Talk:Common scams/Archive 2009–2019

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've contributed a fair bit to this article including its current structure, and I think it makes sense for Wikivoyage to have some coverage of travel-related ripoffs and scams. However, I am wondering about the scope of this article. A great deal of it is devoted to coercive crime of the drugging (see above), forced removal, many-on-one threats of violence kind of level. While terrible things do happen to travellers who are trusting, unlucky and/or greedy, I am wondering how much space we want to devote to them. It might be that my own experience is biasing me, but I suspect we're describing an awful lot of very rare events in an article called "Common scams" and since we're (per site style) not using citations are quite likely describing a few things heard from friends of friends of friends who once read a newspaper article about travel-related crime in SE Asia. Is there a need and a good way to rewrite it as common scams, rather than "every scary story anyone's heard about travel"? (WT-en) Hypatia 06:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. I've removed the Drugging sections, it's hardly a "scam" any more than violent mugging is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)

For the same reason, the following should also be removed I think: Pickpockets, Red light bag snatch, and (possibly) Credit card skimming. These things, while very unfortunate and unpleasant, are hardly scams as such. Especially the first two.(WT-en) Dantilley 03:56, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps the article should be moved to crime and scams to reflect the subject matter, or split? K7L (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was subsequently split, see crime and theft.

If you are willing to take the health and legal risks of hiring a prostitute, go to a "massage shop", "sauna" or whatever the local euphemism is. These establishments are significantly safer than the street workers. -- except in a minority of areas where such institutions which are legal and effectively regulated, this seems highly dubious advice - surely being on the potential scammer's home territory with the potential for compatriots to bar your exit is even more of a potential threat to the safety of the sex-tourist and his wallet.

This is pretty dubious also: However, an ambitious traveler can actually work this scam in their favor, as in certain countries where meters are required (e.g. China) the passenger cannot be forced to pay for an "informal" (that is, unmetered) taxi ride. A tourist is therefore free to walk away after the ride without paying anything at all: once you step out of his vehicle the driver will have no proof of transaction to show the police. This tactic is not recommended for use by the weak of heart. (WT-en) Dantilley 03:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

I think the first one is reasonable advice; someone with an address you could summon cops to is generally more cautious than a random street whore that you could not find again if you tried. It does not claim this is entirely safe, just "safer than the street workers".

The second one strikes me as crazy. Pashley (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What needs to be done to make this article a Guide? It's an important topic, and I would like to feature it on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

At a minimum, it needs a banner.

I'd say, though, that it needs a complete rewrite/re-organisation before it is ready to feature. For one thing, touting and commission deserve their own section, even though they are not strictly a scam. Taxis also need their own section, including the advice (good for most of Asia at least) to always use the taxi line at airports, train stations, etc., never the eager guys who approach you inside the terminal. Pashley (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does some of what is there violate Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious? Pashley (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll have to look again to see if anything is really obvious, but I would think this kind of article should include warnings about scams that are obvious to seasoned travelers. Ignoring taxi touts is equally good advice at Kennedy Airport in New York, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking it's not a requirement for Guide status, but this article probably has the lowest photo to text ratio of all our articles and therefore looks as aesthetically exciting as a train schedule. The problem is to find appropriate photos, as we absolutely wouldn't want to imply that e.g. some random people in a photo in the front of the Forbidden City are carrying out the Chinese Art school scam... ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like train schedules. Though I prefer them to be at least a little bit colorful, so the point is well taken. The advice for taxi-touts is equally valid for the main station of Prague. Maybe we should link to this here article every time we mention taxi-touts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. One scam is seldom confined to just one city or country or even continent. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Photos are difficult. I wouldn't worry too much about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

[indent reset] Photos added, and the article no longer looks like a wall of text. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Upgraded. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many scams under "Helpful locals" aren't about "helpful" locals at all (at least not to the victim), or attempt to make you the helpful one from the very start: art school, just been robbed, and Begging for medicine to sick family members.

I recently added a section Common_scams#Dating_site_scams because during a recent trip to the Philippines most of the ones mentioned were tried on me, and the only one that wasn't (video chat) is mentioned on several other web sites.

However it is arguably out-of-scope and/or a violation of our Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, so it seems prudent to ask for other opinions here. Pashley (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The policy expressly permits warnings to travellers about crime which may be perpetrated against them. K7L (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a book of these, "Travel Advisory: How to Avoid Thefts, Cons, and Street Scams While Travelling" – December 24, 2003 by Bambi Vincent/Bob Arno, ISBN 978-1566251983 and its website http://bobarno.com/thiefhunters/barcelona-scams/ looks to be a huge list of common scams and modus operandi for pickpockets and theft; odds are there are a few there we missed? K7L (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Several months ago, there was quite a bit of media attention in Serbia to a case where a USA citizen was stopped by a traffic police and had to pay a fine. The whole incident resulted in a series of statements by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that it is indeed legal in Serbia to pay in some cases 50% of the fine in cash directly to the police officer or to choose to pay 100% of the fine later at a post office or a bank. Since this goes against the advice given in the Common Scams article, I have edited the article by adding "almost" in front of anywhere and adding a small note about situation in Serbia. In the long run, it would be a good idea to reword the article in order to make it a bit clearer that there are exceptions to the rule.46.12.234.179 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Someone started a section at Common_scams#Connection_scams. I have already expanded it considerably and will do more, but it occurs to me to wonder if I'm going into too much detail for this article, perhaps even for a travel guide.

Should some of this be moved to Telephone service for travel or Internet access? Or links added in those articles? Pashley (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

A lovely song on the topic. I'm not sure if a link can go in the article. Pashley (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have a section on Common_scams#Dating_scams, but a Slashdot article links to some we don't cover:

"catfishing"

Arguably not a scam, but people are paying impersonators to represent them on dating sites

Should we add these? Pashley (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Common_scams#Dating_scams currently has a photo that claims to be an "Example of a passport used by romance scammers".

Does that violate policy at Commons? Pashley (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it doesn't, otherwise they'd probably deleted it already. It's used on Wikipedia and Wikibooks too, so many people have seen it and noone seems to have raised any objections. Also, the source linked to from Commons, the U.S. State of Department, refers to the picture as "Example D: Types of fake passport used by romance scammers to convince victims of their travel intentions" and has published it as such. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The photo is obviously fake as it's non-compliant with the ISBN 9780061099816 requirements for passport photos (and, post-9/11, those requirements have only gotten worse, requiring what is euphemistically called a "neutral expression") but there is a risk that "scam photos" will be images of random/uninvolved real people which have been stolen by scammers and used as their own. Do we know whose picture is being used here? K7L (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unless the original source is lying, this fake passport has nevertheless been used for attempting to cheat someone. So at least the scammers have thought they'll be able to cheat the victim with a photo and passport like this. The Wikipedia article where the photo is used explicitly points out that the photo obviously is not a passport photo.

Actually, the photo description should say that if you're presented with documents looking like this, you should get alarmed.

The U.S. State of Department or may not be able to tell who the person in the photo is. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article says:

If someone steals your handset, even if it's locked, they can pull the SIM and place it into any unlocked handset to gain control of your mobile number;

Isn't the SIM locked when it loses power, so that you have to enter your PIN to gain access to it on the other phone. This is separate from the handset being locked. If it is common not to have the SIM card require the PIN when turning on your phone, that is what we should warn about.

It continues:

alternately, they impersonate you to your mobile carrier for long enough to have their employee move your number to another phone. Your handset goes dead (as if you'd cancelled your subscription) and they now have your number for use to impersonate you and request "lost password" access to all of your other accounts.

Move your number to another phone? To my understanding the number is connected to the SIM, not to the handset. How do they impersonate me if I still have my phone and SIM or they cannot unlock my SIM? And if they can, why would they need to move the number anywhere else?

--LPfi (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This must vary by country. My SIM card here in China doesn't have a PIN, and I can transfer it to a different phone with no trouble. But I agree the passage you've quoted is confusing—if the person stole your handset, then surely you won't notice or care that your handset went dead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suppose we should add some advice to this section. The article on car rental already advices you to note "scratches and dents", but if the vehicle is full of them, I doubt your having added one would entitle the shop to any repair costs. Is there really any reason to record all of them? Obviously you should note in the papers that there are scratches, and if you find something more serious that should be noted too.

There is of course a real problem in that the company can charge your credit card and that you do not have the time to start a prolonged process to get the disagreament solved (and perhaps not to get impartial witnesses). I suppose the card company in many cases would believe you, but perhaps not universally. What should you do, when renting, returning, and after getting home?

--LPfi (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this something that happens that often?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787563 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not often, I suppose, but it may be standard procedure when the package operator did not pay and goes bankrupt when you are still there. I have heard about a similar case with another company. --LPfi (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply