Re: Id requirements for pre-paid

[thegoons]

How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to telco's.


"Simon Templar" <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
news:41e3a4a9$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
> How strict are the providers in obtaining ID from pre-paid customers?
>
> I have a friend is being hassled by 0404403716 with SMS and voice calls. I
> rang the number and a female bragged to me that because they were on
> Vodafone pre-paid and that they gave false or no information during
> registration.
>
> Well I have registered several Vodafone pre-paids for family members and
> have always been required to present proof of identity. The question is,
> do Vodafone and the other providers verify ID or do they just enter what
> ever shit they are given?
>
> Is it really a case of them not caring because it is pre-paid and they
> have got the money out of the customer? If this is the case then imagine
> how easy it would be for terrorists to use a GSM phone to remotely
> detonate a dirty bomb!
>
>
> --
> 73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
> http://www.aca.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452
> The views stated by me are my own and have nothing to do with any
> organisation I belong to, so the prick that tried to slander me can get
> FUCKED because it didn't work!

[Michael]

"thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to telco's.

Incorrect

[Rod Speed]

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
>> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
>> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to telco's.
>
> Incorrect

Correct.

[Michael]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34rl7uF4boq1uU1@individual.net...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
> >> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
> >> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to
telco's.
> >
> > Incorrect
>
> Correct.

Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.

Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA

[Rod Speed]

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Vd1Gd.119062$K7.24227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34rl7uF4boq1uU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> > news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
>> >> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
>> >> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to
> telco's.
>> >
>> > Incorrect
>>
>> Correct.
>
> Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.

Wrong.

> Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA

Who is flouting the law.

[Michael]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34rp3mF4ea1efU1@individual.net...
>
> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Vd1Gd.119062$K7.24227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:34rl7uF4boq1uU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> >
> >> > "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
> >> >> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
> >> >> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to
> > telco's.
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect
> >>
> >> Correct.
> >
> > Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA
>
> Who is flouting the law.
>
>

nope.

[thegoons]

Would you kindly advise which legislation overrides the Privacy Act to
enable this? Otherwise go back in your box.

Thanks.

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jJ5Gd.119330$K7.50781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34rp3mF4ea1efU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Vd1Gd.119062$K7.24227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:34rl7uF4boq1uU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> >
>> >> > "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
>> >> >> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to
>> > telco's.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >
>> > Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> > Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA
>>
>> Who is flouting the law.
>>
>>
>
> nope.
>
>

[Kwyjibo]

"thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> said

> Would you kindly advise which legislation overrides the Privacy Act to
> enable this?

I don't know the specifics of what Michael is talking about, but there are
ways of verifying it without the registration authorities providing the info
to the Telco.
One that I can think of is to use one of the Baycorp online products for
identity confirmation. Baycorp is provided with the information (which the
consumer agrees to under most types of contracts) and stores it in their
database which no other parties are given access to.
Telstra, Banks etc can transmit the information they have received from you
in an application into the system where it is checked against the existing
data and either a pass or fail response is returned. It doesn't have to be a
100% match to pass and no actual customer details are returned. In the case
of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake further (manual) checks to
confirm your identity.

--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Rod Speed]

"Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jJ5Gd.119330$K7.50781@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34rp3mF4ea1efU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Vd1Gd.119062$K7.24227@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:34rl7uF4boq1uU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Michael" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%31Gd.119040$K7.19000@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >> >
>> >> > "thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:34hs1jF4au1k8U1@individual.net...
>> >> >> How can they ever check? The motor registration authorities would be
>> >> >> breaching privacy legislation if they were to reveal that data to
>> > telco's.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect
>> >>
>> >> Correct.
>> >
>> > Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> > Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA
>>
>> Who is flouting the law.
>>
>>
>
> nope.

Yep.

[Rod Speed]

Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
message news:Xns95E010DF86677ssss@130.133.1.4...
> thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote

>> Would you kindly advise which legislation
>> overrides the Privacy Act to enable this?

> I don't know the specifics of what Michael is talking
> about, but there are ways of verifying it without the
> registration authorities providing the info to the Telco.

Nope.

> One that I can think of is to use one of the Baycorp online products
> for identity confirmation. Baycorp is provided with the information
> (which the consumer agrees to under most types of contracts)

Not with the PREPAIDs being discussed.

> and stores it in their database which no other parties are given access
> to. Telstra, Banks etc can transmit the information they have received
> from you in an application into the system where it is checked against
> the existing data and either a pass or fail response is returned.

Not with PREPAIDs.

> It doesn't have to be a 100% match to pass
> and no actual customer details are returned.

Still not legal with PREPAIDs.

> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.

Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.

[The Family]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34tb4kF3lq22oU1@individual.net...
>
> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns95E010DF86677ssss@130.133.1.4...
>> thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote
>
>>> Would you kindly advise which legislation
>>> overrides the Privacy Act to enable this?
>

>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.
>
> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.
>

Another commercial problem is that Baycorp charges about $30 for an inquiry.
That kind of destroys 6 months profit if your business is selling $30
prepaids. So why would the telcos go to this hassle and expense when the
issue is identity, not whether you can pay.

I suspect the reason they're lax is that they are probably required to make
a reasonable attempt to obtain a customer's identity. If a customer lies,
so be it.

[Kwyjibo]

"The Family" <someone@somewhere.com> said

> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34tb4kF3lq22oU1@individual.net...
>>
>> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
>> message news:Xns95E010DF86677ssss@130.133.1.4...
>>> thegoons <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote
>>
>>>> Would you kindly advise which legislation
>>>> overrides the Privacy Act to enable this?
>>
>
>>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.
>>
>> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
>> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.
>>
>
> Another commercial problem is that Baycorp charges about $30 for an
> inquiry.

Nowhere near that much. I was doing some contract work for a company that
wouldn't have been pushing through anywhere near the volume the an average
telco and we were paying just under $4 per enquiry. With the volume discounts
the telco's would get they would pay a lot less than that.


--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Kwyjibo]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said


>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.
>
> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.
>

They can do whatever they want with your information (within reason) if it's
clearly stipulated on the T&C of the service.
Passing information to third party providers for identity verification
purposes totally legal as long as the customer is informed.



--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Rod Speed]

Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
message news:Xns95E07BE96FFEBssss@130.133.1.4...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said

>>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.

>> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
>> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.

> They can do whatever they want with your information
> (within reason) if it's clearly stipulated on the T&C of the service.

Wrong with a PREPAID service.

Since you arent applying for any credit whatever with a
PREPAID service, they arent legally entitled to use Baycorp.

> Passing information to third party providers for identity verification
> purposes totally legal as long as the customer is informed.

Wrong.

[Kwyjibo]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said

>
> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns95E07BE96FFEBssss@130.133.1.4...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said
>
>>>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>>>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.
>
>>> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
>>> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.
>
>> They can do whatever they want with your information
>> (within reason) if it's clearly stipulated on the T&C of the service.
>
> Wrong with a PREPAID service.
>

Irrelevant.

> Since you arent applying for any credit whatever with a
> PREPAID service,

It's got fuck all to do with credit.

> they arent legally entitled to use Baycorp.
>

Wrong. You are confusing Baycorp's identity verification product with their
credit check and fraud check products. Entirely separate beasts.

>> Passing information to third party providers for identity verification
>> purposes totally legal as long as the customer is informed.
>
> Wrong.
>
>
>



--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Rod Speed]

Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net> wrote in message
news:41e9f925$1_2@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..

> Rod, shy *SHOULD* there be any difference between pre-paid an post-paid
> accounts? Sure they have different billing methods but that should be end of
> it.

The obvious difference is that with prepaid you pay up front and
spend what you have paid up front. No need for any credit check.

And legally thats what matters on the USE of your
details, they aint allowed to use an operation like
Baycorp when you arent applying for any credit.

> The costs may vary from provider to provider, but that is competition. If
> choose pre-paid for what ever reason I should be able to expect the same level
> of service as a post-paid customer.

Its more complicated than that when its technically more
difficult for the telco to ensure that you do have a positive
balance in your account before it completes the call etc.

> Accountability should be no different.

Wrong. Its no business of the telcos how you obtained the money
you deposit into a prepaid account except with the use of a credit
card to do that. They arent legally entitled to have you prove that
you are the owner of the account if you say buy a recharge for
cash. Its none of their business who is depositing into that account.

> If it comes to the attention of a provider that an account (pre or post-paid)
> has be fraudulently obtained and or being used for threatening / harassing /
> abusive purposes then it should be terminated immediately.

In practice the telco couldnt care less, they're getting their
money up front, and most of them prefer that with credit duds
because its much cheaper than trying to get the money out
of kids etc who can run up silly bills on a non prepaid account.

> If the customer that has been illegally been using the account is stupid
> enough to want that account re-established then they should be able to justify
> their actions. Oh and saying somebody else got hold of the phone while they
> were unaware should be laughed at and not accepted.

Like I say, the telco couldnt care less who uses the phone with a prepaid.

None of their concern if you choose to lend your phone to someone etc.

And its perfectly legal to do that.

[Rod Speed]

Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
message news:Xns95E0B135C8174ssss@130.133.1.4...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said

>>>>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>>>>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.

>>>> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
>>>> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.

>>> They can do whatever they want with your information
>>> (within reason) if it's clearly stipulated on the T&C of the service.

>> Wrong with a PREPAID service.

> Irrelevant.

Wrong. Its illegal for the telco to use Baycorp or
similar IF YOU ARENT APPLYING FOR CREDIT.

>> Since you arent applying for any credit
>> whatever with a PREPAID service,

> It's got fuck all to do with credit.

Wrong again. Its illegal to use Baycorp or similar if the customer
isnt applying for credit, with the usual billing for services rendered
or goods provided legally qualifying as a form a credit.

>> they arent legally entitled to use Baycorp.

> Wrong. You are confusing Baycorp's identity verification product with their
> credit check and fraud check products. Entirely separate beasts.

Wrong. They arent legally entitled to use Baycorp UNLESS
you are applying for credit in the most general sense.

No store is legally entitled to demand proof of ID if you are
paying cash with a few exceptions like with mobile phones
and guns etc. And with neither of those is the use of Baycorp
legal, they have other acceptible forms of ID like passports
and driver's licenses etc prescribed by the legislation, usually
with some form of points system.

>>> Passing information to third party providers for identity verification
>>> purposes totally legal as long as the customer is informed.

>> Wrong.

[Kwyjibo]

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said

>
> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns95E0B135C8174ssss@130.133.1.4...
>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo <Kwyjibo@YourPantiesozdebate.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> said
>
>>>>>> In the case of a failure, the bank or telco with undertake
>>>>>> further (manual) checks to confirm your identity.
>
>>>>> Like hell they will with PREPAIDs because they dont
>>>>> use Baycorp at all with those and they cant legally.
>
>>>> They can do whatever they want with your information
>>>> (within reason) if it's clearly stipulated on the T&C of the service.
>
>>> Wrong with a PREPAID service.
>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Wrong. Its illegal for the telco to use Baycorp or
> similar IF YOU ARENT APPLYING FOR CREDIT.
>

Keep wanking, stupid. Your bullshit might actually come true if you believe
it hard enough.

>>> Since you arent applying for any credit
>>> whatever with a PREPAID service,
>
>> It's got fuck all to do with credit.
>
> Wrong again. Its illegal to use Baycorp or similar if the customer
> isnt applying for credit, with the usual billing for services rendered
> or goods provided legally qualifying as a form a credit.
>

Keep wanking, stupid. Your bullshit might actually come true if you believe
it hard enough.

>>> they arent legally entitled to use Baycorp.
>
>> Wrong. You are confusing Baycorp's identity verification product with
>> their credit check and fraud check products. Entirely separate beasts.
>
> Wrong. They arent legally entitled to use Baycorp UNLESS
> you are applying for credit in the most general sense.
>

Keep wanking, stupid. Your bullshit might actually come true if you believe
it hard enough.

> No store is legally entitled to demand proof of ID if you are
> paying cash with a few exceptions like with mobile phones
> and guns etc.

Which is what we are taling about in case you hadn't noticed, fuckwit.

> And with neither of those is the use of Baycorp
> legal,

Keep wanking, stupid. Your bullshit might actually come true if you believe
it hard enough.

> they have other acceptible forms of ID like passports
> and driver's licenses etc prescribed by the legislation, usually
> with some form of points system.
>

Also with identity confirmation systems like those provided by Baycorp,
fuckwit.



--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Michael]

> Wrong. You are confusing Baycorp's identity verification product with
their
> credit check and fraud check products. Entirely separate beasts.

I dont think Rod's aware of BayCorp FraudCheck.
Having used it, its a fabulous product but oh too expensive.

[Michael]

> >> > Confirmations can certainly be given to telcos.
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> > Hi to Sandra in the NSW RTA
> >>
> >> Who is flouting the law.
> >>
> > nope.
>
> Yep.

Nope.

Here's an example.

I'm a dodgy lebbo in Bankstown and I manufacturer a fake drivers licence.
The licence number doesnt exist at the RTA.

Telstra get a copy of the licence, is suspicious, and fax it to the RTA.
The RTA can respond with "This licence does not match any details on hand
with the RTA".

As the licence DOES NOT EXIST, there is no breach of privacy as no customer
details have been revealed.
>
>