
Americans Are Receiving Unordered Parcels from E-Criminals - monsieurpng
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/27/americans-are-receiving-unordered-parcels-from-chinese-e-criminals-and-cant-do-anything-about-it/#4399dca873da
======
fapjacks
I had an interesting experience recently. I ordered a cheap $20 multimeter
from Amazon (which was highly rated on EEVblog), which was shipped from China.
Interestingly, the Chinese seller shipped me a single little worthless plastic
packet of heat-shrink remote control covers (which somewhat humorously I can
imagine totally being a thing in Asia, heat-shrink-wrapping all the remotes in
plastic, sort of like a couch in plastic). This was what the tracking number
package was for, and so I _immediately_ hit my bookmark to chat with an Amazon
rep to report fraud. I went through all the motions, they refunded me the
amount, I left a negative review. But then that night, I got an email from the
seller saying "That was your free gift, the multimeter should be there soon"
and indeed, the actual multimeter showed up _the next day_ , albeit with
another tracking number. The multimeter was definitely shipped from China the
same as the garbage package (via epacket, the subsidized, dirt cheap,
glacially slow shipping method), so the seller had to have shipped the stupid
garbage package at around the same time as the actual product I ordered. Other
reviews mentioned the exact same thing ("They sent me garbage, but I got the
thing in another package").

I've spent time thinking about what kind of fraud they're committing, because
it doesn't make sense to me why they would send the garbage package with the
tracking number from my order -- which _screams_ fraud -- but then _also_ send
me the _actual_ thing I ordered. They're sending two packages to the same
address, but it doesn't make sense why, since they're obviously not committing
the most straightforward kind of fraud ("We shipped the item, you can see the
tracking number", which incidentally, only works on eBay and not Amazon).

~~~
ggm
Well.. this story directly provides an answer (potentially) -they get an
additional marginal ranking benefit inside some market appraisal score because
they double their international successful completion count, for low marginal
cost of posting negligible weight content to you successfully. The benefit to
them is fraud, but not against you: its against the ranking engine inside some
digital marketplace like alibaba. You are an unrelated third party who
validates (by accepting) delivery. Since you don't know if the package is
shrinkwrap "free gift" or the $20 meter, you accept. Are you willing to monty-
hall reject the random package :-)

~~~
pyoung
So if I understand this right, they are creating a fake account on some other
site (aliexpress, etc...) with his address attached. And then they ship the
'gift' from the Amazon tracking number, so that he is more likely to accept
that package, and then ship the multimeter from the fake account tracking
number, allowing them to leave themselves a positive review on that site.

I always suspected something was going on with the aliexpress ratings. If you
look at the reviews it is a lot of one liners like 'i got the item as
described!' with a 5 star rating.

~~~
leggomylibro
This is the most convoluted thing I've had to think through in awhile.

Jeez. Honestly, I mostly ignore reviews on Chinese listing sites unless
they're low. It's all about two things:

1\. Is the price in line with other listings? From both directions?

2\. How many people have ordered it in the past 90 days?

Sometimes that does mean taking a risk with specialty items, or foregoing
them. But hey, if it's a critical application I'm not going to source it from
sketchy international cheap-o listings.

------
drawkbox
I wonder why we have the USPS Chinese subsidy? [1] Seems this makes the
shipping fraud too easy as it is low cost.

 _It was a small epacket -- a special subsidized shipping option that the USPS
offers Chinese merchants, effectively enabling them to ship a parcel from
China to the U.S. for less than it costs to send that same parcel
domestically_

 _Due to the unbalanced pricing policies of the United Postal Union and
subsidies from the U.S. Postal Service, it costs people in China virtually
nothing to ship small packages to the U.S._

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-
the-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/11/05/how-the-usps-
epacket-gives-postal-subsidies-to-chinese-e-commerce-merchants-to-ship-to-the-
usa-cheap/)

~~~
pravda
I think a better solution would be to lower the outrageous prices charged by
the USPS to us.

If you want to send a 1oz 'package' to, for example, France, it will cost
$13.50. It used to cost closer to $3.40, and then they doubled it overnight to
$7, and now it is freakishly high.

Why is this? Because the USPS has a monopoly and is allowed to rob us!

~~~
Scoundreller
It a nutshell, that's why I've stopped buying American* and just wait
patiently for the 4-week free shipping from China.

*I'm Canadian.

~~~
pravda
As an American, I can't blame you. I have noticed that the Chinese shipping is
getting quicker.

I ordered two of these [1] from China on the 7th. Showed up on the 28th. Only
3 weeks! ($1.32 for two, shipped)

If I wanted to send one to Canada, it would cost $2.29 for postage (because is
it a 'flat', so it is cheaper. If it was bulkier, it would cost $9.50).

[1]
[https://github.com/jdesbonnet/RCWL-0516](https://github.com/jdesbonnet/RCWL-0516)

~~~
xellisx
I've had stuff actually show up in a week from China (Actually my 3D printer -
FLSun Cube was one of those items). Of course, I've been having stuff show up
in about 4-6 weeks as of late.

------
WalterBright
It's the free shipping subsidy that's the underlying cause. It's the same
reason we all receive enormous amounts of email spam (for me it's a couple
hundred per day) - the cost of sending email is zero.

I bet the email spam problem could be solved at a stroke if senders were
charged $.01 per email.

~~~
AckSyn
No. It would be solved if people could run a whitelist that was directly tied
to your address book, and any address you sent email TO would automatically be
added to this address book/whitelist.

I wish mail could operate on a similar method

~~~
WalterBright
Thunderbird mail does that.

------
tgsovlerkhgsel
Title makes it sound like people are getting shipped drugs and at risk of
getting into trouble, not basically empty envelopes.

~~~
minxomat
The mention of empty boxes reminds me of _One Point O_ (2004)...

------
theossuary
I find it funny the article implies this only happens across international
borders, and would otherwise be policed and stopped if it only happened within
the US. I receive unwanted junk mail daily and it isn't even addressed to me,
but to 'Current Resident'.

The real solution is to allow residents to whitelist or blacklist mail. Or
better yet tie mail to people and organizations, not places, and allow people
to route whatever mail wherever they want.

~~~
evincarofautumn
I don’t know if this’d work at all, but I’ve idly considered the possibility
of starting a grassroots “return to sender” campaign for junk mail.

As it is, the postal service is paid to deliver all of that spam—but maybe it
would no longer be cost-effective if everyone just said “nope, send it back”
whenever possible. As it is, I just recycle all of it, but it still probably
represents a sizable environmental impact in terms of materials, printing,
delivery, recycling, and landfills, which we could entirely do away with.

~~~
oasisbob
When I was in college I would do this with all the credit card offers
received, or anything else I found offensive, if it had a return envelope. All
the paper they sent would go back in the return envelope, along with a handful
of pennies, and maybe a guitar string or two taped across the top flap.

I'm sure most of them cost several dollars in postage to get back.

------
dchichkov
Interesting. As per Washington Post in 2014 USPS was losing about $1 per every
package shipped as ePacket from China. These spam shipments effectively are
harming USPS.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/09/12/the-
postal-service-is-losing-millions-a-year-to-help-you-buy-cheap-stuff-from-
china/?utm_term=.b5be91c00d80)

~~~
rahimnathwani
You mean 'as per an internal report compiled by USPS, quoted in the Washington
post'.

~~~
ksk
Well shouldn't a newspaper standby their reporting?

~~~
rahimnathwani
When a newspaper prints '{statement}, according to {source}' there's a reason:
they don't independently verify those facts. They're printing it in the hope
that it's useful, and giving you their source as a cop out or, if you're being
charitable, so that you can decide whether you want to believe it or not.

The statement "In 2012, USPS was paid only 94 cents on average for each piece
of Chinese ePacket mail, according to a February report from the Postal
Service’s inspector general’s office." is probably 100% accurate, in the same
sense that "Rahim is the best dad ever, according to his son" is true, could
be 100% accurate. You could stand by either statement. And both could be
accurate. But it doesn't mean they're not misleading (in that the fact being
discussed might not be true).

If you look for it, you'll see similar patterns scattered all over newspapers.
One of the most common examples: '{company} reported 4th quarter earnings of
{amount}'. There's a reason they don't simply say ''{company} earned {amount}
in Q4'.

------
ared38
Dumb question: Why are the vendors bothering to send anything?

~~~
nerdponx
So Alibaba doesn't figure out that it's fraud, probably.

~~~
captaindiego
Exactly. Often the shipping weight will be measured as it is shipped (likely
because most of these are coming by air). Alibaba and others pass this
shipping information on to the customer and would likely notice overly low
shipping weights.

Fraudulent sellers will also use a similar method in certain countries where
the delivery address is not tracked but weight and delivery status are. They
can send a nonsense package to the right country/state, have it appear in
China post tracking as delivered, but the fake package was actually went to a
random address with a roughly expected weight. If customers try to file claims
on sites like aliexpress they'll likely rule in the favor of the seller unless
you can somehow get your local post office to provide proof it was never
delivered to your specific address.

------
sowbug
This must be why I got a flurry of empty envelopes from China a couple months
ago. A+++++ would throw out again.

------
Shivetya
The epacket mailing is very common on low cost items you can find on ebay. I
have seen it on items costing pennies and actually have won such an auction
for less than a dollar and received what was listed. Now apparently the ebay
buying has been safe for me and those I know who also have bought epacket
delivered items, now they don't come fast but they all have arrived.

so which retailers are they skimming for addresses?

------
codewritinfool
This is happening to a coworker but the packages are from Amazon. The stuff
inside is mostly junk.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If its from amazon in the USA to a USA address, it is illegal and easily
reported.

~~~
anonymous5133
Easily reported but not easily verified.

There are many cases of people getting shipped drugs and then having the
police called on them once the package arrives. It could happen to anyone
really. It is also fairly common that people ship drugs to anti-drug
politicians.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _It is also fairly common that people ship drugs to anti-drug politicians_

Source?

------
JorgeGT
It is not only happening in the US, my SO in Spain received these a few months
ago - unsolicited envelopes from China containing a single hair tie each (and
once very cheap-looking sunglasses).

------
curtisblaine
Wait, can't we do the same? I mean, make money exploiting legal loopholes at
the cost of Chinese people and government? After all, the borders work two
ways.

~~~
sverhagen
Wait, what? Are we upset with China then? So that we want to target innocent
Chinese people? As the article clearly states: it's illegal in China too. Is
disrespecting the personal mailing address of a random, innocent Chinese
person less valuable than the personal mailing address of a random, innocent
American? Unless you have personal mailing addresses lying around of the
specific people who are brushing the system from China now? But then... while
the article talks about stuff being sent _from_ China, I didn't get the idea
that it necessarily had to be (exclusively) Chinese people who did it?

~~~
curtisblaine
No, I was just wondering if these border loopholes were one-way or could be
played from West to East, too.

------
randyrand
I got one of these for the first time about ~1yr ago.

------
zeep
at least, they don't use USPS to deliver bio weapons yet...

