30M : Virgin Media Virus Letter?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Nopanic

Did you call them first ? they can call you back ..

No!

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Welshchris

atleast the "Bottom feeding guys from PC World" u dont have a language barrier with in understanding and dont always end up with the same thing "ITS YOUR PC THATS THE FAULT!"

Did you click the link as they are either from Airdrie or Texas, even the old PC Help service was based in Scotland.

Also how can a computer help service and have them blame your computer when that is the reason you are calling them in the first place.


Somehow Chris i think you are talking about offshore technical support not a out off support scope computer help centre which is completely different and staffed by computer geeks.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Nopanic

VM do, they have to keep them for a certain amount of time by Law and for some odd reason that amount of time is very restricted information .. I had to agree to some weird things before I was told .. one of which is to never kick a cat ..

If its the retentions period in the 2009 regs then it is 12 months. I know there are proposals to extend it (well, Labour were pushing for it) and knowing how convoluted our legal system is there are probably past laws that have their own time periods defined. I think the secrecy thing you are referring to is the actual warrants/interception orders. Spilling the beans about these = 5 years in jail.

---------- Post added 05-06-2011 at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was 04-06-2011 at 23:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

That is rather different to what we are allowed to do under the regulations as a telecommunications company.

The act makes no distinctions for sector other than a few narrow exceptions.

Phoning someone, asking if it is mr blah blah and then explaining that their interweb will be suspended because VM suspect they have a virus/trojan/open proxy does not reveal any details that the DPA covers.

I suspect VM are just being overly cautious. There was a time they used to cold-call you and simply ask you for your account password, but would not explain why they were calling until you gave them the password. Which was bizarre and got them nowhere as it sounds very much like a scam. The newsgroups used to be full of people worrying about these sort of calls.

[Chrysalis]

Even with DPA considerations it is surprising he isnt cutoff, its considered good internet equituette for providers to suspend accounts that have malware or spreading malware.

[Nopanic]

Originally Posted by pip08456

No!

odd.. there are not teams that pro actively call customers over account issues that I know of ..

Originally Posted by Skie

If its the retentions period in the 2009 regs then it is 12 months. I know there are proposals to extend it (well, Labour were pushing for it) and knowing how convoluted our legal system is there are probably past laws that have their own time periods defined. I think the secrecy thing you are referring to is the actual warrants/interception orders. Spilling the beans about these = 5 years in jail.

---------- Post added 05-06-2011 at 00:10 ---------- Previous post was 04-06-2011 at 23:48 ----------



The act makes no distinctions for sector other than a few narrow exceptions.

Phoning someone, asking if it is mr blah blah and then explaining that their interweb will be suspended because VM suspect they have a virus/trojan/open proxy does not reveal any details that the DPA covers.

I suspect VM are just being overly cautious. There was a time they used to cold-call you and simply ask you for your account password, but would not explain why they were calling until you gave them the password. Which was bizarre and got them nowhere as it sounds very much like a scam. The newsgroups used to be full of people worrying about these sort of calls.

No, the amount of time is restricted. As for calling, if you call a customer and tell them they have been cut off you are breaking DPA, you are giving out information about an account.

Our agents can not tell a customer what level of service they are on without confirming DPA with them.. and calling someone up there is no safe way to do it without providing protected data as proof they are VM ..

I'm sure some departments are able to, but faults isnt one of them.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Even with DPA considerations it is surprising he isnt cutoff, its considered good internet equituette for providers to suspend accounts that have malware or spreading malware.

I agree, very odd.

[Skie]

Originally Posted by Nopanic

I'm sure some departments are able to, but faults isnt one of them.

Then its not DPA but VM policy being masqueraded as DPA. Telling someone their service level is not revealing personal information.

[Nopanic]

Originally Posted by Skie

Then its not DPA but VM policy being masqueraded as DPA. Telling someone their service level is not revealing personal information.

Yes it is, telling someone what they pay for is giving details about their bill,

As service level is a person piece of information held by VM about a customer.

I don't know how or if it's done by other departments, maybe a call to say they need them to call in .. but either way, giving out a service level is like a bank giving out a balance .. its personal data and its protected by the law.

[apcyberax]

i hvae had one of them. i spent alot of time doing dns lookups on alot of ips. vm sent me a letter thinking it was a port scan. so yes they happen

[qasdfdsaq]

What's the difference between calling someone and revealing personal information verses sending them a letter, email, or text message with the same information?

The customer's consented to their personal details being sent to the address/email/telephone number when they signed up. You don't check DPA when posting their bill via letter, email, or text, so how is a phone call any different?

I'd agree that this is a silly VM policy being masqueraded as DPA, as it makes no sense under the law and other companies (in the same sector and otherwise) do no such issues with calling their customers.

[Nopanic]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

What's the difference between calling someone and revealing personal information verses sending them a letter, email, or text message with the same information?

The customer's consented to their personal details being sent to the address/email/telephone number when they signed up. You don't check DPA when posting their bill via letter, email, or text, so how is a phone call any different?

I'd agree that this is a silly VM policy being masqueraded as DPA, as it makes no sense under the law and other companies (in the same sector and otherwise) do no such issues with calling their customers.

Sending a letter is protected by mail laws, you open someone else's letters and you break the law.

Personal details sent by text ? from faults ? like what ?

---------- Post added at 08:25 ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 ----------

I've just been thinking about this and it would be the same people complaining if VM had called them asking for account details .. saying this isn't very safe.

Basically VM are being extra careful with your details and you're moaning.. lol ..

[qasdfdsaq]

Not referring to faults specifically, but to account related information. You say that mentioning a fault on someone's line is revealing sufficient information about them to break DPA rules, yet sending summaries of people's bills by text message does the same thing and several mobile companies do that. You can also phone up customer services and get automated information about your bill, service level, tariff, and usage without passing any security checks with virtually all telecoms providers, so it most certainly isn't an issue.

Also if you open someone else's emails, you break the law too, and protected information is also frequently sent by email.

So at the end of the day if my bank, phone company, and other ISPs can phone, email, text, or write letters to me proactively when there's a problem with my account, service, or details, clearly this "DPA law" that prevents VM from doing it is either a law that only applies to VM, or more likely gibberish made up by VM.

I remember summat from the NTL days about a walled off 'garden' for infected PCs.Don't they do that anymore?

[BenMcr]

This should explain it all

http://pressoffice.virginmedia.com/p...4450&highlight

[Kymmy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13798122

So it was a SOCA tip off on SpyEye infected machines as opposed to some suggesting Microsoft tipping off VM with the data gathered from their Rustock bust.

Virgin should give these people a few weeks to clean up their act and then kick repeat offenders off the network.