Schneier on Security

Clive Robinson • September 13, 2010 10:49 PM

@ Davi,

“People there said they’d rather just pay a ticket than figure out if it’s real or enforceable”

In the UK most “fine systems” have a nasty little “pay without question” bias. Put simply if you payup within 14days of issue (not recipt) you pay X if you do not pay within that time it goes up to 2X. All have rules about contesting that take you ino 2X or more.

The monetary value of X appears to be based on a “normalised pain” threshold such that 2X is above the threshold and X below it.

Interestingly for most of the “official scams” of this sort, of those that “contest” the fine something like 85% of them are successfull. Of those that are not those that go through an appeals process appear to have a better than even success rate.

So only about 5-8% of these fines are found to be vallid when those receiving them chalenge them.

My own experiance was with a rail operator of very low repute in }ondon called South West Trains, due to the failure of their automatic ticketing machine system I could not get a ticket. On using their “platform help system” I was told to seek a member of SWT staff either at the station or at some point during my journy. I did this and was told I had to pay a fine of 20GBP, I contested it and was told “sorry you have failed” I wrote to the “company secretery” of SWT Head Office (that also just happened to be the same as the supposadly “fully independent” appeals organisation) and was brushed off. I was then sent a “getting heavy” letter of “pay the fine or go to court” with the threat of “get a “criminal record” and “pay court costs of several hundred GBP”.

In all my letters I very clearly stated what had happened including being assulted by a member of the Metropolitan Police, being illegaly detained, and the fraudulent paperwork from SWT staff. SWT’s “Company Secretary” again failed to investigate what the SWT staff where upto. When the court summons arrived it was incorrectly filled out. I was told by SWT staff if I paid the costs within seven days I could stop the court case. I refused and “put them to proof” and asked for copies of the CCTV footage names etc of those involved so they could be summoned to court. SWT sent back a letter saying I was out of time and that they where not obliged to give me the evidence I had requested untill 14 days before the court date. No evidence turned up and just days before the court date the person who was representing me was told verbaly by SWT they had withdrawn the case. On contacting the court however I found that SWT had not informed them they had withdrawn the case. Being a naturaly suspicious person I actually went to the court on the day and SWT had sent down a legal representative, who only on being told that I was present and that evidence had not been supplied etc addmitted that he had not been given instructions by SWT to withdraw. He phoned SWT and then said he would speak to the magistrate about withdrawing the case…

I saw red and told the court clark I wanted compensation for time etc. The magistrates decided to hear my side. I presented the letters etc and they where visably shocked as was the Court Clerk. I was told that unfortunatly as SWT had withdrawn the case they court could not make them pay me my costs. However the Court Clerk told the magistrates that due to the fact that I had attended court it was within the courts discretion to pay me a sum of money directly from the court, the magistrates agreed and I was awarded an appropriate sum for lost earnings etc.

I then went and did some digging around and found out that there where a number of cases where SWT had said they where withdrawing a case to a defendant or their representative but actualy not doing it and getting judgment against the defendant simply because they did not show. Apparently on the defendent going through the process of “reclaiming their rights” SWT blaimed “clerical / paperwork errors” in their defence.

Further investigation showed that most magistrates courts hated dealing with SWT for a whole host of reasons. I was told by one member of a court’s staff it was obvious that SWT where bringing cases before the courts they had no hope of winning so often that even SWT could not be that incompetent. When I suggested that SWT where using the courts to leverage fine payments they said it was a “not unreasonable interpretation of the facts”…

So you could say that many UK GO’s/NGO’s with fine raising powers are “socialy engineering” money out of inocent people. Personaly I prefer that good old word “extortion” as defined in many dictionaries.

Oh one thing, in the vast majority of these “fine systems” those at the bottom of the system that “hand out the fines” are on “minimum wages”. BUT they get a significant percentage of the “fines they issue” which can easily quadruple this as an incentive… So I’ll leave it to you to decide just how impartial they are, and if they are likley to “issue fraudulant” fines as South West Trains Revenue Protection Officers did with me. Further just how complicit the entire orginisational chain above them to director level is, as they must know and turn a blind eye as long as “The revenue is protected”.

Clive Robinson • September 14, 2010 12:11 AM

@ Nobody In Particular,

“So your contention is that since… …, that people will believe what they see on any random website of unknown providence even once it’s been demonstrated that the information on such websites is suspect at best and a complete fabrication at worst”

Yes, I guess you did not follow the link I provided.

Operation Ore was a witch hunt for downloaders of “child pornography” based on the use of the US website “Landslide” which was a payment gateway to many forms of adult entertainment on other illegal sites.

The US Government sent a list of names and CC details they had from investigating Landslide to the UK Gov and Operation Ore was setup to investigate the list…

Well Mr Gamble and his subordinates assumed that every one on the list (except for close friends of prominant UK politicians) where all guilty of downloading “Kiddie Porn”.

Only that was very far from the case, even before LandSlide was closed down it was well known that it was being scamed by Internet Fraudsters with stolen CC details (it would appear in the UK case that they where stolen from a well known highstreet grocery chain).

Amongst other things Mr Gamble presented false evidence in court (a doctored image of landslides front page making the “child porn” refrences considerably more prominant than they realy were)

The interrogation techniques used by the officers involved telling suspects that they would tell all and sundry know that they where pedophiles. And it appears they did just that with many suspects losing their jobs, homes, families, friends and freedom, even when there was overridingly clear evidence that it was stolen CC details that had been used by Internet Scammers.

Some of the suspects who where not sufficiently familiar with technology took their own lives others are still fighting to have their names cleared and those responsable for the mess to be brought to book.

One of the reasons the sham that was Operation Ore investigation came to light was the US FOI act that alowed one suspect to show that stolen CC details had been used.

Some estimates say that Operation Ore was not only unsuccesfull and harmfull to many inoccent people, it also has set back nearly all otherrrrrrr

Clive Robinson • September 15, 2010 3:14 AM

@ Nick P,

Sorry bad call it’s not me.

I’m sure Bruce will be able to confirm the difference in IP adds (and the one I’m posting from now is the Royal Brompton Hospital in London where I’m awaiting some holes to be put in me).

I thought @ Late might have been you as you often say that your late to the party.