Whatever...

Victim of mobile fraud? T-luck

By Kathryn Mills-Webb

 

If your phone was stolen and the thieves racked up a huge bill, would you expect to be liable?

 

Unfortunately this is all too often the reality.  Take my case for example.  An old phone was stolen when our house was burgled, and given that close to 100 other items were also stolen, we didn’t immediately notice the mobile was missing as we hadn’t used it for months.  The only reason we kept it was because it was cheaper to pay the nominal monthly contract than the cancellation fee. 

 

Or at least it was cheaper until the burglars spent £1,400 on calls to Colombia in just 72 hours, and T-Mobile told us we had to pay!

 

Apparently this is a common gripe against all the big mobile operators – there are hundreds of similar stories on the web.  Many people don’t have phone insurance (and even if you do, it often only covers the cost of replacing the phone.  My question is why doesn’t T-Mobile (and the others) have the technology in place to prevent this sort of crime from the outset?  While not compulsory, most banks have regular checking systems in place that alert them to any potentially fraudulent activity on the account) – surely this kind of technology could and should be easily transferred to check for unusual activity on mobiles too? 

 

In fact, I’d argue that mobile operators have a similar duty of care to their customers.  Just as banks can temporarily put a hold on credit and debit cards in the interests of fraud prevention, phone companies should automatically block the SIM card when the bill goes over a certain level or when the activity does not fit with general usage patterns. 

 

I’d certainly choose a company that offered me this peace of mind over a cheaper rival any day – it’s just unfortunate that there isn’t really any choice at the moment.

In the net of social networks

By Stefanie Nowak

 

Social networks are by no means a new phenomenon, but what strikes me these days is just how many of my friends are now utterly addicted to Facebook and other social networking sites in Germany. This begs the question, is it still possible for me to manage my social life without the help of web 2.0?

 

The beauty of social networks is that they help you get back in touch with people you haven’t seen in years.  But I’d argue these people aren’t really friends – you simply say hello, take a look at each other photos and that’s about it.  I’m also wondering why people feel the need to collect hundreds of ‘virtual’ friends.   I'm quite happy sticking with my real world friends.

 

To be honest, I find the the prospect of only having virtual friends (and always socialising in a virtual environment) pretty scary, but, if Facebook’s popularity is anything to go by, I’m in the minority.  However, as long as I can still hang out with my friends in the old fashioned way, I’ll do so without thinking too much about my web future.  

Google Waves goodbye to China

By Ben Roberts

 

Following a “sophisticated and targeted” cyber attack originating from China, aimed at accessing the Gmail accounts of human rights activists, Google has refused to continue to censor its search results and has threatened to leave China altogether.  Interestingly, when Google originally launched its Chinese service in 2006, the company argued that pulling out of the country altogether would be even more damaging to civil liberties than agreeing to state censorship.

 

There are many theories on the motive behind Google’s move.  An interesting question is whether the search giant would even be considering this if it had managed to capture a larger proportion of the Chinese search market – it currently holds around 30%, poor by its standards.  Or perhaps Google is trying to restore faith in its brand, as many saw the willingness to accept Chinese censorship as betraying its informal company motto, “Don’t be evil.”

 

Google is almost untouchable in its position as one of the world’s largest and most powerful companies, but surely even it cannot run the risk of alienating China.  With calls for other Western companies to follow Google’s example, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.  Will Google have waved goodbye to the largest market in the world, or will it be credited with leading the cyber fight back against a surveillance super power?

 

Beginning of the end for the NLA?

By Mike King

  

It is good to see a company challenging the NLA’s latest attempts to squeeze more cash out of the PR industry.  Meltwater, a company that, among other things, provides online media monitoring services, is challenging the NLA’s right to charge a licence fee to allow it to forward links to free online news content.

  

Condemnation of the NLA’s latest money making scheme is pretty widespread across the PR industry, and has been since these new charges were first announced.  Not that being unpopular is anything new for the NLA.  It has always existed on the basis of an aggressive stance and threats of legal action against anyone that didn’t pay up. 

 

Even by its own standards, the NLA is taking things to a new level.   To me, it doesn’t appear that the NLA has much of a case in forcing companies to buy a copyright licence if they want to forward links to free content.  Particularly when the online news sites that the NLA represents already actively encourage their readers to forward the same content to other users via ‘share this story’ links. 

  

The NLA says that it draws a distinction between readers and ‘news aggregators’.  We’re not a news aggregator, we’re a PR agency that simply sends links to relevant news stories to our clients.  Of course, the NLA says we will also have to pay for the privilege of forwarding links to free content.

 

Interestingly, some legal opinion states that there is no copyright over hyperlinks.  Maybe, just maybe, the days of the NLA are over.  We can only live in hope.