This all started some time ago. It was September 7th 2021 when I wrote ‘As banks cut corners’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/09/07/as-banks-cut-corners/) In that article I wrote “They merely needed some time, a $2500 computer and a decent internet connection, the pay off would be a 7 figure number and with the speed they are tracked they would be living large in another country with nothing attached to them. That is the current reality and the level of checks and balances that are missing is just too unbelievable for words. Enjoy your bank account (for as long as you still have it)” and what do you know, ABC gives us less than 20 hours ago (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-19/adelaide-man-prepares-legal-action-after-being-scammed/101452218) ‘Adelaide man enlists help from former South Australian senator Nick Xenophon after losing $36,000 to scammers’ there we see “Mr Xenophon, now working as a lawyer, is representing Adelaide car salesman Michael Edwards, who lost $36,000 to a sophisticated phone scam earlier this month.” It is one way of looking at it. I personally wonder when the stage of ‘a sophisticated phone scam’ is not met and it is simply the absence of proper checks and balances. The party line of “NAB says recovering money from scammers is often difficult” is a joke. And the setting of “after the call ended, he was still suspicious, and then spent hours on the phone waiting to talk to a real NAB fraud investigator.” Is largely a joke. It is not the man who needs to worry, it is the bank. In a full 5G network the damage will become twentyfold, and the banks need to set larger checks and balances, the fact that we see “I’m working for the NAB, I’ll send you something now on your mobile phone saying he was Mark Jacobs from the fraud department, NAB case number and all the rest of it” implies that the system, the bank system has failed. My first (and optionally incorrect) idea was that any bank has a Java-bean system that sets the stage that the person calling asks the person to start a bank application and goes towards the verification stage. Then the person can give three numbers that are encrypted and only the bank can see these three numbers and they can tell the person what these three numbers are, as such there is verification. Not the scammer gets the upper hand, but the person they try to scam and when that person does not CLEARLY state the three numbers, the person hangs up and presses the alert button. OK, this is old stuff but the stage of verification is underestimated and done away with by banks because of the customer unfriendly factor. So how friendly is losing $36,000 dollars? Things need to change and they need to change fast. When we see ““We’ve seen a significant increase in scams in recent years and its upsetting to see the devastating effects these can have on the impacted victims,” Chris Sheehan from NAB’s Investigations and Fraud group said in a statement” we see a clear setting that changes were essential years ago and soon the banks will not pay for that loss, as such they either improve the setting of security or they pay all losses, but that is merely my view on the matter and the fact that I saw this coming a year ago gives a much larger stage of reckless endangerment of bank accounts by banks. So as people like former South Australian senator Nick Xenophon know the banks have been dropping the ball, the problem is a lot larger. We the people need to realise that ‘simplicity’ of options have a risk. There is a reason why I do not allow for online banking. I have seen this flaw for close to a decade and now we see a case and it is not the first case as plenty of evidence shows. But now it will cost us money and as such the people need to change their habits and change their insufferably need for simplicity and easy access, criminals enjoy your easy access too and one person found that out by donating $36,000 to a scammer. He is not alone and a lot of criminals take a different road, they feel safer getting 50,000 pay outs of $10-$45 then one payout of $36,000. Where the banks stand? You ask them, I doubt you get a clear answer and this issue is playing all over the Commonwealth and the US. Australians lost over $2,000,000,000 last year alone. I have no clear image on how it hits the other nations but these scams are not just bank scams, so the picture is not completely clear, but something needs to be done and some message that 80 people are getting hired is not enough. But that might merely be me yammering on fictive issues. What do you think?
Tag Archives: NAB
It is not a statement, it is a question. I started to ask myself this when I had a deeper conversation with one of the people I actually trust. I have mentioned it here before that I have certain IP for sale. The parties are Google, Amazon, Huawei (Tencent) and I added Elon Musk (that man can turn good ideas to gold). The initial stage was that thee was an idea that allowed Google (Stadia) and Amazon (Luna) to sell in excess of 50,000,000 consoles. Yet it was a low estimate. I believe it to be well in excess of 75,000,000 consoles. In the mean time Netflix has entered the field and even as they have nothing to really bring to the table, it seems that these three are not to serious about their streamers, but somehow Tencent seemingly is? And that started the exploration conversation that my idea was too cheap. Was it? You see the second pay cycle gets me 10% of the IP and sales value, so the second payment would be massive and the first one left me without worries, so why ask for more? I am not a teenager with the dream to have lusty gorgeous 20 year old ladies doing a balancing act on mr John Thomas every day, well not anymore that was decades ago.
I now look towards a relaxed retirement and whatever comes with that. As such I created three IP bundles which (after some serious travel) received the automated release date on September 30th on 4Chan. An encrypted solution that was innovative and something a player like the NSA could not counter on 4Chan, not with that amount of images. As such no computer I touch will ever go near it, I merely have to wait for a clever person to figure it out and once released it all becomes public domain, a stage no one can counter, no one can make claims at present as they played their own silly games. A stage where ONE title puts the streamers on par with the larger consoles, straight in a temporary second place and that is on my numbers. If the numbers increase (which has a decent chance of happening) that console will stay in second place with an option to get pole position. A stage Sony NEVER faced before, and this is not against Sony, I love my Playstation (yes, I need help).
So here I was trying to convince my friend the simple setting that enough is enough. Why go greed driven for numbers that are too weird to my universe? And of course that station is rejected because if everyone else is greed driven, I have to be greed driven too. Yet when greed overwhelms you, you forget the sight of things. I created 8 parts of IP, I got there by looking around, not by looking after greed and that was merely the starting stage. I understood but never accepted ‘Greed is good’ (Wall Street, the movie), although that sentiment lives strongly on Wall Street as well. Yet in my setting what have they missed so far? Over the last year I have shown all kinds of IP (some open and public), but these ideas should have been in the hands of BigTech. At least one of them at least a decade, but greed is limiting their view and I am showing others this again and again. Yet, for some reason they are not catching on. So whilst they slap each other on the back billions elude them. There is now a chance that the third IP bundle is gaining mass and therefor value, I still thought that 2.6 billion was a little high, and there are risks that I cannot foresee, but looking deeper some might state that my estimate is too low. Is it? If I end up with 5% of 2 billion I will not complain, but the IP is now estimated at 2.6 billion and will optionally be higher. So is the estimate too cheap, am I delusionally too cheap or is the truth of the matter somewhere else. The issue almost came to blow as I looked at the Twitter issues (yesterday) where some are ignoring what is out in the open, what else are they missing? It becomes a much larger station when players like Forbes give us ‘Local News Losing Billions In Revenue Each Year From Digital Media Giants’ (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2021/05/17/local-news-losing-billions-in-revenue-each-year-from-digital-media/) where we see “Local TV news continues to be a trustworthy and primary source to millions of viewers. This connection with the community and trust has been important, never more so than during the pandemic when local TV news reported strong ratings growth (although with the economic slowdown ad revenue was sluggish).” It is the added “A recent research analysis from BIA Advisory Services and commissioned by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), entitled Economic Impact of Big Tech Platforms on the Viability of Local Broadcast News, reported that local TV newscasts lose an estimated $1.873 billion each year from Google Search and Facebook News Feeds.” It gave me the the following parts.
- What is local news? Honestly, the news tends to be Fox, CNN, BBC and a few others and they are global. More important they ALL trivialised the Twitter numbers.
- This gets us to number two. Trustworthy is merely an 11 letter word that has less and less value in media and in filtered information (news that is approved by media shareholders and stakeholders).
- So who places news on Facebook? I placed images from several sources, they are not news items, they are deceptively placed forms of advertisers placed BY the media themselves.
A setting that goes on and on, so what numbers if Forbes bitching about and more important. When we look at some research instigated by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) I feel certain that I will find a whole range of issues. Painting the street in the colour of preference has consequences, yet Forbes is not too hassled on that are they?
As such where we are given “Whereas, ad dollars for local television are projected to be flat in the years ahead, digital media are forecast for year-over-year percent double-digit gains in ad spend.” It was a greed driven setting where local advertise systems ruined the market on greed, and when Google launched a true fair system the people en mass moved there. After decades to be given a real number was overwhelmingly interesting to advertisers, and now they all cry foul, all destroyed by their own greed and the Twitter setting merely echoes that. So why would I join those losers? I might not end with anything, it might just become public domain, but if I won’t get it, the greed driven will not either and when it comes out in months and they all come with “I could have gotten you soooo much” I can reply, so why didn’t you? It is the defeating move to the greed driven, to see them end with nothing, the sweetest victory of all.
I got confronted with two news items today, the weirdest part is that the source is the Daily Mail (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4717082/Chaos-British-holidaymakers-killer-earthquake.html), which is upsetting to some degree. The news started with the earthquake on Kos last week, a shaking that extended all the way to Crete. Now, as the building laws are on Crete, the news of the earthquake was not one that shook me, the people there know it, yet the strength was stronger than usually dealt with. OK, so far no biggie as news goes. Yet, the initially not highly regarded headline became ‘Thomson REFUSES to refund terrified holidaymaker and his family as they try to cancel their trip to Kos amid earthquake chaos‘, which woke me up. This is not the first time that travel agencies are frowned upon, so I decided to take another look. Justin Curtis who wrote this is pounding on a few items that are actually bigger news than most realise.
Now apart from the news you are about to see, there is a few matters that we need to consider, and I will get to them shortly. First we see “Brits due to go to region say they are being told they cannot have a refund“, I’ll tell you another one, they are still offering these trips online, so I could fly out Saturday at £3275 for a fortnight, by the way a comparable trip with a 5 star hotel booked in the Netherlands is €1048 (£937), which is a totally absurd difference (it included the flight, so ordering the trip in the Netherlands, or book it online and take an additional Euro trip train could save you £2300 (minus the two train tickets), so in light of the prices Thomson is pretty ridiculous. In addition, Thomson proclaims to be an ABTA member (shown on their website), With ABTA we see “Clients’ Options on Cancellation 3B) If they are Principals who cancel previously confirmed Travel Arrangements, inform Agents and direct Clients without delay and offer Clients the choice of: i) alternative Travel Arrangements if available; or ii) a full refund of all monies paid. Such refunds shall be sent to Agents and direct Clients without delay. ”
Now, this is only one part, in addition we see:
“3D) Not make a significant alteration to Travel Arrangements less than 14 days before the departure date of the Travel Arrangements unless it is necessary to do so as a result of Force Majeure.”
I think that we can agree that an Earthquake is as Force Majeure as it gets.
There are rules of compensation for part, in case it was not a Force Majeure. So in light of what I see, Thomson might be in a lot more trouble than they think they are.
It was merely a first part, the fact that Thomson kept the lines open for flights this coming Saturday indicates just how insensitive they are to their clients. If the Daily Mail is to be believed, we should also consider their website. When we see: “We’re part of TUI Group – one of the world’s leading travel companies. And all of our holidays are designed to help you Discover Your Smile.” You have to wonder how they will address the issues as given with “Some laid down on the grass after they were denied entry to the airport, with staff limiting the number of people allowed inside due to its small size“, which for safety reasons makes perfect sense, in addition we see “I said I wanted my money back but they told me no and that it was safe. But Kos is not going to be rebuilt in a week and I asked if they could guarantee me the buildings there and my hotel were structurally sound and they couldn’t“, from a torts point of view, Thomson now might have an expensive legal issue evolving at their front door, one that they cannot defer under ABTA, This case could get us to Donoghue v Stevenson. Ms Donoghue claimed compensation for illness, after she consumed a ginger beer containing a decomposed snail, in a public house in Paisley, Scotland. This is the first case of Torts, as Thomson is now quoted to have stated that Kos is Safe, if any mishap comes from the trip, the family could sue as there is news and evidence on the dangers. Kathmiri, the Greek news source gives that dozens of buildings are at present unsafe with dozens more not yet investigated, so Thomson was THIS negligent? The question becomes why Thomson has become this negligent whilst the ABTA code of conduct is pretty clear in section 3 on those who have booked, yet not yet travelled. They could have faced praise and clientele as they bended over backwards by offering and working towards alternative solutions for scores of travellers, now they could get into a lot of hot water. The diverted Ferry service is only a small issue, the reason why it was diverted is the real danger as some quays are actually ripped from the road, making for unsafe conditions. This issue goes beyond the Tsunami that came, yet in all this the complications from electricity, sewage and heat will go up and could potentially create additional hazards for some time, we cannot state how long or how realistic these dangers would be, but they will be there. If essential parts are fixed within a month it would be a small miracle, a given that no one should bank on. For Kos, this could not have happened at a worst time, the summer is the height of their annual tourism income flow. July-September is essential to the people on Kos and Crete; as such Kos might get a big blow in a time when the Greek economy could afford it the least. So back to Torts, we have basically shown a Duty of Care and now we get to Breach of Duty, so as we get to the ‘reasonable man‘ test, would a reasonable man send another person into an earthquake stricken place for a family holiday (or any holiday?), if we consider a reasonable safe environment (especially) for children, Thomson could be seen as the reckless endangering element to the health of these children on that vacation. As such, they might state, the people could have decided not to go. In this a step towards criminal law is that the vacation is a product (or service), so as we see product liability we get “Anyone who is harmed by an unsafe product could sue. They can begin their court case up to three years from the date of the injury. In some cases, they can even sue up to ten years after the product was sold“, it is a thin line, yet with these bulk vacations, the minimum amount of people for a class action should be easily reached, especially when there are torts exploiters (they do exist). Consider that the vacation is a product that is offered, in such we could go towards the ‘Guide to the Consumer Protection Act 1987‘, where we see “In the past those injured had to prove a manufacturer negligent before they could successfully sue for damages. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 removes the need to prove negligence. A customer can already sue a supplier, without proof of negligence, under the sale of goods law. The Act provides the same rights to anyone injured by a defective product, whether or not the product was sold to them“, in addition, there is “Liability under the Act extends to components and raw materials. If a finished product contains a defect in a particular component, both the manufacturer of the finished product and the component manufacturer may be liable“, which is interesting, so any item on the package sold to the tourist might be up for instigating the damage compensation track, so not merely the hotel, any excursion sold to the tourist could start liability at this stage. So how defective is this product?
Well the act gives us “A defective product is defined as one where the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect” and according to the Daily Mail, the people at Thomson proclaimed that Kos was safe, so in light of damaged quays, collapsed buildings with rubble all over the street, when the light goes a little low, spraining an ankle would be the easiest part in the entire equation and the elements to sue have been met, after which the liability track could commence. All because Thomson stated according to the Daily Mail source: “Gary Taylor, left, is due to fly to Kos with wife Katy and daughter Summer, pictured, next week but said he wanted to cancel due to safety fears, only to be told by Thomson he ‘could not have the £2,800 cost refunded due to terms and conditions’ of the deal“, yet this is opposed by ABTA code of conduct section 3b and 3d. And ABTA went one step further by giving within the definition of a Force Majeure as “circumstances where performance and/or prompt performance of the contract is prevented by reasons of unusual and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the control of the Principal, the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised“. Such circumstances include a natural disaster, so when were earthquakes and Tsunamis not natural disasters? If the Daily Mail is correct, this Force Majeure is making Thomson look like a Farce Majeure, the one place where booking a holiday might not be the best idea, not just for the prices stated.
Yet in the sidelines we also read “Thomson is offering alternative holidays for those due to travel to Kos or Bodrum should they no longer wish to“, which is one offer that ABTA clearly allows for, yet when we see at the Code of Conduct at 3B.ii “a full refund of all monies paid. Such refunds shall be sent to Agents and direct Clients without delay“, the issue of asking a few more questions to the top of Thomson seems a warranted issue to pursue.
The final part that rocked me is that there is at present no ombudsman for travels, something I actually never considered not existing, when we see that a trip per person could be in advance of £2500 and there are 8,000 UK travellers stranded on Kos, is it not weird that one event, representing £20m is not properly protected? Not merely for the traveller, to some extent to protect the travel agency as well? Is such a voluntary code legally enforceable? Well, that is actually the issue, I am not certain in the UK law settings, in Australia, the case in the Victorian Supreme Court named National Australia Bank Ltd v Rose  VSCA 169 gives us “The Voluntary Banking Code in question stated that NAB had to give Mr Rose “prominent notice of various matters” before taking a guarantee from him. Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Stephen McLeish of the Victorian Court of Appeal dismissed NAB’s appeal of the original case: “We would respectfully agree with the trial judge’s conclusion that those clauses of the Banking Code had contractual force as terms of the guarantee at issue.”“, I reckon that the UK might find against Thomson travel agency if it gets sued, there is a decent chance that the judges will see the voluntary code of conduct, which seems to be used at times as a marketing presentation on the travellers rights as a mandatory setting regarding the terms of guarantee, or as a Terms of Service, in equal measure, in light of what I have found so far Thomson made a few blunders, several on the same day as their terms of service are seen. I also reckon that Thomson might be the only one visible now, but this issue could hit any agency that has some mention of ABTA in their sales prospectus or website and not offer a decent alternative or a full refund.