What were you saying about bank account details ?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm

An article on Clarkson that for once everyone on the list can enjoy!

Clarkson stung after bank prank
Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity

TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson has lost money after publishing his bank
details in his newspaper column.

The Top Gear host revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the
furore over the loss of 25 million people's personal details on two
computer discs.

He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

"All you'll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not
take it out. Honestly, I've never known such a palaver about nothing,"
he told readers.

But he was proved wrong, as the 47-year-old wrote in his Sunday Times
column.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has
set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,"
he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection
Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

"I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."

Police were called in to search for the two discs, which contained the
entire database of child benefit claimants and apparently got lost in
the post in October 2007.

They were posted from HM Revenue and Customs offices in Tyne and Wear,
but never turned up at their destination - the National Audit Office.

The loss, which led to an apology from Prime Minister Gordon Brown,
created fears of identity fraud.

Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we
must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in
their eyes until they beg for mercy."
--
geoff

On 7 Jan, 19:12, geoff wrote:
What were you saying about bank account details ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7174760.stm

An article on Clarkson that for once everyone on the list can enjoy!

Clarkson stung after bank prank
Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity

TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson has lost money after publishing his bank
details in his newspaper column.

The Top Gear host revealed his account numbers after rubbishing the
furore over the loss of 25 million people's personal details on two
computer discs.

He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

"All you'll be able to do with them is put money into my account. Not
take it out. Honestly, I've never known such a palaver about nothing,"
he told readers.

But he was proved wrong, as the 47-year-old wrote in his Sunday Times
column.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has
set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,"
he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection
Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.

"I was wrong and I have been punished for my mistake."

Police were called in to search for the two discs, which contained the
entire database of child benefit claimants and apparently got lost in
the post in October 2007.

They were posted from HM Revenue and Customs offices in Tyne and Wear,
but never turned up at their destination - the National Audit Office.

The loss, which led to an apology from Prime Minister Gordon Brown,
created fears of identity fraud.

Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we
must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in
their eyes until they beg for mercy."
--
geoff

Lots of organisations publish account number and sort code for paying
in purposes.
Will this stop ?
Simon.

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has
set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,"
he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection
Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.


Clarkson won't have a lost a penny due to the direct debit guarantee
http://www.bacs.co.uk/BACS/Consumers...t/Your+rights/
But of course mentioning this would not have enabled him to have a go
at the bank industry and 'PC' legislation.

In message , at 19:12:50 on Mon, 7 Jan
2008, geoff remarked:
What were you saying about bank account details ?

[I don't currently read threads from uk.d-i-y unless they are
crossposted somewhere I do read.]

As for this Clarkson episode, as ever what's the risk that people
perceive?

There's no permanent loss of funds to Mr Clarkson, nor any funds
available to the perpetrator, but a prankster has caused Mr Clarkson
some inconvenience (by which I mean he has to repudiate the DD, rather
than he's embarrassed it happened).

And on the way lots of misinformation about DPA, which doesn't help
anyone, frankly.
--
Roland Perry

"Tim Decker" wrote in message
...

"I opened my bank statement this morning to find out that someone has
set up a direct debit which automatically takes £500 from my account,"
he said.

"The bank cannot find out who did this because of the Data Protection
Act and they cannot stop it from happening again.


Clarkson won't have a lost a penny due to the direct debit guarantee
http://www.bacs.co.uk/BACS/Consumers...t/Your+rights/
But of course mentioning this would not have enabled him to have a go
at the bank industry and 'PC' legislation.

With rights come responsibilities. I think it could be argued that the
'victim' was reckless and lacked responsibility. I hope he doesn't get
anything.


mark

In article ,
geoff wrote:
But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

These details are available to anyone you send a cheque to for goods to be
delivered by post to your home. Or indeed if you want an electronic
transfer into your account.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 19:12:50 on Mon, 7 Jan
2008, geoff remarked:
What were you saying about bank account details ?

[I don't currently read threads from uk.d-i-y unless they are
crossposted somewhere I do read.]

As for this Clarkson episode, as ever what's the risk that people perceive?

There's no permanent loss of funds to Mr Clarkson, nor any funds
available to the perpetrator, but a prankster has caused Mr Clarkson

As I seem to recall mentioning at the time, had the DD been set up to
pay off a credit card (or better still "load" funds onto a single use
disposable card) then the funds would be available for general use by
the fraudster.

some inconvenience (by which I mean he has to repudiate the DD, rather
than he's embarrassed it happened).

The fact that Clarkson may get his money back under a DD guarantee is
not exactly the point - its still real money that came from somewhere
(i.e. the law abiding customers of these services and products) and is
now in the hands of a fraudster.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message , at 02:49:50 on Tue, 8
Jan 2008, John Rumm remarked:
As I seem to recall mentioning at the time, had the DD been set up to
pay off a credit card (or better still "load" funds onto a single use
disposable card) then the funds would be available for general use by
the fraudster.

If you don't want to be caught rather quickly, the Credit Card would
have to be in the name of someone whose identity (and mail delivery
address) you'd previously stolen. Why go to the trouble of paying off
such a card from funds stolen elsewhere, rather than just walking away?

Also I would expect that a check would be done if the account name for
the bank account and the credit card weren't the same.
--
Roland Perry

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

These details are available to anyone you send a cheque to for goods to be
delivered by post to your home. Or indeed if you want an electronic
transfer into your account.


That may be the case, but the excercise emphasises the point that fraudsters
don't need the more specific details (expiry date and security code)
associated with your bank card to withdraw from your account.
When you send a cheque or carry out a phone purchase you are exercising a
level of trust toward the vendor in divulging your personal information and
expect that trust (rightly or wrongly) to be honoured.
Personally I have never purchased anything "on-line", believing the
person-to-person phone option to be less of a risk. However, two train
tickets were booked on my account last year via thetrainline.com (of which I
have no knowledge). Also I was recently emailed my account details, name
and address and (company) phone number by an internet based fraud-prevention
company offering to monitor the web and alert me of any occurrences of these
details.

Although I had the bank issue me a fresh card (i e changed expiry and card
number) the Clarkson stunt does indicate that this is probably not enough
and I need to change my account completely.

Phil

geoff wrote:

Clarkson stung after bank prank
Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity

[...]

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.

I'm surprised the pranksters didn't choose something more appropriate,
like the Rambler's Association or Friends of the Earth...

Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?
Sounds a very odd and unusual thing for a 'celeb' to do, whatever the
reason.

David

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 02:49:50 on Tue, 8
Jan 2008, John Rumm remarked:
As I seem to recall mentioning at the time, had the DD been set up to
pay off a credit card (or better still "load" funds onto a single use
disposable card) then the funds would be available for general use by
the fraudster.

If you don't want to be caught rather quickly, the Credit Card would
have to be in the name of someone whose identity (and mail delivery
address) you'd previously stolen. Why go to the trouble of paying off
such a card from funds stolen elsewhere, rather than just walking away?

Well you could use it to obtain goods/funds way in excess of the credit
limit of the card, for a start.

OK, so I work in the accounts department of a big utility company, which
gives me access to millions of bank account details, or I've just bought
myself a copy of the missing Child Benefit CDs. What's to prevent me
from furnishing myself with a stolen identity and credit card (which I'm
sure is pretty straightforward to do if you know the right people), and
then over the course of several months, setting up a gazillion direct
debits for small, random sums of money, all set to fire off on a given date?

Some of the dormant d/d set ups would get spotted by observant online
account holders and get cancelled, but are unlikley to ring major alarm
bells as they are for small sums, and no money had actually been taken.

After the d/ds have paid out, people will start to spot them on their
statements and question them, but again, as they are small sums I'll
have bought time to spend my ill-gotten gains before anyone cottons on
to the size of the fraud.

I don't get caught because there's no pattern to the accounts I've
stolen due to the sheer magnitude of the database I've used, and I've
taken basic precautions to conceal my IP address etc

Wouldn't that work?

David

Lobster wrote:
geoff wrote:

Clarkson stung after bank prank
Jeremy Clarkson found himself unexpectedly donating to charity

[...]

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had
used the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes
UK.

I'm surprised the pranksters didn't choose something more appropriate,
like the Rambler's Association or Friends of the Earth...

Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun
newspaper, including his account number and sort code. He even told
people how to find out his address.

Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address? Sounds
a very odd and unusual thing for a 'celeb' to do, whatever the reason.

David

Even with the address and the bank details, you don't know any more than
you've always known about somebody paying you by cheque. Online accounts
I've set up always involve the bank sending me something in the post so,
unless the fraudster had access to Clarkson's letter box, how could this
have happened?
I think what the banks are probably in denial about is the level of
dishonesty among their own staff

In message , at 09:45:26 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
What's to prevent me from furnishing myself with a stolen identity and
credit card (which I'm sure is pretty straightforward to do if you know
the right people), and then over the course of several months, setting
up a gazillion direct debits for small, random sums of money, all set
to fire off on a given date?

Probably the fact that you can only have one DD feeding into each credit
card. The reason those DDs exist is to pay off the card each month. The
amounts you can receive by such DDs (as far as I've seen) are "Minimum
Payment" or "Whole Payment". Some CCs might allow random amounts of
money, but could perhaps cap that at the amount due on the card (the CCs
don't like you to overpay, and after all their core business is lending
*you* money!)

And we haven't yet established that you can [easily] set up a DD into a
credit card account using a bank account with a wildly different name.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
09:04:25 on Tue, 8 Jan 2008, TheScullster
remarked:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote

These details are available to anyone you send a cheque to for goods to be
delivered by post to your home. Or indeed if you want an electronic
transfer into your account.


That may be the case, but the excercise emphasises the point that fraudsters
don't need the more specific details (expiry date and security code)
associated with your bank card to withdraw from your account.
When you send a cheque or carry out a phone purchase you are exercising a
level of trust toward the vendor in divulging your personal information and
expect that trust (rightly or wrongly) to be honoured.
Personally I have never purchased anything "on-line", believing the
person-to-person phone option to be less of a risk.

I think you have made a wrong assessment. Buying by phone guarantees
that your details passes through a person (who can make notes). Getting
details for an online transaction requires someone to access the back
office database. Phoned-in orders will inevitably end up in that same
database.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:19:57 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?

He probably said where he lives. Isn't it somewhere famous like Chipping
Norton? That narrows it down enough to search other places (according to
reports today, in the Electoral Roll).

Later... I guessed right!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4235742.stm
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:16:26 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Stuart Noble
remarked:
I've set up always involve the bank sending me something in the post
so, unless the fraudster had access to Clarkson's letter box, how could
this have happened?

I wonder if he's sufficiently busy [1] that he has a personal assistant
to deal with his correspondence and routine financial affairs. They may
have seen the DD confirmation and put it on a pile to "check with Jeremy
later". Indeed, it may have been while that check was being done that
Jeremy rumbled it (and the bit about seeing it on his Bank Statement is
while strictly speaking true also a certain amount of poetic licence).

[1] He seems to do a lot of filming trips all over the world, and a
weekly TV show plus newspaper column isn't a picnic.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:49:50 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
The fact that Clarkson may get his money back under a DD
guarantee is not exactly the point - its still real money
that came from somewhere (i.e. the law abiding customers of
these services and products) and is now in the hands of a
fraudster.

I thought it was in the hands of a charity: the 'fraudster'
submitted a DD to the charity using the publicised details. So
JC gets his money back instantly and the bank then reclaims it
from the charity. Much as a chargeback on a credit card. Which
is why you have to pass stringent checks before you can get a
credit card merchant account or be able to instigate direct
debits.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:57 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?

He probably said where he lives. Isn't it somewhere famous like Chipping
Norton? That narrows it down enough to search other places (according to
reports today, in the Electoral Roll).

Later... I guessed right!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4235742.stm

Well if you I told you what town I lived in (and my surname!) you
wouldn't find me on the Electoral Roll as I'm on the abbreviated
register, as I suspect anybody remotely well-known would be. Not that
I'm paranoid or anything, but I have occasionally tried to track myself
down online just to check the efficacy of measures such as being ex-dir,
off the main Electoral Roll, and anonymous in internet forums, and
never managed to do so.

David

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:45:26 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
What's to prevent me from furnishing myself with a stolen identity and
credit card (which I'm sure is pretty straightforward to do if you
know the right people), and then over the course of several months,
setting up a gazillion direct debits for small, random sums of money,
all set to fire off on a given date?

Probably the fact that you can only have one DD feeding into each credit
card.

Rats. That's my career as a criminal mastermind nipped in the bud, then.

David

Lobster wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:57 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?

He probably said where he lives. Isn't it somewhere famous like
Chipping Norton? That narrows it down enough to search other places
(according to reports today, in the Electoral Roll).

Later... I guessed right!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4235742.stm

Well if you I told you what town I lived in (and my surname!) you
wouldn't find me on the Electoral Roll as I'm on the abbreviated
register, as I suspect anybody remotely well-known would be. Not that
I'm paranoid or anything, but I have occasionally tried to track myself
down online just to check the efficacy of measures such as being ex-dir,
off the main Electoral Roll, and anonymous in internet forums, and
never managed to do so.

David

Maybe I am mis-understanding the use of the abbreviated register but I
was under the impression from the bumpf circulated by our council that
the main register with _all_ electors names would still be available in
the local library but that you would not be on the abbreviated one that
is sold to commercial organizations for marketing purposes.

Andrew

On Jan 7, 7:12*pm, geoff wrote:
He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

It always was, always will be.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

What the reader did NOT do was take any money for themselves. What the
reader did is little more than a school boy prank that I could
perpetrate on anyone who has paid me by cheque. But I wouldn't gain
anything by sending money to a 3rd party.

It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson. But they didn't.

MBQ

In message , at 12:24:23 on Tue, 8
Jan 2008, Tony Bryer remarked:
The fact that Clarkson may get his money back under a DD
guarantee is not exactly the point - its still real money
that came from somewhere (i.e. the law abiding customers of
these services and products) and is now in the hands of a
fraudster.

I thought it was in the hands of a charity: the 'fraudster'
submitted a DD to the charity using the publicised details. So
JC gets his money back instantly and the bank then reclaims it
from the charity. Much as a chargeback on a credit card. Which
is why you have to pass stringent checks before you can get a
credit card merchant account or be able to instigate direct
debits.

Exactly right, and very well put. It's a shame the press aren't
delivering the same clear explanation.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:25:50 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:57
on Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?
He probably said where he lives. Isn't it somewhere famous like
Chipping Norton? That narrows it down enough to search other places
(according to reports today, in the Electoral Roll).
Later... I guessed right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4235742.stm

Well if you I told you what town I lived in (and my surname!) you
wouldn't find me on the Electoral Roll as I'm on the abbreviated
register, as I suspect anybody remotely well-known would be.

Surely the full register is available for inspection at the town hall?

Not that I'm paranoid or anything, but I have occasionally tried to
track myself down online just to check the efficacy of measures such as
being ex-dir, off the main Electoral Roll, and anonymous in internet
forums, and never managed to do so.

Are you feeling lucky? I tried this (not for myself, because it's far
too late to start hiding my whereabouts, even if I wanted to) when I saw
a senior Home Office official who I knew worked in their department that
deals with surveillance and such things, getting off the train at a
country station near mine. I made a few guesses and eventually got his
address from 192.com (although perhaps they've cleaned up their act a
bit these days, it used to have all sorts of amazing stuff scraped from
heavens knows where).
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
05:15:45 on Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Man at B&Q
remarked:
It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson.

I suspect they'd need several years of accounts and quite likely a
guarantee bond.

But they didn't.

Quite.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 02:49:50 +0000 John Rumm wrote :
The fact that Clarkson may get his money back under a DD
guarantee is not exactly the point - its still real money
that came from somewhere (i.e. the law abiding customers of
these services and products) and is now in the hands of a
fraudster.

I thought it was in the hands of a charity: the 'fraudster'
submitted a DD to the charity using the publicised details. So
JC gets his money back instantly and the bank then reclaims it
from the charity. Much as a chargeback on a credit card. Which
is why you have to pass stringent checks before you can get a
credit card merchant account or be able to instigate direct
debits.

That's what I understood about direct debits. There are safeguards on
place to protect those being debited. Unlike other methods of payment.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Jan 7, 7:12 pm, geoff wrote:
He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

It always was, always will be.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun newspaper,
including his account number and sort code. He even told people how to
find out his address.

What the reader did NOT do was take any money for themselves. What the
reader did is little more than a school boy prank that I could
perpetrate on anyone who has paid me by cheque.

Yes, that's odd isn't it? Fill in a form, scrawl a signature that nobody
reads, and away you go. Maybe I could get my gas bill paid. I doubt
Clarkson would have noticed a utility payment

It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:25:50 on
Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:19:57
on Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Lobster remarked:
Anyone know what did JC write to let people find out his address?
He probably said where he lives. Isn't it somewhere famous like
Chipping Norton? That narrows it down enough to search other places
(according to reports today, in the Electoral Roll).
Later... I guessed right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/4235742.stm

Well if you I told you what town I lived in (and my surname!) you
wouldn't find me on the Electoral Roll as I'm on the abbreviated
register, as I suspect anybody remotely well-known would be.

Surely the full register is available for inspection at the town hall?

Not that I'm paranoid or anything, but I have occasionally tried to
track myself down online just to check the efficacy of measures such
as being ex-dir, off the main Electoral Roll, and anonymous in
internet forums, and never managed to do so.

Are you feeling lucky? I tried this (not for myself, because it's far
too late to start hiding my whereabouts, even if I wanted to) when I saw
a senior Home Office official who I knew worked in their department that
deals with surveillance and such things, getting off the train at a
country station near mine. I made a few guesses and eventually got his
address from 192.com (although perhaps they've cleaned up their act a
bit these days, it used to have all sorts of amazing stuff scraped from
heavens knows where).

;-)
Well my efforts at anonymity stem from before I moved from a different
part of the country 12 years ago, so I've always in effect been
'careful' for that period of time and since I've been at my current
address. 192.com certainly has nothing on me! And I could probably
count the number of junk phone calls I've had during that time on one hand.

As others have said, maybe I'm still in the printed Electoral Roll at
the Town Hall - can't say I've ever been to look!

David

"Roland Perry" wrote


I think you have made a wrong assessment. Buying by phone guarantees that
your details passes through a person (who can make notes). Getting details
for an online transaction requires someone to access the back office
database. Phoned-in orders will inevitably end up in that same database.

--

My justification for this route is that it eliminates one point for data
release - the home computer.
Knowing how my kids use and abuse the family PC, I can easily see cached
details hidden in the bowels of windoze being broadcast to the ether,
despite firewalls, anti-virus etc etc

Phil

In message , at
16:46:24 on Tue, 8 Jan 2008, TheScullster
remarked:
I think you have made a wrong assessment. Buying by phone guarantees that
your details passes through a person (who can make notes). Getting details
for an online transaction requires someone to access the back office
database. Phoned-in orders will inevitably end up in that same database.

My justification for this route is that it eliminates one point for data
release - the home computer.
Knowing how my kids use and abuse the family PC, I can easily see cached
details hidden in the bowels of windoze being broadcast to the ether,
despite firewalls, anti-virus etc etc

You might have a point with keyloggers, but the rest is largely
superstition I think. Of course, as you were claming to be very risk
averse, I might have expected you to take precautions (especially on a
shared computer).
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:46:24 +0000, TheScullster wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote


I think you have made a wrong assessment. Buying by phone guarantees
that your details passes through a person (who can make notes). Getting
details for an online transaction requires someone to access the back
office database. Phoned-in orders will inevitably end up in that same
database.

--

My justification for this route is that it eliminates one point for data
release - the home computer.
Knowing how my kids use and abuse the family PC, I can easily see cached
details hidden in the bowels of windoze

That's the problem isn't it. Install a free and relatively secure OS.


being broadcast to the ether,
despite firewalls, anti-virus etc etc

Phil




--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:24:30 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:


Probably the fact that you can only have one DD feeding into each credit
card. The reason those DDs exist is to pay off the card each month. The
amounts you can receive by such DDs (as far as I've seen) are "Minimum
Payment" or "Whole Payment".

Another option which all my CC providers will give you but don't tell you
about is a 'fixed payment' - For example I have a card which is only
holding a long term debt at a very low 'life of balance' interest rate.
If I let it pay off the minimum amount it would take years to pay off. By
paying a fixed amount (which was actually just over the minimum when I
started it) the balance is actually repaid in a fraction of the time and
for far less money, and I don't really notice that a steady payment isn't
oh so slowly decreasing.

Do the calculations - it really makes a huge difference. Or look he
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cards/minimum-repayments-credit-card

================
"An example helps it make sense:

Going back to John Shortovcash above, with his £3,000 debt at 17.9%
interest, with minimum repayments of 2%. In the first month his minimum
repayment was £60. If instead of just paying the minimums he repaid this
£60 every month, the scenario would change radically.

Making minimum repayments it'd take him 41 years to pay off the debts and
cost £6,300 in interest, yet repaying a fixed £60, he'd clear the in just
7 years and the interest cost would be only £2,100; a huge saving of over
£4,000. Of course, if he could afford to pay even more each month, he'd
be even better off."

================

This has been a public service announcement on behalf of us tightwads ;-)

Oh, is that my coat? I was just going to get that...

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:15:45 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:

On Jan 7, 7:12Â*pm, geoff wrote:
He wanted to prove the story was a fuss about nothing.

It always was, always will be.

But Clarkson admitted he was "wrong" after discovered a reader had used
the details to create a £500 direct debit to the charity Diabetes UK.
Clarkson published details of his Barclays account in the Sun
newspaper, including his account number and sort code. He even told
people how to find out his address.

What the reader did NOT do was take any money for themselves. What the
reader did is little more than a school boy prank that I could
perpetrate on anyone who has paid me by cheque. But I wouldn't gain
anything by sending money to a 3rd party.

It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson. But they didn't.


I suspect the bank in question, or specifically the DD processing part,
is having some serious questions bandied about now.

Saying that he can't find out who did it because of the Data Protection
Act is just wrong. Activating the DD was also wrong, although if his
signature (also widely available due to signed photos etc.) was forged
onto it then it would have been hard for them to tell.

I have also heard that the charity in question had an online DD signup
which didn't follow whatever strict rules they are supposed to follow
before being accepted as DD recipients, so they could have some fallout
too...

All in all it's a useful exercise for *our* banking security, though. You
can bet they'll look more closely at DD applications for a short while,
at least.

Man at B&Q wrote:
snip
It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson. But they didn't.


C'mon guys, the reader was making a point. Jeremy published enough
details to let a fraud be carried out; the chosen method demonstrated
it was possible to get money from his account, and also that no true
fraud was intended.

Andy

Roland Perry wrote:

I wonder if he's sufficiently busy [1] that he has a personal assistant
to deal with his correspondence and routine financial affairs. They may
have seen the DD confirmation and put it on a pile to "check with Jeremy
later".

You don't necessarily receive one if you opt to set it up completely
online. Most site that will allow you to pay by DD have two ways of
setting it up - one has paper confirmation etc, but usually introduces a
delay of four or five days into the transaction completing.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Jan 8, 11:03*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

snip

It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson. But they didn't.

C'mon guys, the reader was making a point. *Jeremy published enough
details to let a fraud be carried out; *the chosen method demonstrated
it was possible to get money from his account, and also that no true
fraud was intended.

The point is that he published no more details than are freely given
out every time you write a cheque. Anyone could have made such a
point, anytime.

It only got publicity because it's Clarkson. It's a complete non-story
and has feck all to do with the fallout from the missing government
discs.

MBQ

On 2008-01-09 13:26:39 +0000, "Man at B&Q" said:

On Jan 8, 11:03*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:

snip

It would be a much more interesting story if the reader had managed to
get through all the checks and set up a fake charity, get through the
further checks and obtain a bank account with the ability to originate
DDs to take the money from Clarkson. But they didn't.

C'mon guys, the reader was making a point. *Jeremy published enough
details to let a fraud be carried out; *the chosen method demonstrated
it was possible to get money from his account, and also that no true
fraud was intended.

The point is that he published no more details than are freely given
out every time you write a cheque. Anyone could have made such a
point, anytime.

It only got publicity because it's Clarkson. It's a complete non-story
and has feck all to do with the fallout from the missing government
discs.

MBQ

One of the morals of the story is not to write cheques. I've written
three in the last year and a half and the target for this year is zero.
In general, any supplier who still insists on this outmoded form of
payment is not going to get my business. A BACS transfer works for
anybody who doesn't want to accept credit cards, although those also
tend to be avoided unless there is an alternative.

As far as Jeremy is concerned, it's entirely appropriate that he should
make a donation to Diabetes UK. Far better that it's a direct transfer
than one involving the government as middle man.