Prev: Mobiles for VOIP
Next: Tethering and Samsung GT-B2100
From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 16:19
tim.... wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
> "Tim Downie" <timdownie2003(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hqrt9m$gih$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> 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.

Indeed, those were pretty much exactly my points.


David.

From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 16:34
Chris Blunt wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:50:28 +0100, "tim...."
>>
>>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.

I'm assuming that I can email the Information Commissioner at no
additional cost (my internet access costs are, of course, already 'sunk
costs'). And if <sigh>, it takes a letter, then, well, it's not that
much more than the over-priced costs of an SMS these days (hey, back
properly on-topic ;-).

And if contacting the ICO helps to add weight to the FiSA's serious
concerns about the banks' handling of complaints, then so much the better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8647097.stm


The banks - in fact, no companies with a supplier-client relationship -
simply cannot be allowed to get away with sharp practice where they feel
that they can spam you with impunity and that _you_ have to take the time
and effort to prevent it. It's for precisely that sort of citizen
protection that the Data Protection Directives were enacted in the first
place.


David.


From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 16:48
andy wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
>
> The OP has a contractual arrangement with the two companies named, and
> their terms like thousands of others will have stated that they may
> from time to time send info about other products in the group, which
> they feel the customer may be interested in

...which the Data Protection Principles do not allow.

Consent must be informed and explicit.
Any attempts at anything else is surely an 'unfair contract'?


> ... and that users can opt into or out of receiving such info, and
> almost certainly that they can define by which methods this may or may
> not happen

"Opt into": exactement!
And I have _never_ explicitly opted-into being spammed.


> Users may overlook or get confused by these terms, or perhaps firms
> sometimes make an error in assuming there would be interest,

"An error", I'm sure the ICO wouldn't accept that as an excuse.
They're zealous marketing scum, error has very likely very little to do
with it. And in the unlikely event that it does, then any company needs
to improve its practice and legal compliance (You wouldn't get away with
"Oh sorry, we never even thought that releasing the toxic waste into the
river might kill the fish", so why should lesser standards apply to data
protection and customer privacy).

> but that doesn't matter too much as the decision given doesn't have to be
> final, and can be modified

It _does_ matter if it breaches the customer's privacy and causes then
offence, irritation or inconvenience.

Remember when keeping the customer happy was a company's top priority..?
Those were the days.. <sigh>

I'm afraid to say that I'm finding your defence of this behaviour hard
to believe. Do you, perchance, have a vested interest that you'd like to
declare?


> That is why such messages contains info on how to opt out of receiving
> any more.

But didn't you just say that customers should be able to "opt into"
receiving such spa\\\information?

Opt-in = best practice
Opt-out = scummy company which clearly doesn't have customer
satisfaction as its top priority


David.

From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 17:18
Chris Blunt wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:15 +0100, Mark
>>
>>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.

Thanks for your support over this. It's precisely because the companies
know that it's easier (for them) to make us jump through their hoops,
than for us to take the time to pursue it through the regulators, that
they can try to get away with this kind of data abuse.

And I agree with you: I'm sure many companies _do_ skirt as close to the
edge (and beyond) as they can get away with. Those companies have no
scruples, and no ethics.


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

Indeed. So if we all made the effort to make formal complaints, then
surely things would have to change? (Oh, my touching faith in society,
...and in British governmental bureaucracy)

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"


> 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 do of course place a value on my time, but these completely
unsolicited text spams have *really* pissed me off in a way that is far
more intrusive than any other form of spam:

postal spam can be chucked (<sigh> after now having to shred it to prevent
dumpster-diving),

tracker email addresses (again, because deep down you always feel that
you just _can't_ trust them with your primary email address) can be
thrown/filtered away,

but when you receive a text, there's the absolute expectation that it's
an important message from a friend (or, ok, sometimes a business contact),
and the insult and irritation to have whatever you were doing interrupted
by a foul spam is enormous. It's noticable, of course, that they haven't
chosen to *phone* my mobile, because even marketing slime can imagine
the ear-bashing they'd get from people if they started doing that!
Whereas sending spam text is on a similar moral scale to 'chap door run'.


It really has pissed me off so much that I really do want to take a
stand on it. If I was less pissed off, then, yeah, perhaps I would just
'bend over' [1] like everybody else and meekly and sheepishly 'opt out'
of that-which-I-never-opted-into just like a loyal good consumertron.. :-(

And of course, what if every company you interacted with started sending
you text spam? It'd be a never-ending task to keep sending the 'opt out'
[sic] messages! Is that what some people really want? Again, that's why
we have a Data Protection Act which is supposed to stop our data being
used for any purpose which we have not explicitly consented to.

[1] with apologies to those who find 'bending over..' a pleasurable
experience..


> 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.

As somebody else said, no harm in that if you're already buying the
paper anyway.



David.

From: David Carlson on 28 Apr 2010 17:26
Borg wrote in uk.telecom.mobile
>
> Simple
>
> Go into the bank and asked to to stop sending you texts.

M&S Money doesn't have branches.

> Easy and probably quicker than typing out all these messages out.

That's not really the point. It would have been no use taking it out on a
call centre worker, who would not have been responsible for their slimy
marketing activities. Unfortunately, they're in the worst of positions,
having to take the flak from customers for business malpractices which
they are not personally responsible for.

> Or log into your on line account and remove your number.

I already said that their online account servicing is poor and personal
data cannot be managed/controlled by the data subject online. In fact,
as I already said, I have strong suspicions that they harvested my phone
number from CLI data when I had to phone them to update my address details.


David.

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