Suggest a story for 2 August
This is where *you* come in.
What have you seen - on the internet or on a blog - that you think deserves a wider audience?
Whether it's quirky or straight-down-the-line, we'd love to hear your suggestions. Either comment below, or email us.
More good news about iPM: it's back to being broadcast at 5.30pm on Saturday afternoons, and back to its full duration of 24 minutes. It's not that we didn't like the 5.45am slot on Saturdays or anything...
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Don't know where to post this!
Stolen UK passports worth £2.5m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7530180.stm
Contains an untruth from the passport service: who said 'the stolen documents could not be used by thieves because of their hi-tech embedded chip security features'.
Why is this untrue? Because a passport [while still in original unopened envelope] was scanned and the resulting data decrypted on March 06, 2007!
If you can read the chip, you can clone it!
Google: 'Security expert cracks RFID chip in UK passport'
Complain about this comment
Hello,
Stolen UK passports, so what if the passports were stolen? - the police do not care, I have reported passports being traded and sold in and around the Edgware Road but got no one ever came to interview me. It seemed like an inconvenience that I reported what myself and friends saw. I saw one couple with a big bag of British passports and I took photos of their cars... last Friday I sat in a cafe and watched a chap from Iraq sell passports quite openly for hundreds of pounds. They know no one will take action.
seemorenews
Complain about this comment
seemorenews,
Some time ago there was a member of al Quaida arrested in the UK, with two current genuine passports as issued to him [presumably in different names] by the UK Passport Agency.
Note: He wasn't a UK national, so he shouldn't have had one, let alone two!
Complain about this comment
This probably isn't 'serious' enough for the show, but this does make me smile.
http://harrietharman.blogspot.com/
It will probably fail your impartiality guidelines, as I don't have an equivalent 'not a spoof blog, you know' for, say, David Cameron..
Complain about this comment
I have recently been troubled by the "Verified by Visa" system. I am sure if I used my Mastercard more, I would be troubled by their equivalent "Mastercard Securecode" system.
Apparently these schemes are optional opt-in systems.
Being a hardened IT cynic, I choose not to opt-in, since I am yet to be convinced that it offers me any additional protection as a consumer.
However, in the last month I have made more than half a dozen attempted online purchases, all of which have ended with the retailer's page presenting me with a "Verified by Visa" enrolment page. Since there is no "no thank you" button, only an "Activate now!", I am forced to either enrol or close my browser, and I choose to do the latter.
In each case my card provider has stopped my card. Apparently declining their invitation to enrol is a sign of fraudulent activity. I look like a fraudster who has been scared off by VbV instead of like a customer who chooses not to enrol.
Upon speaking to one of my card providers today (MBNA - I am still waiting to talk to someone at Egg about it), it seems like you are only able to avoid enrolling by clicking "not at this time" three times. After that you have to enrol.
This seems like a strange way to implement a voluntary system. On most of the retailer's websites there is no clue that you are about to be challenged by VbV until you attempt to complete the transaction. This means that you trigger the "fraud protection" unintentionally. And when you HAVE located a retailer who doesn't require VbV to complete a purchase, you can't because your account is on hold!
Frankly, I feel like I am being rail-roaded into accepting a system which is as flawed as "Chip and PIN". At least they had the decency to make CnP mandatory so we knew where we stood.
In fact this is more flawed than Chip and PIN. CnP is a two-factor authentication system. That means you need something you have (your card - or more specifically the chip) and something you know (your PIN) in order to make a purchase. "Verified by Visa" is a single-factor system. Since it is designed for card-not-present purchases, by definition the card can not be processed. Therefore it is something you know (your card number), something else you know (your expiry date), something else you know (your billing address) and now with VbV something else you know (your password).
The reason there is so much card not present fraud is that it's easier to spoof knowledge than hardware.
If they wanted to make this really secure they would design a two factor system that verified I had physical possession of my card at the time I made my purchase.
What they really want to do is shift the balance of responsibility on to us (the consumer). Can you imagine the phone call to your bank when someone has stolen your VbV password (with a keylogger or with a phishing attack or via DNS spoofing - the ways are countless)? How would you be able to deny that you had made the transaction? "It must have been you, or you told someone else your password".
Oh. Update. I have spoken to Egg since I wrote this text, and they gave me the same "optional three times" story as MBNA. They also told me that this system would be mandatory on all Internet purchases because it was a goverment requirement. However, when I asked what legislation required the use of this system, they were unable to provide me with details. They have, however, taken my concerns seriously enough to escalate them within their customer services team. But apparently I need to wait 5 days for a response.
I decided to write to you about it, since you are the kind of people who will strip the spin away from the banks over this.
Hopefully this is interesting enough to warrant some of your time.
Keep up the good work!
Complain about this comment
Blogger Jo Christie-Smith emailed us with this suggestion. Apologies if you've been unable to post due to an 'invalid html' error - we're aware of the problem - plse email us (ipm [at] bbc.co.uk) or try back again later, thanks.
"Why don't you do something on male and female bloggers and particularly the gender divide in political blogging and their treatment by msm.
Apologies for just linking to my own blog but I've linked in (and passed
on) a furore about the new York times putting a piece on the blogher event in the fashion and style section of the newspaper, rather than say the business or technology section.
I've heard that women make up 60% of all bloggers but my own experience of political blogging is that only about 20% of political blogger - why is this?
You can find a link to the nyt story on my blog: http://www.jochristiesmith.blogspot.com
Take care,
Jo
Complain about this comment
Two years ago we bought a house that had been empty for a year previously (ie no one had lived in our house except us for 3 years). The house had previously been rented by a farmer to his stable girls. One of whom seems to have racked up impressive debts.
We have been inundated with demands from lawyers threatening to put county court judgements against our property in the name of this girl.
We have written back many, many times explaining she has moved and given them the a way to trace her. To no avail. Often the addresses to write to are false ones.
Our point
(a) these lawyers are not acting in their clients interests because they are not trying to get the debt repaid they are just churning through an automated process to get paid their fees.
(b) it is absurd that in the 21st Century we should use such a Dickensian method of enforcing debt and if the banks and credit agencies actually sorted out the process they might have less bad debt.
(c) How is it that a 20 year old stable hand living in rented accommodation can amass so much debt? We estimate it to be between £10k and £20k.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS