Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'websites'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 15 results

  1. Hi all. Does anybody know any good reputable websites that you can sell pedigree dogs on. Shar Pei's to be precise. My friend has some for sale, and all Pedigree Papers from both parents will be available. He doesn't want to throw them on Gumtree etc. Thanks in advance.
  2. By Graham Cluley on Jan 13, 2016 | It’s 2016, and it would be nice to think that after several years of doing business online, companies have got a better handle on how to protect their websites from attacks. I’m afraid I have depressing news for you. Many sites are continuing to make big mistakes. Well-known threats like cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks continue to challenge many websites, including household names. Take eBay, for instance. As Motherboard reports, a security researcher going by the name of MLT discovered a critical XSS flaw on eBay’s website in early December, which could allow malicious hackers to create fraudulent login pages and steal passwords. As far as the user is concerned, they have clicked on a link to the main ebay.com site and are being asked by eBay to enter their password. Even sceptical users who check the browser bar will probably be reassured that the password request is legitimate because they see ebay.com as the domain they are visiting. MLT has even produced a YouTube video demonstrating the XSS attack against eBay for non-believers, showing how simple it would be to trick users into handing over their passwords to hackers.
  3. By Graham Cluley on Jan 13, 2016 | 1 Comment It’s 2016, and it would be nice to think that after several years of doing business online, companies have got a better handle on how to protect their websites from attacks. I’m afraid I have depressing news for you. Many sites are continuing to make big mistakes. Well-known threats like cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks continue to challenge many websites, including household names. Take eBay, for instance. As Motherboard reports, a security researcher going by the name of MLT discovered a critical XSS flaw on eBay’s website in early December, which could allow malicious hackers to create fraudulent login pages and steal passwords. As far as the user is concerned, they have clicked on a link to the main ebay.com site and are being asked by eBay to enter their password. Even sceptical users who check the browser bar will probably be reassured that the password request is legitimate because they see ebay.com as the domain they are visiting. MLT has even produced a YouTube video demonstrating the XSS attack against eBay for non-believers, showing how simple it would be to trick users into handing over their passwords to hackers. Full article
  4. Writing this on behalf of my missus. She runs a newborn/wedding photography service and has a facebook page to advertise it. https://www.facebook.com/AG-Photography-201381183294753/ She only recently noticed that, the profile pictures she uses on this page, appeared on several pages (used 'image search' in Chrome). This is understandable as she also has a Pinterest page and most of the results are pinterest pins etc. But the problem is that there is a few pages that offer various services like E-cards, phone covers and even a resort in Portugal, that use her photo on their pages. She can prove that she's the owner of the said photo, as she's still got original camera files and SD card. Links to websites that use here image for advertising: Portugal resort: http://www.montedaquintaresort.com/en/resort/kidsclub/ France (?): http://www.coque-design.com/lg-optimus-g-pro-/1426-coque-personnalisee-lg-optimus-g-pro.html USA: http://www.yourecards.net/ecards/baby-black-and-white-cute-inspiring-picture-on-favimcom/cardid62590/card.html?catid=126 I told her that I don't think there's much we can do here, as these websites are registered abroad, but you know women - so I came here to ask for some advice. To me it's clearly a breach of copyright - especially when websites advertise their services and earn money using her photo. Waiting for some helpful advice Thanks
  5. Adblock Plus allows people browsing the internet to automatically hide those intensely irritating adverts and pop-ups on pages that they’re visiting Over in Germany, a group of media companies took AdBlock Plus to court. They said it was threatening their business and that the whole thing is anti-competitive and, of course, they wanted it to be shut down. However, much to the dismay of the media outlets, a court ruled in favour of allowing people to continue to block ads. http://www.bitterwallet.com/court-rules-in-favour-of-software-that-blocks-adverts/84795 http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/adblock-plus-technology-to-hide-adverts-on-websites-is-legal-court-rules-10195786.html
  6. Over the weekend all newspapers carried reports that the Ministry of Justice would be seeking to change the law about 'internet trolls' and increasing the prison sentence from 6 months to 2 years. Below I have provided links to three documents from the Ministry of Justice. One is a news item that was released today together with a Fact Sheet and the second link is to the updated Impact Assessment (from July 2014) that was also released today. One change is to amend Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 so as to extend the time for prosecutions of offences. But the main change is to : Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This section covers the sending.....delivering....or transmitting of any letters, or electronic communications (on forums, blogs or any social media etc) or any other article which could include, for example,photographs and recordings that are indecent, grossly offensive or which convey a threat or: information which the sender knows or believes to be false. It also covers the sending of such articles which are, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature. Crucially, in each case there must be an intention on the part of the sender (or person writing the article to “cause distress or anxiety” to the person who receives the communication. At present, an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending certain articles with intent to cause "distress or anxiety" is a summary-only offence with a maximum penalty of just six months imprisonment, a fine of £5,000, or both. Most importantly, at present, prosecutions must commence within a very strict time period of just six months from the date of the offence being committed. This short period of time is to increase and the Ministry of Justice stated yesterday that this will allow for police investigating internet offences such as 'trolling' to obtain "evidence from internet service providers based abroad"* The changes to section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act have been brought by amending the Criminal Justice Bill to make the offence in section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 an 'either way offence' and increasing the maximum penalty to 2 years imrisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. In 2012, there were approx 750 proceedings under Section 1 of the 1988 Malicious Communications Act and of those proceeded against nearly 10% were given immediate custodial sentences. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/internet-trolls-to-face-2-years-in-prison https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321285/malicious-communicationss-impact-assessment.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322204/fact-sheet-malicious-communications.pdf
  7. I'm currently not working, due to ill health, and am in receipt of ESA. Although I don't feel completely ready to start working again, I'm finding it really difficult trying to survive on the benefits, so am looking for part time jobs. I am subscribed to the DWP/JobCentre Plus website called `Jobungo', and have noticed several job offers detailing opportunities for working from home s e.g. data entry/typing documents/stuffing envelopes. Can anyone tell me if these sites are legal and safe, or are they all/mostly phishing traps? Or, does the fact that they are on the approved `Jobungo' jobs site, provide satisfactory validation? I have 3 main concerns. One site asks for an upfront £26.00 Registration payment. If I proceed, is it likely that I will get the promised work? Secondly, if the work doesn't then materialise, would I get my money back, and would this be straightforward? Lastly, a few years ago, I clicked onto a link to a similar `work from home' site. It turned out to be bogus, and my email account was hacked. (My email provider then blocked my account, and it was a long process proving my innocence, and getting access again). Before I contact JobCentre Plus/DWP, has anyone got any advice or experience of this? If so, are there specific companies in this field to steer clear of, and conversely, any companies with good records? I'm desperately hoping someone can help. Little Eva
  8. Adverts for websites that charge for free government services are removed from search results Google has cracked down on "copycat" websites that charge unsuspecting users for government services that are normally free. The websites typically enable users to order official documents such as driving licences or European Health Insurance Cards but add a "service fee" on top of the Government's own charge. They attract users by being advertised above the normal rankings on search engines such as Google and are often designed to appear similar to the equivalent official websites. Users can pay sums such as £100 more than the services would cost via the official channels. Over the past few days adverts for many copycat websites have disappeared from Google as a result of cooperation between the search giant and the Government. However, some copycat websites were still appearing when The Telegraph checked today. For example, when “passport” is searched for on Google, several links to the official government website (http://www.gov.uk) now feature at the top of the list. But for some other services, links to copycat and unofficial websites still appear before government sites. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/10765909/Google-bans-copycat-websites.html
  9. Hello. Just a short explanation of what happened as still away. Booked hotels in Volendam and Dordrecht with different booking websites. I'm on a pretty Christmas trip around Netherlands and Belgium with my parents. Booked Marinapark volendam with booking.com i've used them a lot before. Two rooms, one single. One double. Got there and the hotel had only one booking. Wasn't a huge deal as it is out of season and they could fit us in but that was pure chance. E-mailed them through website. No response at all so far. Not even a confirmation receipt. I had the booking e-mail printed. Next night, Innercity Hotel Dordrecht. It gets a bit complicated here. To get a double and a single I had to do two separate bookings. Single through hotels.nl. no problem there. The double was through hotels.com. Again I had a print of both. No double booking. They had one last double room, but that was nearly a disaster. My parents are in their 60s and nearly had no room. I think some kind of conference must have been on. Response from them has been along the lines of, well we sent the booking, the guests are checked in, what problem?
  10. Has anyone any GOOD experience of websites which have searchable databases of allegedly recommended and vetted tradesmen in your area? Last year I needed a leaking flat roof repaired in a hurry and selected a roofer from one of these websites. It listed several "references" from satisfied customers (only by initials and town so unable to check with them personally). The work done by this tradesman looked all right at first but the roof started leaking again a few months ago in the same place as before. I tried to contact the company but surprise surprise both mobile and land line (an 0800) number as recorded on my receipts had been disconnected. Recently the leak got worse and I made a more concerted attempt to track the roofer down. A search on the internet on his postcode came up with his company with a slightly different name but trading from the same address on a different recommended trades website. This second website also listed his company registration number which I checked at companies house, only to find the company had been dissolved 4 weeks ago. The trade recommendation website claims that they vet and check references of all the tradesmen they list and indeed have several references published for each tradesman. In this instance the trade recommendation website gives the incorrect company name for the tradesman. Companies House has it the same as on my receipts and guarantees but with Ltd on the end as it was incorporated as a limited company shortly after doing the work for me. Further information from Companies House revealed that they took action to dissolve the roofer's company because he failed to provide his financial accounts. The first notice to dissolve was issued on 28 June 2013 and issued in London Gazette on 2nd July 2013. Yet the roofer became a member of the trade recommendation in website in July 2013. I am advised that he should legally have ceased trading after the first notice was issued, but he was actively seeking new business by joining this website and the website allowed him to join and clearly did not carry out any checks that he was legally allowed to trade. I have contacted the website with this information and was told they would pass on to the appropriate team. The references they check are all dated after the date the roofer should have ceased trading, although that does not necessarily mean that the work was done then. They are names and addresses supplied by the tradesman, so at best they can be selective and at worst provide details of friends and family who have not had any work actually done. I am now very suspicious of any of these websites and don't know who I can trust to recommend a good reliable tradesman. It seems they are just a way of a small tradesman advertising irrespective of his competence. Any comments please?
  11. Can anyone give me a good business card website. I need to be able to use a template that they generate themselves, but also give me the option to change the colour of the background and the text. ie. Red background with yellow text. Thanks peeps (ps. I have tried Vista print and Moo, but I can't see how you can change the colours of their templates).
  12. Picked this up on the Beeb newspage: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19910561 Whilst it is good news and hopefully will start the ball rolling to catch more online sellers who are breaking the law, buyers can help themselves by knowing how they're covered by the Distant Selling Regulations at least in the first place. This is a very helpful pdf page which is clearly laid out and easy to read: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf Although it's aimed at the business seller, it still has the same usefulness for the buyer.
  13. I wonder if someone can give me some advice? I have been off sick for some while now and do not go back to work quite yet, however, I have had an email off my Line Manager advising me that it is against company policy to air my feelings on Social Media Websites. I sent an email back to her and asked her when this occurred? what did I say? and who did I speak about or to? I have heard nothing back from her since. I also got reminded that the company are still paying my wages! I also sent a copy of this email to my HR Department and asked them to stop my Line Manager contacting me in this manner if she cannot substantiate her claims. What more can I do please as I am getting emails like this and other things? I feel harassed as I am supposed to be off sick and have a sick note to that effect. I feel like big brother is watching me? I have done nothing wrong at all but are the company allowed to keep on emailing me and reminding me I work for them in this manner, how could I possibly forget?
×
×
  • Create New...