Today I finally managed to get the Prime Minister's web team to accept my petition on Illegal Charges by financial institutions in the UK.

Banks, credit card companies, lenders and other financial institutions in the UK make an estimated £4.5 Billion (GBP) -profit- from illegal, punitive charges levied on the British public. British Common Law and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations make it illegal for any company to profit from charges for breach of contract, such charges include (but are not limited to) failed direct debit letters, going over your overdraft limit, missing a payment on a loan or credit card to name just a few. The law requires that charges of this nature MUST accurately represent the cost of dealing with the breach to the institution issuing them. Many banks and other financial institutions charge upto £35 (GBP) for each letter sent, the Information Commissioners Office estimates that actual costs of these automated letters come to no more than £5.00 GBP each and a recent investigation by the BBC's Whistleblower program recently showed that in actual fact these charges only equate to a £2.00 cost to the institutions involved.

The banks have already paid back over £10 million (GBP) in the past 18 months, but the process of being reimbursed for these illegal charges is both long and stressful and requires individuals to file a claim in the County Court. The usual way these claims progress is as follows:

1. Customer sends a Subject Access Request (under the Data Protection Act) to request copies of all bank statements for the previous 6 years (6 years is the limit for such cases). Under the law companies are required to respond to a SAR within 40 working days and they are permitted to charge a maximum of £10.00 (GBP) for the cost of providing this data. Companies will generally try and delay sending this data for as long as possible and in many cases have even refused to provide such data, which is a blatant breach of the law and requires the customer to file a separate civil action in county court for damages and/or send a complaint to the Information Commissioner. Many companies have tried to get out of sending this data by storing it on microfiche and arguing that microfiche is not a relevant filing system under the Data Protection Act. However, the Information Commissioner ruled late last year that Microfiche is indeed a relevant filing system in this situation (google for Information Commissioner rules against Abbey microfiche claims).

2. Customer sends a Letter Before Action (LBA) to the company they wish to claim their charges back from, giving them an opportunity to repay the charges before legal action commences. It is incredibly rare for any of the companies making these charges to pay up at this point, and most companies send a letter back saying the charges are lawful as the customer signed a contract permitting them. This is simply not true, as the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations make the act of profiting from charges illegal in British law.

3. If the company fails to meet the demands of the customer to pay back the illegal charges, the customer must then file a claim in the County Court (normally Small Claims). This costs the customer money which is why the companies responsible tend to ignore the LBAs. Since most of the people who receive illegal charges are poor, the companies know that many people will not be able to afford to pay the filing fees and therefore many customers will drop their claims at this point. The companies -rely- on this fact and are playing a numbers game. Furthermore, court procedures are laborious and stressful, not to mention a minefield for anyone not legally qualified. A simple error on one of the forms is enough for the court to dismiss the case or refuse to hear the case at all. Again, the companies issuing these illegal charges, rely on this fact, as they know most of the customers making claims will be "Litigant in Person" (not using a lawyer or solicitor) because of the costs, and also many people from the poorest sectors of our society are not educated in matters of law and are likely to make mistakes in filing the paperwork. Again, it is a numbers game.

Ultimately, the companies tend to settle within days (or even minutes) of the case going before the court, as if the case was to be processed, they would be required during the discovery stage to provide evidence of their costs. None of the companies want to be forced to do this, as since they are making a profit from these charges, they would be providing evidence which shows that they are indeed breaking the law, therefore they would lose the case, a precedent would be set and the floodgates would open.

They don't mind paying back £10 million a year because they are making an estimated £4.5 Billion in profits so having to give £10 Million back is a drop in the ocean for them, however, if they were forced to pay back all their illegal charges, they would not be happy and neither would their shareholders.

But the fact remains that these charges are illegal. No-one is saying that they should not be permitted to recuperate their costs through charges, but the law states they must not make a profit on these charges, and it has to stop. This is why I have started a petition on the Prime Ministers Petition website, to try and get the government to act by forcing all financial institutions to pay back all illegal charges with interest for the past 6 years as permitted by the law, automatically. This would avoid poor people being denied justice because they cannot afford to file claims in the County Court and would also include all people who have been illegally charged in the reimbursement. Many people are not even aware that they have the right to claim these charges back.

You can find my petition on http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Illegal-Charges/ and I urge all people who read this who are from the UK to sign the petition and to tell everyone else they know in the UK to do the same.

You can find more information on this issue at the following websites:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/buying-selling/sale-supply/unfair-contracts/regulations/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/reports/insurance_and_finance/insurance_20070220.shtml

Digg this entry: http://digg.com/world_news/UK_Petition_on_illegal_bank_charges/who

Tags: bank charges, consumer contract, finance, law, petitions, politics
Current Mood: cheerful

Here is the link to the petition against the biometric finger printing of our children in schools. My apologies for the delay, it took the PM's web team some time to get back to me. The petition I submitted was rejected on the grounds that one already exists (although it is not titled in such an obvious manner). Here is the link:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/kidsprivacy/

Please make the effort to sign.

I was reading the disclaimer that Microsoft include with their Windows Vista operating system today and a couple of alarming points struck me. Here is the disclaimer text I am referring to:

"COVERED SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED UNDER THIS LICENSE ON AN AS IS BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES THAT THE COVERED SOFTWARE IS FREE OF DEFECTS, MERCHANTABLE, FIT FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGING. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COVERED SOFTWARE IS WITH YOU."

The points in question I have highlighted with bold text.

Under UK law (specifically the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (ammended 1994, 1995)) any product or service which is sold in the UK must be fit for purpose, it is one of the defining clauses of the legislation. It can exempt Business to Business as part of the contract but does cover Business to Consumer. So this in itself is a concern and the actual disclaimer would also fall foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) which disallows terms that would exempt the rights of consumers under common or any other law.

The second point of contention is the Non-Infringing part of the disclaimer. One might initially see this as Microsoft attempting to prevent liability for consumers infringing on other's rights, however, the way the disclaimer is worded would also allow Microsoft to infringe on the rights of the consumer. If for example, there was some form of intellectual property which Microsoft happen to take from your system during some phone home mechanism, or perhaps if the operating system was shut down under the Windows Genuine Advantage system effectively denying you to access your own intellectual property, this disclaimer would prevent the consumer from any course of litigious action in countries which do not have legislation for unfair contract terms.

The disclaimer is a serious concern for any consumer wishing to use the Vista operating system and effectively waves all the consumer's rights to anything which is located on a computer running the Vista OS. The disclaimer is short and sweet, but in being so is incredibly broad in its reach.

The non-infringing clause may also be subject to challenge under UTCCR as it would again impose restrictions on the legislative and common law rights of the consumer.

Businesses, as stated are not covered by such legislation, so one would be particularly concerned as an IT purchaser or IT policy maker within a company, particularly given the security implications of infringement of their rights. The question is however, how many company IT people have actually read the disclaimer and realised its implications?

So back to the question of whether the Windows Vista "contract" (read EULA) is legal under UK law? I am not a lawyer, but I would suggest the contract falls foul of UK legislation thus voiding itself in the process.

Tags: consumer rights

OpenMoko Neo1973 Opensource Linux Phone


As promised, OpenMoko have last night announced the launch Roadmap for their revolutionary Smart Phone.

The Neo1973 will be the first truly opensource phone, running Linux 2.6 Kernel with Bluetooth, GSM and GPS. The only parts of the phone which are not opensource are the GSM and GPS stacks, the rest of the phone is 100% Opensource and Linux hacks will be able to play around with it until their hearts are content. The phone boasts touchscreen display, 128MB SDRAM, 64MB Flash RAM with a microSD memory card slot for increased memory.

The phone will be sold world wide by direct order from the manufacturer FIC in Taiwan for a global price of $350 USD (+ shipping I presume) and will not be locked to any provider.

The now official roadmap for the first generation Neo1973 is as follows:

2007-03-11 Phase 1: Official Developer Launch
We will sell the Neo1973 direct from openmoko.com for US$350 plus
shipping. Sales and orders will be worldwide. We are specifically
targeting open source community developers.

2007-09-11 Phase 2: Mass Market Sale
Online sales will continue. We will also be available in a retail
stores and selected carriers around the world. At this point, we
hope your mom and dad will want to buy a Neo1973, too.

The 2nd generation OpenMoko device will also be introduced at this
time. We have something special in the works, but again, you will
help shape this device.

And the hardware is now also confirmed:

* 120.7 x 62 x 18.5 (mm)
* 2.8" VGA (480x640) TFT Screen
* Samsung s3c2410 SoC @ 266 MHz
* Global Locate AGPS chip
* Ti GPRS (2.5G not EDGE)
* Unpowered USB 1.1
* Touchscreen
* micro-sd slot
* 2.5mm audio jack
* 2 additional buttons
* 1200 mAh battery (charged over USB)
* 128 MB SDRAM
* 64 MB NAND Flash
* Bluetooth (2.0)

The roadmap comes hot on the heals of Apple's recent launch of the iPhone, which will be more expensive, closed source and locked into a 2 year Cingular contract when it is released in the US later this year (no information on UK providers regarding the iPhone yet).

The Neo1973 will become the first mass marketed Opensource Smartphone in the world (to my knowledge) and is bound to set the open source community alight with enthusiasm.

For more information visit http://www.openmoko.com

Direct Link to Roadmap Announcement: http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/announce/2007-January.txt

The Future's Bright, the Future's Moko.

Tags: innovation, opensource, smartphone
Current Mood: bouncy

A followup from my blog yesterday. I will write some more on this once I have had some sleep.

read more | digg story

An article in theregister today regarding fingerprinting in schools in the UK, cited the Information Commissioner as saying it is too late to outlaw child fingerprinting on the grounds of civil liberties and privacy because so many schools are already doing it (after the Information Commissioner's Office stated it was ok).

Read the article here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/17/fingerprinting_bolted/

I have emailed my MP (Ben Wallace) with the following:

Hello Ben,

I just read this article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/17/fingerprinting_bolted/

And I am disgusted. As a new parent (our son is 1 yr old) I am appalled
at the ICO's failure to protect the rights of our children. Not only do
I see fingerprinting our children as a massive abuse of privacy but also
it seems that the company providing the technology is linked with
Guantanamo Bay!

I will say this now, if -anyone- attempts to finger print my child in
school then things are likely to get violent, because there is no way on
this earth that I am going to sit back and allow my child's rights to be
swept away in an air of incompetence. I would rather go to jail
protecting the rights of my child than to sit back and ignore this.

Anger doesn't even begin to express how I feel on this issue, there are
no words, these are our CHILDREN the future of our world.

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff

I have also setup a petition on http://www.pm.gov.uk which is currently awaiting the approval of the Primeminister's web team, I will link directly to the petition once it is approved.

Everyone needs to contact their member of Parliament on this issue, you can find your MP's contact details here:

http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alcm.cfm

Our children are not criminals and should not be treated as such. Act now before it is too late.

You can Digg this article here.

Tags: civil liberties, fingerprinting, gitmo, kiddyprinting, surveilance
Current Mood: angry

Over 3000 schools in the UK have taken on fingerprinting technology provided by companies such as Vericool (owned by General Dynamics who are responsible for some of the technology being used in Guantanamo Bay). ICO claim that so many schools are already using such systems that it is too late to outlaw these systems on the grounds of Privacy...

read more | digg story

As many of you know, I am a Linux user and as such (like most Linux users) I tend to be critical of the Microsoft Windows platform. I recently returned to University to finish a degree I started in 2001 and had to suspend due to illness; with the goal of continuing on to postgraduate research upon completion. The degree I am studying for is a joint degree in Information Systems and Applied Sociology, which to some might seem like a strange combination. However, when you consider I have worked in the IT industry for my entire adult life (around 15 years or so) but also have a keen interest in psychology, sociology and politics and my main interest of study is primarily based around the sociological aspects of Information Systems (such as the Digital Divide); it makes a lot of sense to combine the two areas of study in preparation for my postgraduate research.

The purpose of this article is to highlight what I feel are the problems with the curriculum in the UK (and probably worldwide) when it comes to studying IT in an academic environment. In my experience, all non Computer Science based curriculums I have encountered, are centered around using products, resources and development tools which are designed to be run on the Microsoft Windows platform. There are a number of problems with this curriculum model which I will now attempt to address as comprehensively as possible.

Let me begin by accepting that these problems are not born in higher education (as in University); but are inherited from the system of education leading upto college or university. I have yet to find a highschool (or to be honest, any other public sector computer network) which does not use Microsoft Windows for the workstations provided to the end users (with the exception of some Library search systems). Schools across the globe tend to run Microsoft centric networks and as such the users of those networks (particularly students) are rarely exposed to other platforms, leading to a uniform level of experience.

Many people argue that this is because Microsoft Windows is the dominant desktop/workstation environment used in the real world and therefore, teaching students in a Microsoft centric fashion prepares them for employment when they finish their studies, in a more comprehensive fashion. I personally find many flaws in this argument.

Firstly, we have to consider the fact that Microsoft has been prosecuted under anti trust laws in the US and action has been enforced upon them as a result. Furthermore, in Europe (where I am), the European Commission is currently in the process of penalising Microsoft on the similar grounds. That being said, if the academic system continues to use Microsoft centric teaching methods and resources, they are indirectly contributing to the monopolistic business model of Microsoft. So from an ethical standpoint, the academic system should be trying very hard to use alternative systems and teaching methods in order to develop skills in their students which are not dependent on the Microsoft environment.

There are benefits to not using a Microsoft centric model. Primarily, it would enhance the skill set, experience and knowledge of the adults these institutions are churning out into society. Let us not forget that schools, colleges and any other institutes of learning, are in the business of educating people as opposed to training employees.

Teaching someone how to create hypertext markup language documents (HTML) for publishing on the world wide web (www), is not the same as teaching someone how to use Adobe Dreamweaver. In fact it can be argued that using a proprietary suite of applications to teach someone HTML is of detriment to their education, since if they are presented with the challenge of developing a project without the use of these proprietary applications, they will find the task very difficult and would need to learn how to use different tools. A more appropriate way to teach someone how to create such works, is by teaching them the syntax itself and principles of using that to publish documents on the www. If you center the teaching around a proprietary model, it is ultimately doomed to fail because proprietary products are very fragile with a view to the long term. For example, the company that produces the application may discontinue development either by choice or because they have gone out of business (or any other reason), thus as the industry moves forward and standards evolve, the skill set the person was armed with as a result of their education becomes obsolete and they need to learn a new set of skills and tools to continue in their vocation.

This effectively dis-empowers the individual and the workforce as a whole, in that these skills support the interests of the corporate body (namely Microsoft) by increasing their exposure. This, in turn, increases their market share as the cost for employers to train graduates to learn a non Microsoft centric system, is not economically viable. What is so concerning about this is that it is a self perpetuating relationship, that is, the more companies use Microsoft centric systems, the more academia feels it needs to produce adults with a skill set based around those systems in order to improve the career prospects for their students. This then forces even more employers to incorporate such systems so they are able to employ graduates in their own workforce in an economically viable fashion. Meanwhile, Microsoft continue to accumulate users, thus increasing their market share and in turn their profits and corporate power. The whole system ultimately leads to a monopolistic society of Orwellian proportions which no longer benefits anything other than corporate interests.

Another problem with this model, is that it stifles innovation. If the adults we produce from our educated students are going to be discriminated against for not adhering to the Microsoft model (in that, they are less likely to gain employment and develop a career) then logically the majority of the student population will conform to this model in order to secure their future. These students become less and less interested in finding their own solutions to the problems presented to them and the result is less and less innovation leading to a slow down in the evolution of this field. Anyone would agree that innovation is good, in fact we have laws in place to guarantee the right to be innovative and to protect the results of our endeavors. Without innovation development becomes static and stagnates which is why as a society, we strive to move forward, to investigate, learn, understand and improve the world.

By using any model which is centered around a product or commodity in our curriculums, we are turning the workforce into an army of uninterested, conformist automatons which effects not just technology or the work environment, but seeps into aspects of our every day lives outside of work. The model breeds apathy, it removes the need for conscious thought and investigation and we as a society become more complacent not just at work but in every aspect our lives. This is why innovation is so important; inventions and positive developments empower people and increase the morale and efficiency of society. It is within our nature to feel good when we achieve something it is what drives us in our lives. The very reason the modern world exists in the state it does, is because of this drive to innovate, to improve upon and to further our understanding of the world and the challenges it presents us.

Unless we teach people the importance of being able to diversify and do so by example, we are in danger of becoming a cut and paste society, which although may sound like "something a geek would say", is exactly what is happening in the real world. Academia is not producing independent adults anymore; independence no longer exists when everything we learn is controlled and dominated by a corporate product.

The model also discriminates against those who choose a different set of tools to achieve the same result, irrespective of whether that result may be cheaper to develop and maintain; may be more efficient and open in it's design; and benefits more than just shareholders of some corporate entity. It is not the scope or intention of this article to look at alternative systems as they are too numerous to cover effectively. However, the purpose is to acknowledge and emphasise the need to acknowledge that alternatives do exist and that actually, it is ok to use them. We should be encouraging people to look at alternatives and diversify. Any tool, system or resource which is used to educate people in schools and colleges, should be neutral and not benefit any specific corporation or business model. We need to see the academic system and other public sector services moving away from Microsoft centric system in order to lead by example and encourage individuals and society to do the same.

Not only does the model discriminate against the students however, but as highlighted above, it discriminates against the workforce. Any organisation that chooses not to use a Microsoft centric system is unable to compete in the employment market. Their choices of whom they can employ are limited to those people who also chose to learn either more generic tools or tools directly relevant to each individual organisation in this group and furthermore, graduates who have been raised under the Microsoft umbrella may find they don't have the confidence to approach organisations in this group because they use different tools which they don't understand and have no experience of. This increases the costs of organisations in this group because they inevitably need to invest significantly more into their budget for training and developing these graduates in using non Microsoft centric systems if they are to compete, on an equal level, with the their Microsoft dependent adversaries. And with risk of going round in circles, this is bad for innovation and the development of society, leading to higher operating costs, lower market share and lower profits.

In short, the longer academia continues to teach in a Microsoft centric environment, the more dependent the world will become on Microsoft. Whereas this might be great news for Microsoft and their shareholders, it does very little for the rest of world who do not fall into either category. In order to remain ethical and responsible institutions, they need to address and adjust their model to a non centric system with the neutrality required to spur and empower its students and inherently, society. Remember, academia has the responsibility of educating people, not training, training is the responsibility of the organisation that would seek to profit from the labours of others and therefore the costs of that training should be their liability. By using a neutral model, the students are given a stronger understanding of the whole and acquire the abilities to investigate, understand, innovate and improve; therefore guaranteeing the continued evolution of technologies.

Current Mood: contemplative

Well, something went very wrong on Six Apart Ltd.'s Live Journal systems today as dozens of people were spammed every minute by the Live Journal "Credit Card Expiration" notification system. A situation which as of yet is still not resolved.

I personally had my payment setting setup to automatically pay every 12 months and just made such a payment on September 7th, meaning I am not due to make another payment until September 2007. Furthermore, my Credit Card doesn't expire until the end of November.

Perhaps more annoying though, is the response from the support staff telling people to add details for another card until the issue is resolved, which is tantamount to phishing. The solution they should be giving to the support requests is what I have done, which is to cancel Automatic Renewals until such time as they fix the problem. the fact they haven't made this suggestion is already starting to piss some people off in the support section.

Live Journal staff have now added an entry to their Quick Help telling people to add another card as well, which is likely to piss people off even more. (see http://www.livejournal.com/support/known_issues.bml/#accountemail ).

I attempted to phone their Admin Contact as listed in the whois info for their domain, unfortunately the number listed doesn't go to an admin contact, it goes to a switchboard voicemail where I left a message.

I also emailed the Admin/Technical email address as listed in the whois information, but as of yet have received no reply.

Needless to say, Live Journal owners, Six Apart Ltd., are going to be fighting spam filters for the foreseeable future.

Just to re-iterate, if you wish to stop the emails, but do not wish to give details for a second card to do so (which I would not advise anyway) then simply go to your account section and cancel automatic renewels. Then once the issue is resolved you can decide whether you wish to enable it again.

[UPDATE]
After speaking to one of the Live Journal support reps, its seems they are advising users to add more credit cards before they have even determined if the issue was caused by a security breach, as highlighted by the following quote:

"* We do not encourage individuals to disable their automatic payments, because in some cases this could cause users to lose any bonus paid time offers they may be eligible for. As such, until our engineers could look into this, the best advice available to avoid receiving further messages was to update your credit card information."

My response to the support rep was as follows:

"The biggest problem with telling people to add another credit card, is the fact that you still apparantly have no idea what has caused the problem. This means you don't know that it was not caused by a compromise of your security, and indeed you certainly have not had time to perform full audit trails to determine whether it was a compromise of security or not.

That said, telling people to add a second credit card was potentially leaving them wide open to fraud and identity theft. Any bonus paid time offers should not be effected in this case, as it should be no problem for you to reinstate the bonuses once you have verified and fixed the issue. Cancelling people's bonuses because of a problem with your servers sending out incredible amounts of spam is totally unreasonable and I would hope in such cases as this, you would reinstate any bonuses people were previously entitled to.

The security of your users should be paramount and thus until you are 100% certain that there has not been a security breach, you should never ask them to add more credit cards."

Since it is apparant that they still have not determined the cause of the problem, I would strongly suggest people do -not- add another credit card but instead temporarily suspend their Automatic Renewal as previously stated in this post.

Alex

Marie,

In response to your reply on this matter I would like to say how utterly disgusted I am with your lack of foresight on this issue.

My original complaint clearly named Sony Pictures and as for which sections of the Act they breach, you already outlined them during your reply.

Forcing people to use the Microsoft Windows Operating System to watch a DVD Movie on their computer is most certainly a breach of both Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Competitions Act 1998.

The relevance to Chapter 1 is in that Sony Pictures have made a "decision" and a "concerted practise" to "prevent" and "restrict" use of their DVD productions from being played on a PC using Linux. Linux is a free Operating System, therefore by preventing playback of these products on this operating system it is a significant distortion of competition. Sony Pictures have agreements with companies who provide DVD Software for the Microsoft Windows Operating System, such as WinDVD (software which is produced by Intervideo) and PowerDVD (software which is produced by Cyberlink). I happen to know that in both these cases agreements are in place in the form of licenses, to provide DVD playback on the Microsoft Windows Operating System.

There is no notification on any retail or rental DVD that states playback will not work on the Linux Operating System and therefore Sony Pictures are deceiving consumers into purchasing or renting goods which are not "fit for purpose", as covered by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. Furthermore, any DVD which causes a consumer's computer to behave in a manner not endorsed or controlled by the owner, is a breach of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which is exactly what these DVD productions are doing.

Now to Chapter 2 of the Competition Act 1998, which in your reply you stated "prohibits abusive conduct by one or more undertakings if they hold a dominant position on a relevant market in the UK". Sony Pictures are very much a dominant company in the entertainment market in the UK and their marketing and sale of products which breach the Acts outlined above should definitely be interpretted as abuse of their position in the market. It is not possible for a consumer to purchase or rent a DVD of the same movie which has been produced by a different company and does allow them to watch the DVD on a Linux Operating System. In fact I put it to you, that Sony Pictures are acting as a Monopoly with every single title they release in the UK.

In light of the information provided above I trust you will re-open the file and begin your investigation. Failure to do so will result in me contacting the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the European Commission to make formal complaints about your refusal to act on this case.

Sincerely

Alexander Hanff
Copies Retained