The OP has clearly contacted another company that’s is not Sonos and if anyone require telephone technical support the details are available on the Sonos.com website,

Than you very much for the update for future tech support..

Please circulate my warning to as many people as possible to prevent them from being HACKED and using their CONTACT list to scam people on their list. I am still hearing from my world wide contacts about the scams they are receiving over a week ago.

DON’T ever GIVE any tech support assess to your computer/iphone/ipad. etc. at any time.

I’m curious, how did you establish that the person contacted was not Sonos? that the person she spoke to was not Sonos technical support? Why is it “clear” to you? How can one be sure one is speaking to a “proper” Sonos support person anyway?

Because Sonos wouldn’t have “stolen” their contacts, due to the privacy laws around the world that govern reputable organizations? You can see Sonos’ privacy rules here. Note that I linked to the US version, since I’m in the US, but there would be similar versions for all regions, which would show up easily in a Google Search, or by clicking on the Privacy Statement link at the bottom of all of their web pages. 

How?  Easily.  By only going to the official website for contact information, instead of Googling “Sonos Support” and blindly phoning the first number which comes up.  The same way you should always check the original email sender of the emails telling you you bought a $1000 Apple computer at Amazon and only have 2 hours to cancel the order.

I asked where the SONOS support was located and she unhesitatingly  said the Philippines. The lady solved my sonos problem but in the process copied my contacts list because she required access to my computer. This was a genuine Sonos site -- not a scammer.

Des

Yes, because scammers will never lie to you ?  Trust me, you got scammed, but not by Sonos.

Maybe you got scammed in the past and I sense you have a motive to protect SONOS. My sonos problem was adequately solved. Just that in the process she copied my contact list and used it in a scam.

But that’s not what Desmilner said at all, you’re imagining things, here’s what Desmilner actually wrote:

Case # ***. Contacted Sonos Tech help and was connected to Syria? Shane in the Phillipines  who requested access to my computer. 

I can’t see any mention of “Googling” can you? no mention of “blindly phoning” (whatever you even mean by that).

Do Sonos support staff, request access to a customers PC? is that a normal part of the support process? Why would they do that given that most users use a phone and don’t even use a PC for their Sonos.

I think the Sonos apologists here need to get back to reality. I suspect there is no way you can prove that a person contacted by using the published support phone numbers, cannot or will not behave unethically, if this did happen then don’t you think Sonos should investigate this? what is the point of people telling you about problems here in this forum when the position taken is to deny there’s any problem? to blame the actual victim?

Perhaps Sonos themselves can comment here, what safeguards are in place to protect customers from unethical support staff? What process have Sonos established for customers to report suspected ethics violations and what do Sonos do when these are reported? anything? anything at all?

“Sonos apologists?”  I could retort with a comment about “Sonos detractors”, however I won’t stoop to personal attacks over rational discussion.  Besides, it is against the TOS.  I’ll leave you two to your own echo chamber.  Toodles!

The facts of the matter are that the OP said nothing about “Googling” nor did the OP say or imply that the call they made constituted “blindly phoning”. These remarks (which the record shows, you wrote) are what led me to use the phrase “Sonos apologist”, one primarily concerned with minimizing the culpability of Sonos, rather than helping to see what can be done to reduce the problem, reduce the risks to customer and so on.

Now look what actually happens if we do “Google” for Sonos support:

The first result is in fact the official Sonos site, the results that follow all also seem to refer to the same official phone number, so once again you are wrong to imply otherwise. If you can demonstrate that “Googling” does in fact lead to a false number then please prove it.

Once again, perhaps Sonos themselves can comment here, what safeguards are in place to protect customers from unethical support staff? What process have Sonos established for customers to report suspected ethics violations and what do Sonos do when these are reported? anything? anything at all?

If this customer’s experience is real, did take place as described by talking with a person who was reached through the appropriate channels then surely this of concern to someone at Sonos?

There also does appear to be a legitimate Singapore company with some affiliation with Sonos. Let allow Sonos to comment here, is this a trusted company? are they ever involved in Sonos support calls?

*sigh*

Looks like Logan's back.  Just can't stay away.  I'll not fall for it again.

I always thought with remote access that a user can watch exactly what the support person is doing on screen and also take back control at any moment during the session by simply moving their mouse.

What did the user see, how were the contacts copied, from where and to where did the files get copied (what type of files were they?) …as surely there’s no way to copy files off a device - they would need to be emailed or ftp’d etc. So it all initially seems blown-up out of proportion here …and might be that a ‘scammer’ has coincidentally taken the information in some other way, which isn’t related to the remote session at all.

The OP really needs to present the evidence, rather than perhaps jumping to conclusions. That’s still the case even if this was a genuine ‘remote’ Sonos support session. Of course if it wasn’t genuine support and Syria/Philippines locations mentioned are unrelated to Sonos, then perhaps the OP has been tricked and should come back here to give a lot more detail. At the moment the facts mentioned so far, seem rather lacking in precise detail.