UK-passport.net

keyser666

frankth wrote: »

Spoofing and mimicking a government website and providing a service is not a crime. If such services are designed to target the vulnerable sections of the society, then it is even fine (who cares?)

They are not designed to target the vulnerable, they target those that do not exercise due dilligence

Pollycat

hpuse wrote: »

Please do not quote my handle in the list of people above.

:rotfl:

hpuse wrote: »

I am always against and will be against these online companies even if they are remain legal in the next million years to come.

And what makes you think I'm not against them too?

The bottom line is they are not illegal.

hpuse wrote: »

I have no respect to those who keep emphasing to others in a public forum that these companies and their operations are completely legal in UK.

But they are legal. :wall:

There is absolutely no point in saying to posters who come on here:
"these websites are illegal. you will get your money back and they will be prosecuted"
because that isn't true and it's not going to happen.

hpuse wrote: »

I think you find that often happening when conscience strikes, that is why I say it is a state of mind.

I have no idea what you mean by this.
Conscience strikes?

I have sympathy for those people who have been caught out by paying more than they have to for something.
I've advised them about refunds.
Whatever does my or anyone else's conscience have to do with this?

Pollycat

frankth wrote: »

Spoofing and mimicking a government website and providing a service is not a crime. If such services are designed to target the vulnerable sections of the society, then it is even fine (who cares?)

That is exactly the sentiments reflected by people holding and showing the 'safely legal' placard (hpuse, pollycat, shaun et all ).

It doesn't matter whether I care or not.
(Actually, I do care because I spend time advising people that they may be able to get a refund if they check the right part of the website and provide the full information required to get a refund).

The people who should care are those who run the official websites who should be pushing for laws to be changed to make these fake websites illegal.

Or those 'exposure' programs such as Watchdog who feature these types of websites from time to time.

Or those people who have actually been caught out by one of these websites and want to stop anyone else suffering the same.

If you want a caped crusader to fight this wrong-doing, you'll need to look elsewhere than to me.

Legal is legal.
End of.

frankth wrote: »

When the average Joe comes here with a complaint, they will also happily say that usual words ...'should have' 'could have' read the small prints.... The owner or perpertuator of these sevices will also have the same defence... amused :0) Our value system is definitely going for a toss !

Well actually, yes, people should be wary when buying goods/services online.

And it's not always just in the small print.
Quite often there are notifications right at the top of the page that tell you that you can get the same service cheaper or free if you use the official website.
Some even give you a link to the official website.
So it's not a case of having to read the small print at all.

And why should the 'owner or perpertuator (sic) of these sevices (sic)' need a defence?
They are not breaking the law.

keyser666

frankth wrote: »

Guys, try and defend this challenge .....

how many times you have keyed-in an incorrect web-address(URL) unaware of a typo(spelling mistake) you are making... Then that sucks you in to a range of 'services' that comes in the form of popups, popunders that includes !!!!!!, exploits and fake promotions and couponing websites....

Don't you all feel ashammed when I point this out loud, i.e to all intelligent people. We all know a lot about legality and integrity of an online service matter we are debating here, but still are vulnerable people when sitting online?

My point is, this is EXACTLY what is happening with these government spoofing websites. Targetting vulnerability making use of SEO technics and search engines. YES it is not a CRIME, it is NOT ILLEGAL. Perpetuators know there is way around becuase it takes atleast 3 years to change the rules/laws or bring in new, and that is more than enough time for them to avoid legal proceedings.

Hope that proves above and beyond that all of us, that includes me, you and even the CEO of these spoofing companies are vulnerable people.

Oh yes, now let me come to the defense for the sake of it. All of these are safely and legally owned domain and websites :beer: However, none of us will moan in a public forum becuase there is no financial loss. Once you suffer a financial loss, only the person who lost money bears the pain. Happiness strikes to all others when they easily point to small prints/T&Cs by the words "should have", "could have"......

I am enjoying these conversations here....innovate more like these for your own legality defense!

It is not vulnerability as stated earlier, it is consumers not exercising due diligence, big distinction between the two.

Pollycat

frankth wrote: »

Guys, try and defend this challenge .....

how many times you have keyed-in an incorrect web-address(URL) unaware of a typo(spelling mistake) you are making... Then that sucks you in to a range of 'services' that comes in the form of popups, popunders that includes !!!!!!, exploits and fake promotions and couponing websites....

Don't you all feel ashammed when I point this out loud, i.e to all intelligent people. We all know a lot about legality and integrity of an online service matter we are debating here, but still are vulnerable people when sitting online?

I'm not going to try to defend this challenge (as you refer to it) as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this thread which is - as you appear to have forgotten or not understood - about websites that purport to be official passport renewal websites.

And no, I don't feel ashamed at all.
I think if you are not computer-savvy or are vulnerable you should take extra care when doing anything on-line.

frankth wrote: »

My point is, this is EXACTLY what is happening with these government spoofing websites. Targetting vulnerability making use of SEO technics and search engines. YES it is not a CRIME, it is NOT ILLEGAL. Perpetuators know there is way around becuase it takes atleast 3 years to change the rules/laws or bring in new, and that is more than enough time for them to avoid legal proceedings.

Hope that proves above and beyond that all of us, that includes me, you and even the CEO of these spoofing companies are vulnerable people.

Sorry, I disagree.
I am not vulnerable when purchasing goods/services on line.
It does not prove anything.

frankth wrote: »

Oh yes, now let me come to the defense for the sake of it. All of these are safely and legally owned domain and websites :beer: However, none of us will moan in a public forum becuase there is no financial loss. Once you suffer a financial loss, only the person who lost money bears the pain. Happiness strikes to all others when they easily point to small prints/T&Cs by the words "should have", "could have"......

There is nothing in MSE website rules that says you can only post on the Praise, Vent & Warnings board if you have suffered a financial loss.

It doesn't make me happy that people have lost/wasted money that they may not be able to afford because they didn't read the small print.

And what part of this did you not understand:

Pollycat wrote: »

And it's not always just in the small print.
Quite often there are notifications right at the top of the page that tell you that you can get the same service cheaper or free if you use the official website.
Some even give you a link to the official website.
So it's not a case of having to read the small print at all.

Reading the tosh you're posting, I doubt that you've even looked at any of these websites to see what they look like, say or offer.

frankth wrote: »

I am enjoying these conversations here....innovate more like these for your own legality defense!

Conversations?

Legality defense (sic)?

This is a thread about people using a non-official website for passport renewal, not a 'conversation'.

Are you even British?

Pollycat

frankth wrote: »

Once again I say, targeting potential vulnerability is not illegal but causing damage can be proved illegal, do you agree or not ?

So go get one of your 'average smart lawyers' and prove it's illegal - dude.

frankth wrote: »

It's not easy as munching popcorns dude, that is why we have a legal system in place..

The legal system will not help in these instances as the websites are not illegal.

We've (finally) established that:

frankth wrote: »

Spoofing and mimicking a government website and providing a service is not a crime.

The popcorn was for having fun in court watching one of your 'average, smart lawyers' go to work.

The_Fatman

Sorry if for got the website was called DVLA-drivers-licence.co.uk

powerful_Rogue

call her directly. I did.

If they rip people off they should expect some choice words.[/QUOTE]

It says on the front page of that site:

Our service is not connected to or affiliated with the UK Government or Driving Vehicle Licence Agency and acts as an agent processing the application. These services are available from other government sources for no fee. The additional benefit of using this website include, instant email confirmation, 24/7 online support, application checked for errors & omissions, telephone application service and full compliance with data protection act.

They didnt rip you off - You just purchased a service you didnt need.

Pollycat

call her directly. I did.

If they rip people off they should expect some choice words.[/QUOTE]

So did you get a refund after calling this (text removed by MSE Forum Team)?

Money-Saving-King

I can imagine she just told him to learn to read!