Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

AW: Re: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

There is no reason for apologizing for not speaking German. Most people in the world don't speak German ;)
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

In this thread we are discussing the difference between different practices of enforcing commercial law in Germany, Australia and U.K.

Although German politicians use to ensure us every day that Germany had one of the strictest trade laws and consumer-protection on earth, we more and more feel that this is nothing but a mock-up as soon as it comes to enforce existing law in Germany.

Your example of the ACCC tearing down websites of scammers in Australa shows how many power the ACCC seems to have.

In Germany, I would regard such action as nearly unthinkable. In Germany, there really is no comparable organisation having the power to do such.

We do not have any governmential organisation comparable to the ACCC or the "Office Of Fair Trade" in U.K., enforcing fair trade. In Germany, this task was delegated to non-governmential organisations like e.g. the "Wettbewerbszentrale" which is an association of members from industry, self-monitoring the scene (sometimes only "watching the game"). :rolleyes:

Although one really cannot say Wettbewerbszentrale stays inactive, her power is very, very limited. As a non-state-controlled agency, she does not have any executional powers. She simply cannot "shut down websites". She can only try the long judicial way to Tipperary by filing suit under German trade law ("Gesetz gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb", UWG). Of course that takes a long, long time, and as soon as a verdict is achieved against a fraudulent company, the fraudsters simply change their dirty cloak, open up new rogue-companies with new names, continuing the good old dirty business as if nothing had happened at all.
This is possible because any verdict only refers to an action in one specific case, dealing with one specific company. If the company simply changed her name, the whole legal lawsuit trail has to be stepped right from the start again.

In Germany, since 3 years we have multiple problems with rogue companies opening up fraudulent websites where victims are trapped into a mocked "agreement", maintaining that they have to pay for using the site, only because they missed to recognize a funny "price disclaimer" which is camouflaged in the footprint of the website. These sites will never be shut down, because there is no governmential German organisation having the power to do so.
And German law of debt collection does not open any doorway to inhibit fraudulent debt-collectors from maintaining that the victim has to pay. They can harass you here with ten dunning letters, if they want to do so.

A criminal website in Germany can only be shut down by order of a state-attourney, but that will happen only in severe criminal cases like child porn.

We also compared the action of the British OFTA, lagging some Call-In-TV-Shows to pay millions of pounds because of fraudulent behaviour.
That´s also an example of what would perhaps never happen in Germany. Because the "Landesmedienanstalten" which are the cotton-bud armies who have to watch that game simply look away. "Whazzuuuuuup? - Having a buuuuud, whatching the gaaaame...."

I use to say that Germany is a biotope for fraudsters in web and premium-industry. Maybe only in Russia you can do it even worse, when paying to the right heads. Of course, in Russia, as a fraudster you should never forget paying your monthly rates, because that might result in somebody finding you with a bullet in your cerebellum. That seems to be the only difference.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

The powers of the authorities in the UK, in the US or in Australia, New Zealand or wherever are given to these authorities by law. The biggest problem in Germany really seems to be that the German people think that they are protected the best way by German law - and they might think that they are even better protected than people in other countries. So they seem to think that any protection that is not possible in Germany is not possible anywhere else.
It is one of many errors in the "typical" German thinking - not the worst, but one of them.

Greengrow, it's nice to meet people from other countries here and it's ok when we are discussing in English. It's an international topic, as can be seen in this thread and in other threads here. I like the contributions here that are dealing with developments in other countries. It helps getting a broader view - and it may be very interesting to people that are responsible for the regulation of Premium Rate Services in Germany as well as to people that are discussing with people that are responsible.

Keep on feeding us ;)

(By the way: Do you know any English websites about consumer protection?)
 
Well our regulation isn't much better but this is what we have found in the UK.
The Regulators take little notice of public complaint alone.
Certain forums General Telcos - The Scream! investigate public complaint and 'feed' the media with stories.
We have found the regulators are 'encouraged' to take stronger action if the complaints are publicized.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

direct.gov.uk: Consumer rights
Advice and information on rights when shopping for goods and services and dealing with faulty goods, on scams and rip-offs.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....

Referred websites include Consumer Direct, the Office of Fair Trading, information concerning financial services and scams as well as the Sale of Goods Act.
A small but powerful consumer's guide. They even explain about illegal claims management and food safety.

For those being interested in how the UK comes across its citizens:
Directgov - the official government website for citizens.

I would have loved to have that when still living in Germany. Well, seems to me like Germans love to get the runaround...
The UK is far from being perfect but at least you know where to get fast and reliable information.
 
just to add.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act comes into force
29/09/2008

BERR said that any ability regulators are given to impose the direct penalties should be used sparingly. "The new sanctions will not replace more informal methods of enforcement, such as advice or warning letters and should only be used where it is necessary and proportionate to do so," it said.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

That´s exactly what can be observed here.
Regulators often only take action if problems are repeatedly reported in the media. In Germany, TV has an extensive influence on public opinion. So, as a fraudster, if you manage that your company enters TV, it might occur that one day regulators might consider to take action.
And that might result in forcing you to change cloak a little bit earlier.

But, compared with foreign countries, influence of German regulators seem to be more limited. That´s because in Germany, politicians are especially keen in never to inhibit what they use to call "innovative companies developing new marketing strategies" and all that stuff.

[It´s midnight here in Germany... so, c/u tomorrow...]
***ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz***
 
i have just seen this (long long long........overdue). Maybe something for your Regulators to consider.
aime - News & Updates
REGULATION Ofcom restricts issue of numbers to CPs that have ‘previous’
30 September 2008

Ofcom is introducing new restrictions on the way that it issues telephone numbers to communications providers to ensure the best use of numbers and to better protect consumers from scams, fraud and other forms of abuse.

The regulator is implementing a new consumer protection test for numbers, which will focus on the behaviour that uses numbers to cause serious or repeated harm to consumers.

The regulator will identify and publish lists of individuals and companies that have a history of using numbers to cause serious or repeated harm and will not allocate 070 personal numbers, 0871/2/3 special service higher rate numbers and 09 premium rate numbers to applicants who are on those lists.

The lists, which will be published on the Ofcom website, will name companies and individuals that have in the past used telephone numbers to cause serious or repeated harm to consumers or are involved in cases that we are currently investigating.

In compiling the lists, Ofcom will assess individuals and companies – including company directors – that have come to its attention by being subject to a decision from a relevant authority, such as PhonepayPlus, the Office of Fair Trading or the police, and where telephone numbers were central to the behaviour that led to the decision concerned.

Scams, frauds and other abuses carried out by individuals and companies using telephone numbers cause serious consumer harm and threaten confidence in certain numbers.

Ofcom has decided, at least initially, to permit providers to take a self-regulatory approach to introducing a similar consumer protection test into their own number assignment processes.

Ofcom's full statement can be found at
Statement on consumer protection test for telephone number allocation | Ofcom
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

That's very interesting... It is a possibility to reduce fraud that also the German regulator (FNA) would love to have... Believe me!
Again the UK are more than one step ahead. The step has been taken by OFCOM. In Germany the regulator is supervised by the Federal Ministry of Economics (that would be the DTI in the UK). They have the power to supervise the FNA, but did anyone ever hear that they use it? The Premium Rates Lobby in Germany has much more influence than in the UK (also you may know how strong the lobby is in the UK... AIME, NOC,...)

greengrow schrieb:
Maybe something for your Regulators to consider.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
I hope that Mr Borowski (he is the admin of computerbetrug.de and he is a very dedicated journalist as well :)) will ask the FNA about it. To speak for myself, well, I am a bit... too far in to throw a stone :)
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

It is interesting to read about that OFCOM blacklist.

Such a kind of blacklist would cause some problems in Germany for those who publish it. In Germany, "personal rights" of individuals are very high-protected. So, if you publish a sort of blacklist in Germany where not only names of companies, but also names of individuals are published, it is very likely that at least one of those will sue you. And it is also very likely that they will succeed in getting a verdict on you. That would probably cost you a fee. :unzufrieden:

Although it is possible to publish names of companies, you will have to be very careful in what you do and what you say. German law even protects "personality of a company" (that is one of those silly German law traditions which even most Germans, at least if they are not lawyers, will never understand...). Although the range of protection for a company is by far not that strong than it is for individuals, you have to be very careful not to interfere with this "personality protection", you have to take care not to be be "injurious against company´s interests".

As OFCOM has the power to deny new premium-rate-numbers for individuals or companies which have in the past attracted attention because of fraudulent behaviour, this is equal to a total ban of a company from doing premium-rate-business.
Such a power is not granted to German regulators ("Bundesnetzagentur", "BNetzA"/FNA).
German telecom law does not specifically provide the FNA with the power to shut down an individual or a company from business with premium-rate-numbers. Of course they can shut down numbers, but there are repeated cases where that company simply obtain new numbers and continue the dirty game as if nothing had happened.
In Germany, one can compare the role of the FNA with a kind of a "whack-a-mole-game".

Premium-rate-industry in Germany has very much influence to the process of new legislation. They really seem to sit at the same desk when it comes to phrasing new legislation. So there is clear evidence in not only one case where German legislation gets diluted in purpose by influence of powerful industry associations.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

Antiscammer schrieb:
Such a kind of blacklist would cause some problems in Germany for those who publish it.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
As far as I got it right the UK regulator is also very scared of the legal problems that arise when publishing the names of companies and individuals. There is a legal basis for the publishing (UK Communication Act of 2003) but they also have to be aware of the "general protection" of the people and companies involved (their privacy protection, the right of a fair trial, defamation,...). So the publications are prepared by trained lawyers. The differences between the UK and Germany are the differences between UK law (Communication Act) and the German TKG. The "Communication Act" is ways more elaborated, ways more sophisticated and ways more adaptive even to new methodds of scamming. In UK practice we can see the same limitations we can see in many countries - first and foremost the trend to decriminalize fraud and robbery within the field of Premium Rate in general, but you could find other loopholes that had and have a disastrous outcome on consumer protection.
With its "Adjudications" that are published ICSTIS/PP+ gives the consumer (and the media!) a fine possibility to find companies that are more often involved than others as helpers of dodgy individuals and companies. With the new list the fact of repeated involvement will have severe consequences - at least this is what I hope.
But the German FNA does not only suffer from the deficient German laws: I cannot see a reason why the German FNA never tried to interpret the given laws more "aggressive". For example: In Germany the FNA has the right to define the rules for the allocation of Premium Rates Numbers, so the FNA could easily change the rules to better protect consumers. Not even a change in the laws would be necessary. It is a question of law but it is also a question of prioritising...
The outrage in UK against the regulator may be a difference that also plays an important role. If German media would question the FNA instead of parroting their press statements they could force the FNA to question its behaviour.
As OFCOM has the power to deny new premium-rate-numbers for individuals or companies which have in the past attracted attention because of fraudulent behaviour, this is equal to a total ban of a company from doing premium-rate-business.
Such a power is not granted to German regulators ("Bundesnetzagentur", "BNetzA"/FNA).
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
It was never discussed if there is the power to do so, was it???
German telecom law does not specifically provide the FNA with the power to shut down an individual or a company from business with premium-rate-numbers. Of course they can shut down numbers, but there are repeated cases where that company simply obtain new numbers and continue the dirty game as if nothing had happened.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
There have been similar cases in the UK, but there have been consequences - that's the difference.
Premium-rate-industry in Germany has very much influence to the process of new legislation. They really seem to sit at the same desk when it comes to phrasing new legislation. So there is clear evidence in not only one case where German legislation gets diluted in purpose by influence of powerful industry associations.
Zum Vergrößern anklicken....
Yes. That's true. Where UK law is deficient, German law is desastrous ;)
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

Another example has been made when FNA clamped down on three Austrian companies which are in control of someone acting under pseudonym "Friedrich Müller".
These companies were known to start mass phone-spam-calls where victims were tricked into calling back to a premium-rate-number by maintaining they have won a big amount of Euros.

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/media/archive/13679.pdf

All the premium-rate-numbers obtained by these companies were switched off simultaneously (a step which the FNA takes seldom), the "business model" was interdicted, and also billing and debt collection was prohibited retroactively.

But, again, FNA did not ban the companies from obtaining new numbers. And, of course, it may be the case that new rogue companies will be founded. That´s the way innovative business goes.
It should not be regarded likely that the CEO of a company whose numbers are switched off will consider to earn his money by doing paper rounds for Sunday news in the future.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

If anyone would need an example that the German regulator FNA does not have the power and the will to fight Premium Rate Scam than "Freidrich Müller" really is a fine example. "Friedrich Müller" is known to the public for many years, see here:
jur-abc: Friedrich Müller

If a KNOWN scammer with a known history of repeated scamming can get Premium Rate phone numbers than there is something very very wrong with the regulation. But who cares? And the problem is not different in other countries. One problem is, that there is enough "scamming" within the legal framework, another problem is that scammers do not have to fear consequences even if they break the law. Notorious swindlers get a license to hold a hand in your pocket and all the regulators are doing is watching the scenery and asking some of them to wash their hands before stealing the money.
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

One cannot ignore the impression that some parts of the web and premium-rate business got corrupted by a kind of obscure economy acting in the shadows.
This kind of "Schattenwirtschaft" takes enormous parts of spending power out of legal economy. And the damage in trust this causes among consumers is almost never estimated, nor is it even considered that there is such a damage.
But these white-collar shadow-men really seem to have a high influence in politics, it seems as if they sit at the same table when laws are phrased. Politicians rather seem to listen to the howling of the coyotes than to objections of consumer associations.

In Germany, there are some phrases having a kind of magic effect. You only have to say some holy words like "business location Germany" or "boost new innovative marketing and media" and all that bosh we hear every day, and politicians really fall to their knees in front of you.
There is a big German party which has an appointee for web business who considered it necessary to visit a known porn-spammer. She did not consider it necessary to make enquiries about that company in advance before she made that untold visit, causing public interest she better had avoided. But these probably are the "new innovative marketing concepts and media" which politicians hope will bring economic growth.

This all, together with regulators who are condemned to watch that daily puppet theatre which premium-rate-gangsters play with them, causes a climate where the best way to make money seems to bee to change the highest amounts of mud your hands can take grip off into even more money.
That´s the way of modern "success".
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

Liebe Leute.

Ich habe da ein ganz klitzekleines Problem. So interessant Eure Ausführungen und Zitate betreff der weitaus strengeren Bestrafungen für jeglichen Medien-Missbrauch in UK und USA auch sein mögen und so toll Ihr auch damit belegen könnt, wie gut Ihr des Britischen mächtig seid: Übersetzt es bitte oder gebt zumindest der Inhalt in Deutsch an. Es soll ja Leute geben, die ebenfalls an solchen Themen interessiert, aber sprachlich nicht so bewandert sind wie Ihr. Und wer erst ein Wörterbuch zur Hilfe nehmen muss, um Forenbeioträge verstehen zu können, wird sich eher ausklinken, als sich in Übersetzungsarbeit zu üben.

Mit leicht enervierten Gruß

Adele
 
AW: Down Under: Nachhilfe für Seehofer und andere

This Diskussion is absichtly in English hold. It is weil wir hoffen dass google finds it. Es does me leid that you kannnicht mitlesen here, aber dies is a Kollateralschaden.
Adele, I hoffe you bist me not sauer nun.
Freundliche regards von ein Verehrer of your literarische outpours
:)
 
AW: Down Under: Strafe wegen Spam-SMS

weitere Strafe in Australien gegen Unternehmen des Ex-Regulierungsbehördenvorstands
mBlox cops $11,000 of ACMA?s wrath - Telecommunications - iTnews Australia

Wenig beeindruckend die Höhe der Strafe (1,1 Mio Australische cents), aber wenigstens klare Worte,

"
“Many Australians may not be aware that SMS-based commercial messages must comply with the Spam Act,” said Chapman.
(Vielen Australiern dürfte gar nicht bewußt sein, dass SMS-Werbenachrichten den Anti-Spam-Gesetzen entsprechen müssen)

“As is the case with emails offering products or services, commercial SMS messages must be sent with the recipient’s consent, have clear and accurate sender identification, and notification of a functioning unsubscribe mechanism.
(So wie es bei Mails der Fall ist, die Produkte oder Dienstleistungen bewerben, dürfen kommerzielle SMS-Nachrichten nur mit Zustimmung des Empfängers geschickt werden, sie müssen eine klare und korrekte Absenderkennung erhalten sowie die Mitteilung über eine funktionierende Abmeldemöglichkeit)

“Consumers should be aware that if they receive unsolicited commercial SMS messages, they can make a complaint to ACMA under the Spam Act,” Chapman advised." (Verbraucher sollten wissen, dass sie, falls sie unerwünschte kommerzielle SMS-Nachrichten erhalten, nach dem Anti-Spam-Gesetz eine Beschwerde bei der ACMA machen kännen
(ACMA=Australian Communications and Media Authority ~BnetzA)

ex-aermulo-Übersetzung extra für die verehrte Adele
 
Zurück
Oben