Prev: Mobiles for VOIP
Next: Tethering and Samsung GT-B2100
From: Chris Blunt on 26 Apr 2010 04:03
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 11:21:53 +0100, "tim...."
<tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Chris Blunt" <mail(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:s235t5pgroe55ri92galnn60f2r9m9fp7a(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
>> <tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
>>>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
>>>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
>>>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>>>>
>>>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code. Works most times.
>>>
>>>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should
>>>have
>>>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe
>>>has
>>>been received by the misuse of my number, however trivial the amount that
>>>I
>>>am expected to pay.
>>
>> Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
>> the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.
>
>Why should they involve me in expense at all?

What I mean is that whatever you do you're going to have to
communicate with someone, and there is going to be a cost involved
with that. If you don't want to pay the cost of sending a text message
saying "STOP", what else are you going to do?

Chris
From: tim.... on 26 Apr 2010 06:13

"David Kennedy" <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote in message
news:RrSdnerlhZhvhUnWnZ2dnUVZ7tFi4p2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> tim.... wrote:
>>
>> The cost should fall to the person invading my life with his spam. If he
>> finds it profitable to send, this should not be because some of the costs
>> of
>> running his business are involuntarily paid by other people.
>
> If this really excites you - as it seems too - then phone them on their
> freephone number and ask them to stop.

the company in question didn't give me a freephone number only an 07
something number

tim


From: Mark on 26 Apr 2010 07:31
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:21:25 +0800, Chris Blunt <mail(a)nospam.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
><tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>> andy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
>>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
>>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
>>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>>>
>>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code. Works most times.
>>
>>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should have
>>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe has
>>been received by the misuse of my number, however trivial the amount that I
>>am expected to pay.
>
>Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
>the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.

Complaining to the ICO involves virutally no expense.

I agree with Tim. I'm also fed up with similar spam texts or cold
calling. Many companies DO NOT comply with the regulations and ask
for permission to send you sales emails or texts before doing so. Many
make opting out difficult by setting awkward methods for opting out.
Many ignore opt out requests too.

Takes my daughter's phone for example. Vodaphone send her regular
spamming texts despite never asking her for permission to do so. They
do not publisize the method for opting out. Therefore we had to phone
their CS number (for which we have to pay) and then send a text
message to the given number (again for which we have to pay). They
still send her spam texts. I haven't got around to complaining to the
ICO yet about this.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

From: Chris Blunt on 27 Apr 2010 08:10
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:15 +0100, Mark
<i(a)dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:21:25 +0800, Chris Blunt <mail(a)nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
>><tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
>>>>> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
>>>>> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
>>>>> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable
>>>>
>>>> Or even just reply "STOP" to the short code. Works most times.
>>>
>>>Having received something similar to the OP, I fail to see why I should have
>>>to pay to "stop" something that I never asked for, that I (also) believe has
>>>been received by the misuse of my number, however trivial the amount that I
>>>am expected to pay.
>>
>>Quite simply because any other course of action you might take to stop
>>the texts would very likely involve you in even greater expense.
>
>Complaining to the ICO involves virutally no expense.
>
>I agree with Tim.

So do I, at least as far as wishing these companies wouldn't send
annoying spam is concerned.

What I can't understand is people who balk at spending a trivial
amount of money to get it stopped, preferring to spend a lot of time
and effort into finding a way to do it without incurring any expense
at all. Don't they place any value at all on their own time?

I suppose these would be the same people who cut coupons out of
newspapers for a whole week in order to save 50p off their next pizza.
From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 16:16
andy wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
>
>> [no need to requote my entire article!]
>
> Sorry, but this will be hysterically funny to some readers

Imagine that I were the proverbial frail and less technologically-literate
pensioner. Imagine the not atypical situation where I had a mobile phone
simply as an emergency means to make calls, and had virtually no knowledge
about how SMS works at all, yet had started to receive SMS spam. Would it
still be funny? And what if they were to start sending them in the
middle of the night?

> M&S and HSBC haven't breached any data protection laws by using your
> personal details in connection with a contract you clearly do actually
> have with them, as you have said so

Yes, _they have_.

0. I _have never_ (to the best of my knowledge) informed them of my
mobile phone number (I never do give phone numbers to companies if I can
possibly avoid it, precisely for fear of this kind of misuse). I have
strong suspicions that they have _illegally harvested_ it from CLI
records when I had cause to phone them on one occasion.

1. I _have never_ given them explicit consent to send me SMS spam. You
(for some reason which I do not understand) can squeal all you like about
them perhaps having buried somesuch clause in their contract, but the Data
Protection Act *requires* the *explicit* consent of the data subject,
such 'consent' cannot be implied. I am furthermore absolutely sure that
I marked as appropriate all the "Don't send me spam" boxes when I
completed the original account application form (again, this is something
that I always do, because I simply do not trust any marketers not to try
to push as hard against and attempt to break any law that they are required
to comply with.)

2. I have, as per original message, already contacted them via their
contact form in their online banking website to demand that they cease.
As far as the Data Protection Act is concerned, despite whatever claims
they may previously have tried to make, it is now unequivocally the case
that they no longer have my consent to send spam. They have confirmed my
request by email and by letter - yet they are still sending me SMS spam.
There is now no doubt that they are continuing to break the law.
(Indeed, it could now furthermore be construed as harrassment.)

The Data Protection Act trumps whatever hoops and obstacles a company may
attempt to put in your way [1] to 'opt out' [sic]. Indeed, you would have
to ask why any company which you would think would be keen to act in line
with data protection best practice would want to make it difficult to
stop them sending spam?

[1] "What do you mean you've never been to [see the plans for the
demolition of your planet in] Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven's sake,
mankind! It's only four light years away, you know!"


> It's highly unlikely indeed that they'd have sent this message from a
> premium rate short code sms service and charged you

I would tend to agree, but don't give them ideas.. ;-)

My point, however, was that they used a non-standard short-code in their
text spam as the 'opt out' [sic] number, but did not quote the price to
send a text to that number. It is far from unusual for short-codes to be
charged at non-standard more expensive rates. Notwithstanding, why
should I have to *pay* (even a standard SMS charge) to reject their spam
which I never wished to receive in the first place?


> But there would be a very simple way to find out, check your account
> first, before firing off this embarrassingly paranoid bollocks all
> over the internet

I already mentioned that their online service has limited account
management capability, but that nevertheless I had contacted them via
this service.


> I really doubt that you can telephone the sms short code number, so I
> can't see why you claim they should disclose a price for imaginary
> phone calls.

Yes, but you can text the number - and, as non-standard numbers usually
charge non-standard prices, we need to know how much it will cost.
Notwithstanding, etc..


> Just ask them to stop sending the messages, politely and simply, most
> of all calmly, in a way that avoids complicating itself by introducing
> any further extraneous incoherant rants at other irrelevant targets,
> whether real or imaginary, fleeting or immovable

I did (well, more politely than here). They clearly didn't.

If nobody stands up to companies who pay scant attention to customer
desires (Really, how on earth is spamming somebody who doesn't want spam
going to enamour you to them? Why are marketers such fuckwits?), then,
sadly, it only encourages them to chance their mangy arm..


> Over 100 years of reputation destroyed in an instant? I doubt it

It has for me. M&S is a company that I've always had respect for. The
sort of company that Upheld Great British Values [TM] of Honesty and
Decency, and which Wouldn't Do That Sort Of Thing, it's Just Not
Cricket, etc. Not any more.

This is the sort of activity you'd expect from
$non_eea_bank_youve_never_heard_of_offering_suspiciously_high_interest_rates
(mentioning no names, but you know the sort of ones I mean), not a
supposedly known and trusted company.


David.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Mobiles for VOIP
Next: Tethering and Samsung GT-B2100