BT customers may sue over internet rogue-dialling scam

Discussion in 'Spyware' started by Irish, May 23, 2004.

  1. However the question was about Ofcom electing BT a policeman. Clearly
    BT can act as a policeman (perhaps unilaterally) when it suits them.
    It may appear to you to be in their direct financial interest - but
    overall and in terms of PR it would be in their interests.
    Impossible, since all my shareholdings are in blind trusts.
     
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 24, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Should read:- "It may not appear...."
     
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 24, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Irish

    Ian G Batten Guest

    BT is perfectly entitled to clean rubbish out of its own property. It's
    also entitled to define rubbish in any means it chooses, unless and
    until Ofcom disagree. BT do no have the right, nor do they assert it,
    to prevent my sticking ``Sexy Schoolgirl, New in Town'' labels on the
    phone at home.
    That is their decision, not yours.

    ian
     
    Ian G Batten, May 24, 2004
    #43
  4. Do you therefore believe that BT is not breaking the terms of its
    license by blocking access to certain numbers?
    Err yes I know that.
     
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 24, 2004
    #44
  5. Irish

    Sunil Sood Guest

    I believe it is a criminal offence to put an advert relating to prostitution
    in a public phone box.

    BT's policy of blocking phone numbers started after it changed its customer
    contract to state that it would do this if a BT telephone number was been
    inappropiately advertised in its phone boxes.

    Afterwards (when the cards started to use non-BT numbers) - OFTEL approved
    BT's plans to block these numbers as well.. I believe at the Home Office's
    request.

    Regards
    Sunil
     
    Sunil Sood, May 24, 2004
    #45
  6. Irish

    GwG Guest

    Not sure about a criminal offence, because prostitution in itself is not
    a criminal offence, but BT could be accused of pimping if they did not
    remove them ;-)
     
    GwG, May 24, 2004
    #46
  7. Irish

    Joe Moore Guest

    Why should anyone protect anyone else from any weakness they might
    have? If someone else is physically stronger, or smarter, or just
    plain more willing to take advantage of other folks, why should we
    care as long as it's not us being taken advantage of?

    Well, there's always someone stronger, smarter, of more sociopathic
    than us and if we set up the rules so that anyone weaker, dumber (or
    just not as well or recently informed), or gentler than us is fair
    game, it increases the chances that we (or someone we care about)
    will become prey. It gives the predators such an advantage that
    they have the resources necessary to improve their techniques to
    victimize more and better (stronger, smarter, tougher) people.

    As to why BT should care, isn't BT collecting money on behalf of these
    trespassing thieves? Isn't it BT who sends the bill to the victims,
    collects the money from the victims and sends the money to these
    computer hijackers?

    BT, if it does nothing, is allowing itself to be used as an enforcer
    for a bunch of known gangsters.

    I think BT should hunt down the author or distributors of the trojan
    software and collect the disputed bills from them.



    joemooreaterolsdotcom
     
    Joe Moore, May 24, 2004
    #47
  8. BT may not be responsible for fixing it, but they may not have any
    right to take the money from you. The people in question are being
    defrauded by the criminals, and if BT get some of the money they are
    receiving stolen goods. Whether that's how the law sees it I don't
    know, but morally BT are profiting from a crime. And they should be
    recovering their costs from the criminal, not the dupe.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, May 24, 2004
    #48
  9. On 23/5/04 8:36 pm, in article t37sc.9957$,

    (due to wife's bloody kids running up $600 in excess accepting
    As a matter of interest, did you try and sue the telecomms company for not
    being psychic ?
     
    Graham in Melton, May 24, 2004
    #49
  10. This whole thread is pathetic.

    People fit into two camps;

    Those who believe individuals should be responsible for their actions,
    direct and indirect, witting and unwitting

    And

    Those who believe in an unreal world where people should be "nannied" by the
    State, so they don't pay the cost of their own stupidity ...and lets face it
    - anyone who clicks on a link they don't understand, or accept downloads
    they don't understand, are plain stupid.

    Good luck with getting the money from BT - always worth a try.

    The Internet is not a safe place as this shows and those who act as if it
    is, and think they can wander free and safe without precautions, are just
    another Darwinian branch of the Human Race waiting for the axe.

    If it were as simple as blocking one line, they could open another, then
    another then another etc.
     
    Graham in Melton, May 24, 2004
    #50
  11. Irish

    GwG Guest

    What an arrogant and naive attitude you seem to have Graham.
    Just because you understand something, you seem to think that everyone
    else should be able to understand it, irrespective of how much
    experience they have. I suppose if someone sat you at the controls of a
    jet fighter, and said fly this, you would not be very pleased if they
    called you stupid for not flying into battle. The person mentioned in my
    earlier post was a deputy headmaster, and he would probably love to
    argue the point with you, as to how stupid he is.
     
    GwG, May 24, 2004
    #51
  12. I'd like to be there when you tell that to your spouse, parents,
    in-laws, children, etc. if they fall victim to such a scam.
     
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 24, 2004
    #52
  13. On 24/5/04 9:19 pm, in article , "GwG"

    I suppose if someone sat you at the controls of a
    No, I'd have the brains to find out the pitfalls before trying, not blithely
    launch myself into space and complain when I crashed. And in any case I can
    fly a Piper Cub, did the training, learned the pitfalls, did the exams. I
    still wouldn't meet try a jet though - I know my limits. Perhaps the OP
    covers people who don't and who learn the hard way ?

    The person mentioned in my
    I could easily prove he is stupid - he acts as if there are no dangers on
    the internet when anyone who can read knows there are. Ignorance is no
    excuse as teachers like to say to their pupils ......
     
    Graham in Melton, May 24, 2004
    #53
  14. I'm on BB so its a moot point (modem remove just in case).

    72 years old father knows better, follows instructions and switches the
    machine off.

    Spouse has the best solution of all - never touch the computer !

    "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as
    men, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway." -Bernard Avishai

    We appear to be well on the road judging by this thread :D
     
    Graham in Melton, May 24, 2004
    #54
  15. I've never before heard of anyone who believes that people should be
    held responsible for their unwitting actions. And I don't think you'd
    really believe it, if you thought about it.

    -- Richard
     
    Richard Tobin, May 24, 2004
    #55
  16. Irish

    GwG Guest

    Just the reply I expected, (including the bit about you knowing how to
    fly, that's why I included the jet fighter stipulation, I was even a bit
    dubious about the jet fighter, and was going to change it to space
    shuttle, just to be sure), but the point was, would you be happy to be
    called stupid, just because someone sat you in a plane that you did not
    know how to fly, and told you to fly it? It was not about your ability
    to eventually learn how to fly it.
     
    GwG, May 25, 2004
    #56
  17. Irish

    Gordon Brown Guest

    Actually to Graham's defence, he did not call the OP stupid (well not on
    this particular thread anyway). He inferred that there were two camps of
    people but he did not call either camp stupid. Did he?
     
    Gordon Brown, May 25, 2004
    #57
  18. No his exact words were:-

    "and lets face it - anyone who clicks on a link they don't understand,
    or accept downloads they don't understand, are plain stupid".
     
    Hiram Hackenbacker, May 25, 2004
    #58
  19. Irish

    GwG Guest

    Well his post actually stated plain stupid:-
    <Quote> ...and lets face it
    - anyone who clicks on a link they don't understand, or accept downloads
    they don't understand, are plain stupid. </Quote>

    Now untrained or inexperienced they may be, but to label everyone that
    does not have his experience, or training, as "plain stupid", is as I
    said previously, an arrogant assertion.
     
    GwG, May 25, 2004
    #59
  20. Dropping a cigarette end which burns down a building might be an unwitting
    action for which you would and should be held responsible perhaps ?

    Direct and indirect implies knowledge of the consequences, witting and
    unwitting implies a lack of knowledge of the consequences but still having a
    direct effect.
     
    Graham in Melton, May 25, 2004
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.