[kwlug-disc] Schedules direct: What do you think about them?
R. Brent Clements
rbclemen at gmail.com
Mon Mar 9 03:36:38 EDT 2009
Actually, I don't think I have ever used a credit card online and not
been asked for full name and address info. Plus when some people from
spain tried to scam us out of 100 pieces of RAM a couple of years ago
they provided us with several "employee" credit card numbers along
with full name and address info attached to them (we called one of the
banks and they called the card owner, who had no idea what it was
about, and turned the whole thing over to the Visa fraud department).
But I think it may be a requirement for transactions where the card is
not presented to the merchant in person.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, <john at netdirect.ca> wrote:
> -----kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org wrote: -----
>>Thanks for your responses.
>>Yes I agree that 20 dolars is little money in absolute terms.
>>I am still put off by the fact that they ask for my home address.
>>It's not as if they'll send me a bill or come to do an installation.
>>What I know is that they will have it on record and regardless their
>>best intentions I don't know how they are securing it.
> Perhaps it's an attempt to curb the commercial use that Zap2It claimed as a
> problem. I suppose you could give false information, like the address of the
> post office near you.
>>When dealing with third party data a rule of thumb is "Never store
>>more information that what's absolutelly necesary"
> Good point.
>>Another thing that put me off is that you cannot even ask questions
> I don't always read them. I tend to assume they will do anything with it
> that may make money.
>>"Because of how businesses and lawyers work, we're unable to comment
>>directly about it, or offer any interpretations, so please don't ask
>>I know that the lawyers should do the interpretation, but if
>>something is not clear, they should send it to the lawyers for an
>>answer. How can we trust them with our data if then don't even
>>understand what they can do with it? Even with the best of intentions
>>they may screw up.
>>that the lawyers wrote because they needed it instead of a binding
>>policy that they should understand and follow.
>>Am I off base here?
> Realistically you should be asking your lawyer about the policy. Asking them
> may help but I doubt that the person you are conversing with has the
> authority to bind the company in any way. That would mean that anything he
> states may not be company policy anyway. If you rely on his response it may
> not be honoured.
>>Not being any other reasonable options I will subscribe
> I'm in that boat too, most of the time. I hate agreeing to contracts when I
> feel that I have no effective power to have them changed. Privacy policies
> that state that the company can change it at any time is one that
> essentially states there are no guarantees.
> Given the amount of apathy towards these by the typical Internet user, this
> may only be resolved by regulation.
>>In my view they are honestly good guys and your experiences confirm
>>it. It is just that I don't know how good they are at data
> That's what it really comes down to for me. A sale, change in management or
> financial pressure may cause any company to turn evil (Google I'm looking at
> One of the best tactics I've seen used is when someone says that "we put
> that clause in to be safe, We'll never use it". A good response to that is
> "Then lets remove it". Too bad that only works with one-on-one contracts.
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
More information about the kwlug-disc