@ Redstar7

What were the numbers?

I don't know if this will be of interest

T-Mobile hit by top up [problem]

Check your statements now

Monday 10 September 2007

 

AN IRATE INQ reader has discovered a fraudulent £40 payment to the UK's T-Mobile mobile network for topping up a pre-paid handset. The clue was that he's not even a T-Mobile customer. Our hapless reader noticed the dubious entry on his credit card bill and spotted it immediately as a fraud. So he quickly rang T-Mobile to complain.

Reputedly the agent in T-Mobile's help centre sounded very familiar with the situation and suggested that the company was currently experiencing problems with fraudulent top ups.

His advice was to cut up the credit card immediately and order a replacement. Presumably the hacker had been able to [problem] the three digit verification code on the back of the card.

One of the problems with pre-paid is that the networks don't actually know who the real owner of the handset is. It seems that T-Mobile's online sign up system for topping up doesn't even require a postal address.

So the INQ speculates that the system isn't checking credit card numbers against a postal address when adding top ups.

The INQ is waiting for T-Mobile to get back to us about this. Meanwhile, check your credit card bill.

some reading from 2004

OurShip > The saga of the Phones

I don't know if this email address is still current

Dial-A-Phone Ltd

Highgate Studios

53-79 Highgate Rd

London NW5 1TL,

UNITED KINGDOM

internetsales [at] dialaphone.co.uk

EDIT

a more current email contact

Julian Hearn

Head of Online Marketing

Dial-a-Phone

j.hearn(remove-this)@dialaphone.com

Comment 67 by Julian July 17th, 2007 at 8:06 am

Regarding the illegal use of internet diallers:

Taking into account it's a criminal offense

 

could you explain the measures that were available that could have protected these "average" punters

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

The measures (as I said) are not rocket science.

 

1. Be extremely careful what sites you visit; most Warez and P0rn sites that I am aware of are infected with large numbers of pop-up ads, many of which contain rogue software.

 

2. Don't open email attachments unless you are 100% certain they are safe and from a trusted source.

 

3. Use a pop-up blocker you trust; to ensure you CAN trust it, pay for it from a trusted source rather than some random website.

 

4. Use anti-virus/malware software which has a real-time protection option which checks all executable code which is read into memory. This has been available since the mid to late 1990s.

 

5. Use a well-known anti-malware protector software such as Spybot: Search and Destroy; and do regular system tests (such as weekly). This too has been available since about 1999.

 

Like I said, not difficult and should protect most people from most threats...

or take away the premium rate numbers from the company involved until they could show they were operating legally.

I'm a IT techy and have good technical knowledge. Fortunately I realised what was going on and only lost a few pounds.

Good to hear. So you will no doubt realise that if it was an international "premium rate" number it was probably "short stopped" in London to increase the revenue share for the companies involved.

I have been in IT 13 years now; as you've found it teaches you to be that little bit better than the average punter.

Regarding the illegal use of internet diallers:

Taking into account it's a criminal offense

http://www.icstis.org/pdfs_news/IQSpring04.pdf

NB Although it is rare, some diallers can be set to download automatically – i.e. without the consent of the user. This is a serious breach of our Code (as well as being illegal under the Computer Misuse Act)

could you explain the measures that were available that could have protected these "average" punters

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

I seem to remember that you have made similar posts before about this? So, what actually is new since you last posted?

yes, I wrote and posted the background information on this internet dialler fraud case from 2004.

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

I have recently received a letter from Icstis explaining why they did not refer the matter for criminal investigation.

I believed the public and media had been intentionally misled as to the true scale and serious nature of the fraud and

I also believed UK companies had contravened the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The DTI were sent all the background details to the case and asked (through my MP) two questions.

Why considering the high level and serious nature of complaint were BT allowed to continue billing.

and were the full details of the case referred to the police as Icstis appeared to claim in the media.

High-tech cops probe premium-rate Internet fraud - ZDNet UK

"If it's only a few cases, then we can put it down to the husband or kids not admitting to surfing porn, but if 300 customers are saying the same thing about one company, then we can't ignore it," said Baht. "We can't work out what the problem is, so have recently started talking to the Hi-Tech Crime Unit so they can do a criminal investigation."

The Majorcan companies had received tens of thousands of complaints.

Margaret Hodge insisted it was the responsibility for Icstis to explain.

Sir Alistair Graham claimed not withstanding complaint BT were obliged to carry the services because of the Communications Act 2003

and

Paul Whiting claimed the matter was not referred for criminal investigation because Icstis closed their investigation in 2004 and were unable to identify any breaches of their Code of Practice.

Which would raise a question. What actually constitutes an Icstis compliant service?

From Jan 2004 to August 2004 Icstis were unaware of the details of the internet dialler the companies were using and did not know how or where the services were being promoted. The only evidence to indicate compliance or non-compliance were the tens of thousands of complaints.

Why did a group of companies who were making millions of pounds for Premium Rate Internet Services that Icstis claimed appeared compliant suddenly leave the market after August 2004 when OFCOM were forced to introduce a licensing scheme to ensure the diallers the companies were using were legal?

This response Icstis recieved to one of their pointless consultations just about sums it all up.

http://www.icstis.org.uk/pdfs_consult/GovCode_MW.pdf

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

"Twenty per cent of the total number of complaints to ICSTIS about rogue dialling involved the Majorca companies.

PMC supplied technology to all five and took it upon itself to answer complaints from consumers".

The companies:

Premium Media

Cala de Plata

Inversion Zarnosa

Quizir

Amara Amichi

Ibero, and

Mesa Rotation

These companies were under Icstis investigation from 1st Jan 2004 on wards. Despite the high level of complaint BT were still billing for their internet services in August 2004.

"ICSTIS investigated PMC and the other Majorca firms and decided there was insufficient evidence to take action against them".

Through-out 2004 Icstis received thousands of complaints that Premium Rate numbers were mysteriously appearing on peoples phone bills.

The high level and identical nature of complaint could only indicate that the companies involved were using illegal trojan internet diallers. The use of such software is a criminal offense.

Icstis claimed they had been working with the police NHTCU.

High-tech cops probe premium-rate Internet fraud - ZDNet UK

"If it's only a few cases, then we can put it down to the husband or kids not admitting to surfing porn, but if 300 customers are saying the same thing about one company, then we can't ignore it," said Baht. "We can't work out what the problem is, so have recently started talking to the Hi-Tech Crime Unit so they can do a criminal investigation."

In 2006 Margaret Hodge (DTI) was asked considering "the high level and serious nature of complaint" were BT allowed to continue billing for these services.

She decided it was the responsibility of Icstis to explain.

Sir Alistair Graham wrote "Icstis received a large number of complaints about the services operated by Premium Media Communications and instigated an investigation in 2004.

The investigation undertaken by Icstis at the time was quite lengthy due to complex nature of the technologies involved."

"At that time we felt unable to reach a decision that there had been a definite breach of our code."

He goes on to say that Icstis introduced a prior permission scheme in August 2004 and Premium Media Communications applied for and met the criteria of that scheme and "Shortly after permission was granted - and before closure of the investigation above - Premium Media Communications ceased operating any internet dialler services. A result of this Icstis revoked their permission to operate any internet dialler in the future."

So why didn't the Icstis investigation from Jan to August 2004 reveal the services were not compliant with their code and why didn't NHTCU discover the use of any illegal internet diallers?

4 May 2007

Paul Whiting (Icstis) wrote:

"The correspondence outlines that Icstis completed their investigation into the operation of Telecom One and other Sevice Providers operating dialler services back in 2004. Icstis were unable to identify that any breaches of our Code of Practice had occurred and as a result of this we did not forward the case on for criminal investigation".

Ofcom

Case opened: 17 May 2005

ICSTIS complaint regarding failure of Telecom One to comply with Directions | Ofcom

Issue: ICSTIS, the premium rate services regulator, has alleged that Telecom One Limited ("Telecom One") has failed to comply with Directions made by ICSTIS under its Code of Practice and that, as such, Telecom One is in breach of the condition made by Ofcom under section 120 of the Communications Act 2003 ("the Act") for the purpose of regulating the provision, content, promotion and marketing of premium rate services ("the PRS Condition").

Relevant instrument: Section 120 of the Communications Act 2003 Under the PRS Condition made by Ofcom under Section 120 of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom requires that Communication Providers comply with Directions given by ICSTIS. ICSTIS is responsible for regulating the content, promotion and overall operation of premium rate services in the UK . ICSTIS does this through its Code of Practice ("the ICSTIS Code").

ICSTIS issued Directions to Telecom One in respect of four service providers on 11 January 2005 , 3 February 2005 , 9 February 2005 and 14 February 2005 . Directions in respect of three service providers were invoked under ICSTIS's emergency procedure. ICSTIS alleges that Telecom One provided inadequate, incomplete or late responses to its Directions. ICSTIS submitted correspondence between it and Telecom One as supporting evidence.

Given the substantive supporting evidence submitted by ICSTIS in respect of its complaint, Ofcom considers it is appropriate for it to investigate these matters further.

Case closed: 16 September 2005

Ofcom conducted an investigation following a complaint by ICSTIS that Telecom One had failed to comply with Directions made by ICSTIS. ICSTIS had issued these directions in order to establish, among other things, whether premium rate services were being operated on the Telecom One network in contravention of the ICSTIS Code of Practice for the content, promotion and overall operation of premium rate services in the UK.

Ofcom's investigation has found that Telecom One did provide late responses to the Directions that had been issued by ICSTIS. However, all of these Directions have now been complied with, and the premium rate services that were being operated on Telecom One's network have been ceased. In addition, Ofcom's found no evidence of any material consumer detriment as a result of the delay by Telecom One in responding to the ICSTIS Directions. For these reasons, Ofcom has closed its investigation.

In closing this case, Ofcom has reminded Telecom One of its duty to act in accordance with Directions issued by ICSTIS under its Code of Practice.

So from Jan 2004 to August 2004 Icstis had no knowledge of what dialler was being used or how the services were being promoted but they did have the tens of thousands of complaints.

I think BT are feeding all of us a lot of BS.

From their standard reply

We have introduced these changes because it costs more to accept non-Direct Debit payments from customers. This is not just because of the cost of taking the payments, but because on average customers are more likely to forget to pay or not pay, and this leaves us with bad debt of around £100 million a year.

"Bad debt" is a term applied to a debt where there is little or no realistic chance of that money being recovered.

BT has an ongoing agreement with Ofcom and the EU Commision to levy a "bad debt surcharge" on it's paying customers to cover that bad dept. The water companies have the same agreement.

also

If you pay monthly you are charged a £1.50 "processing" fee for each bill.

If you pay quarterly you are charged a £4.50 "processing" fee for each bill.

That shows the ammount charged has no relationship to BT's cost of "processing" the bill.

It's a rolling punitive charge.

taz_in_2001 do you or any body in your family usually vote on the X-Factor.

I read on other forums people claiming interactive numbers are appearing on their phone bill when they hadn't knowingly dialled them.

This is what we know about the number you entered (09016161101).

This is what we know about the number you entered (09016161102).

This is what we know about the number you entered (09016161104).

We have the following information about this number.

• This is a voting line advertised on television, commonly used to choose or evict someone. This service costs 35p per call (Plus any phone network surcharges - please check with your phone company for full details).
  
• This is for The X-Factor on ITV1 (which has now finished).

We also have contact details for the company that provides this service. If you have any queries about it, please get in touch with them to find out more.

 

Harvest Media Group Ltd

020 7830 9674

212 Piccadilly

London

W1J 9HG

Just call the MF who did this to you a b******d and try to get on with your life.

I did contact them. Telecom One didn't appear to want the publicity. It turned out to be a nice little "goodwill" earner.

Did you ever appeal against your parking fines?

@ buzby and

rks99

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

you both say the tens of thousands of victims in the above BBC program have only themselves to blame for their loss.

I tried getting both of you to explain how you arrived at such a criminal freindly opinion.

It's sad that anyone should be the victim of this rogue criminal enterprise.

But some lessons we all have to learn the hard way.

what the hell are you on about?

I didn't know that you had to have a separate contract for using Premuim Rate Services.

yes there are two sets of agreements.

One with BT to use and pay for using the line (the phone call)

and

one with the Premuim Rate Service supplier requesting and agreeing to pay for the content.

now there is another agreement between BT and the company supplying the premium rate numbers to the service provider but there is no commercial agreement between bt and the public concerning the sale of premium rate services.

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

yup I had to pay as well

there is one thing that genuinley does confuse me

why do you (and others) believe the victims in the above BBC program had a contract or agreement with BT concerning Premium Rate Services ?

Hey goodwill, if you're going to post a comment quoting someone else kindly have the decency not to change their words.

thankyou rks99. Yes maybe I could have been clearer.

I remember a few years back I got into hot water with the council for not paying a few parking tickets.

ok so using rks99' analogy of using a computer on the internet

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(use computer) and likely didn't do(follow good security protocols).

 

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

to rks99 using his car on the road

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(illegal parking) and likely didn't do(read the signs).

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

did you pay the fines?

you sad person.

and less of the road rage

It is sad, and I try and make a habit (I shouldn't really, one day it'll get me into trouble! :grin:) of poking people who themselves just seem to want to poke.

quite

gw was just trying to stir things up with irrelevancy

read the the thread

buzby

if you think it's a '[problem]' why don't you migrate.

buzby if you have been misled or induced into becoming a victim of a [problem] maybe you could report it to Watchdog.

and yes I included quotes from buzby highlighting his true attitude to victims of scams.

Nice try, but since the matter was made knoen in a letter, it was not pre-existing, but imposed.

 

Still, it's good to see where your priorities lie.

So why did buzby make that remark? Was it to change the subject? "just trying to stir things up with irrelevancy"?

Was he trying to hood wink the easily fooled into believing I was somehow supportive of this BT charge.

If you read the thread you will see I have never given an opinion.

If you want to know Buzby' true oppinions of victims of scams ask him his views on this BBC program

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

There is a very big difference between being chased for a debt that you have incurred through using a service, and a business forcing a new charge onto customers that by rights the business should be absorbing as a running cost

possibly but what's it got to do with buzby' "[problem]" and why mention "debt".

"The word '[problem]' was being used (as a verb) to describe a "distasteful action that BT will impose on consumers"

If I was a BT Shareholder, I'd be first in line to demand that you paid the bill you ran up

I suppose one victims "distasteful action" is another shareholders nice little dividend.

Erm you have posted 44 times , most of which appear to be here!!!!!!!!!

"most of which appear to be here!!!!!!!!!" = 4

hehehe

so goodwill (now theres a contradiction in terms)you advocate that its perfectly fine and lawful to charge for sending out a bill then, yes?.

or are you here just for fun and games to keep a braincell or two active and alive.

you have got a serious problem

Buzby are you sure you are a victim of a [problem]?

did you

Ensure you're NOT compromised - not bleat to a firm because they had the ability to make money from your errors. For virus attacks, you do the same - not look for someone easy to blame.

hehehe

fairly strange to start with

so whats it to be to start with...? or move up to some criminal charge, extortion perhaps?.

I think he said BT not Betty from up the road.

Still, it's good to see where your priorities lie.

no buzby I've probably done as much as most on cag to argue against "scams".

Except I believe that scams affect many people and all should be argued with equal fervour. Not just the ones that affect us.

Anyway lets talk about the [problem] you have become a victim of.

Did you sign up or were you tricked into agreeing to something.

please don't tell me you was conned into entering into a direct debit agreement with BT.

A [problem] is where a punter is misled or induced into following a course of action. And that, is a fact.

The trouble is, as a participant in the [problem], you bore a responsibility to ensure that your

buzby if you have been misled or induced into becoming a victim of a [problem] maybe you could report it to Watchdog.

buzby

if you think it's a '[problem]' why don't you migrate.

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(illegal parking) and likely didn't do(read the signs).

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

you take your own precautions. Ensure you're NOT compromised - not bleat to a firm because they had the ability to make money from your errors.

so

if you owe parking fines either appeal them or pay them. stop wasting rate payers money and council time.

wasn't aware i needed your permission to post a comment slash.

a comment that is related to the thread slash.

unlike yours

Why did you bother to resurrect this decaying, zombiefied thread? Just to pass judgement on someone, it seems.

"Rather pointless, in my opinion... "

quite.

if you owe parking fines either appeal them or pay them.

stop wasting rate payers money and council time.

you enter into a binding agreement when you made the call

The contract was with BT for use of a telephony service.

do either of you know what a premium rate service is?

do you even know how they work?

have either of you got the faintest idea of the differance between making and paying for a simple phone call and requesting and agreeing to pay for goods and services over the phone.

buzby is obviously having a problem