Royal NZ College of General Practice
    > http://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/assets/doc...s/Managing-Patient-Test-Results-July-2005.pdf
    >
    > on page 4 (page 6 of the pdf)
    >
    > <quote>
    >
    > A - Patient notification
    >
    > ...
    >
    > Ensure that the most appropriate way to notify the patient is
    > discussed at the time the test/investigation is ordered
    > and that it is documented in the notes. This needs to take into
    > account privacy issues.
    >
    > <end quote>
    >
    >
    >
    > It's entirely possible you have received messages on behalf of others
    > in your household, however that is because they have given their prior
    > consent.
    > If that consent is not given then you will not be contacted and so
    > your claim that your doctor doesn't bother with such niceties is a
    > nonsense, you have no way of knowing ;-)
    >
    > If your doctor is ignoring such guidelines, give her your best wishes
    > if she is hauled before the Medical Council, but please don't
    > recommend your lawyer to her.
    >
    > You may also like to read my reply to WorkHard.
    >
    > --
    > Regards
    > Malcolm
    > Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address



    I believe you had experience of the American system where privacy is
    protected by legislation so health centers have to have a suitable
    policy to protect priveleged information or get sued. We could do with
    better protection here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act
     
    victor, Dec 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Enkidu

    Donchano Guest

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:08:59 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:47 +1300, Donchano
    ><> wrote:
    >>
    >>On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:48:05 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    >><> shouted from the highest rooftop:
    >>>You don't get it! They won't leave a message because that would
    >>>potentially divulge to all & sundry at that address that person x had
    >>>consulted their doctor. That would be breaking doctor patient
    >>>confidentiality.

    >>
    >>Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    >>ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    >>our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    >>had to utilise over the past couple of years.

    >
    >You may regard it as OTT-PC but the medical profession don't. Patient
    >confidentiality is regarded as extremley important.
    >
    >From The Royal NZ College of General Practice
    >http://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/assets/doc...s/Managing-Patient-Test-Results-July-2005.pdf
    >
    >on page 4 (page 6 of the pdf)
    >
    ><quote>
    >
    >A - Patient notification


    Both my wife and I have gone to the same GP for many years. Of course
    she's discussed OUR preferences, including notification ... and that
    was way BEFORE any of this PC privacy crap.

    Fortunately, we deal with medical professionals who already have
    common sense and don't need it legislated for them by interfering "we
    know what's best for you" socialists.
     
    Donchano, Dec 8, 2010
    #17
  18. On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:26:15 +1300, victor <> wrote:

    >I believe you had experience of the American system where privacy is
    >protected by legislation so health centers have to have a suitable
    >policy to protect priveleged information or get sued. We could do with
    >better protection here.
    >
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Insurance_Portability_and_Accountability_Act


    Not sure why you think I have experience of the American system, I
    don't.
    Reading from the article, that Act doesn't seem to deal with doctor
    patient privacy but with the use of patient information further up the
    bureaucratic chain.

    "The HIPAA Privacy Rule regulates the use and disclosure of certain
    information held by "covered entities" (generally, health care
    clearinghouses, employer sponsored health plans, health insurers, and
    medical service providers that engage in certain transactions.)"

    Privacy is protected by legislation in NZ, have a read of the Privacy
    Act.
    Rather than follow the American litigation model, our system using a
    Health & Disability Commissioner has many advantages, both in dealing
    with beaches that occur, and with ensuring patients are aware of their
    rights.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #18
  19. On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:28:30 +1300, Donchano
    <> wrote:

    >>On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:47 +1300, Donchano
    >><> wrote:


    >>>Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    >>>ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    >>>our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    >>>had to utilise over the past couple of years.


    >Both my wife and I have gone to the same GP for many years. Of course
    >she's discussed OUR preferences, including notification ... and that
    >was way BEFORE any of this PC privacy crap.


    Ahh, so contrary to your earlier claim, your doctor does "extend this
    ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages." It's
    just that you gave consent ages ago, probably before the term PC was
    first used. :)

    >Fortunately, we deal with medical professionals who already have
    >common sense and don't need it legislated for them by interfering "we
    >know what's best for you" socialists.


    The link I gave came from the RNZCGP, they developed the guidelines
    and published that paper. Calling them "socialist" would be one of the
    more ridiculous claims I've ever heard.

    --
    Regards
    Malcolm
    Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
     
    Malcolm Moore, Dec 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Enkidu

    Donchano Guest

    On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:28:46 +1300, Malcolm Moore
    <> shouted from the highest rooftop:

    >On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:28:30 +1300, Donchano
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 18:09:47 +1300, Donchano
    >>><> wrote:

    >
    >>>>Thankfully, our doctor and her medical centre doesn't extend this
    >>>>ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages. Nor does
    >>>>our dentist, or lawyer, or accountant, or any of the specialists we've
    >>>>had to utilise over the past couple of years.

    >
    >>Both my wife and I have gone to the same GP for many years. Of course
    >>she's discussed OUR preferences, including notification ... and that
    >>was way BEFORE any of this PC privacy crap.

    >
    >Ahh, so contrary to your earlier claim, your doctor does "extend this
    >ridiculous OTT-PC "privacy" game to phone calls or messages." It's
    >just that you gave consent ages ago, probably before the term PC was
    >first used. :)


    Actually, it was before the OTT-PC "privacy act" replaced common sense
    and made it possible for government departments and private
    organisations to use the privacy act as an excuse to deny individuals
    information about themselves.

    >>Fortunately, we deal with medical professionals who already have
    >>common sense and don't need it legislated for them by interfering "we
    >>know what's best for you" socialists.

    >
    >The link I gave came from the RNZCGP, they developed the guidelines
    >and published that paper. Calling them "socialist" would be one of the
    >more ridiculous claims I've ever heard.


    Actually, I would call the people who developed the guidelines
    socialist dupes.
     
    Donchano, Dec 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dot

    type I type II ?

    dot, Nov 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    379
    Ron Hunter
    Nov 26, 2003
  2. Anthony Martin

    Type I vs type II CF Card readers

    Anthony Martin, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    965
    Ron Hunter
    Aug 2, 2004
  3. Ron
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    681
    Brian
    Jan 5, 2004
  4. elliot

    Compact Flash type I and type II

    elliot, Feb 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    1,091
    Paul Furman
    Feb 21, 2008
  5. Cash4gold Scam Ripoffreport.com Scam

    , May 27, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,137
    BadForPeople
    May 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page