Up there with loan sharks, advertising execs, patent trolls and lawyers
Ticketmaster is claiming that the ICO's £1.25m data breach fine clears it of any responsibility for its network being infected by card-skimming malware, according to correspondence seen by The Register. The firm was fined earlier this month after UK data regulator, the Information Commissioner's Office, ruled it had broken …
Upvoted. I still cannot work out exactly why we need companies like this - if an artist or group want to sell tickets, do it through whatever venue they are using. Ticketmaster don't really seem to do anything useful except vastly increase the cost of already over-priced tickets.
Back in the day, I used to go to a number of council-owned venues, some big, some (very) small. They did indeed sell tickets directly - no fees, no parasites. The staff were knowledgeable and helpful in almost every case. Dundee, the closest city to where I live now, has two council-owned venues that sell direct. Your response is, therefore, nonsense.
Completely agree however bands/artists are signed to labels and labels have deals with the major ticket selling websites. Also venues will sign deals with ticket sellers for exclusivity. Then you have radio/tv only promoting the artists labels want them to. All these people take a cut and there is no way they will allow people to move easily outside these constraints. That's why music is so shit these days (and no it's not because I'm older there are a few that break through every now and again but they are very far and few between these days)
Your description is great, the word Music, can be replaced with Politicians, Medical treatments, and a slew of products. Many large industries around these things only cater to business partners that promote each others skimming, and blocking other 'products" getting to people to keep the markets cornered. To benefit a few people and not society. But,,, most companies are in business only to make money, not help people. It's how we can afford lunch,,,
I agree that music isn't shit these days... but it's my personal experience that the vast majority of the good stuff I've found is stuff that hasn't been locked down by large labels, companies and events. So much good music is being created by independent artists thanks to the availability of composition software. And creatures like TicketMaster are rarely involved :)
The arrangements are labyrinthine. I got pre release tickets for Idles for next May (fingers crossed) but even though I got a deal and the best seats in the house, I still had to go through Ticketmaster instead of direct from the venue who made the tickets available for me. Mad!
"Ticketmaster exists for the same reason Amazon & ebay do. People's own web stores, shipping, and customer service are usually totally crap."
Yeah, if these venues had their own e-shops, with their l;ow-budget IT department, they might end up with card-skimming malware for years without anyone noticing.
I still cannot work out exactly why we need companies like this
Please don't shoot the messenger, but economies of scale. Ticketmaster et al scale and facilitate the sale of tickets in a way no venue or band could possibly come close to. From an events perspective the savings (profits) are massive when they outsource the sale to such specialists.
There are some artists and events fighting back, hopefully more will recognise the excess being creamed and tighten the conditions on sales.
I think the issue is the savings *look* massive. But inevitably TM and all the other parties will slide the balance to get more profit for themselves. Either until it's basically balanced, or worse, until you are so reliant on them, have lost all internal ability to compete or even just to switch to a different ticketing provider, that they're trapped in a pricing structure that's actually costing them more.
Pearl Jam and Neil Young cancelled a couple of tours because they found the added costs of these middlemen to be abusive and unfair.
They demanded the tickets to be sold locally, since they were playing at relatively small venues, and wanted to do it for local folks.
I similarly find the service charges these pirates are adding to the tickets' cost to be abusive. Even more when there's no way to purchase the tickets at the venue, without the added service charges.
Some tickets you want to be able to buy well in advance instead of queueing at the entrance, so that you can follow up with travel and lodging arrangements. Like in the case of wanting to see One Down, Four To Go, which would have required an 8-hour train trip just to get to London, then an inevitable queue at the ticket shop, returning home again, booking accommodation, and finally the second trip around the actual date.
Instead, just sitting at a computer at home, selecting any two adjacent seats in a good enough viewing position but no more expensive than UKP $mumble, and any day, was much more convenient. And once you have those tickets you can plan travel and accommodation, and other activities like visiting TNMOC around that.
I'm not arguing against the travel arrangement benefits when purchasing tickets for non-local events. I'm arguing against those times when the only sales channel is the one owned by these pirates, which place their "service charges" on top of the actual ticket price. If a venue/band/managing firm concede the exclusivity of the ticket sales to Ticketmaster and their keen, the service charges should either be absorbed into the ticket's value, or lowered, since they are effectively limiting other ways of purchasing the tickets. Talk about fishing in a barrel...
You are mixing up these two things. Theatres can sell tickets - online- without gougers getting in the middle. Either by doing their own E-commerce or using an agent with a fixed contact to do it for them. Resellers are a very different issue, even, or maybe especially, licensed ones.
If it's not Ticketmaster scalping the punter, it will be ATG and their endless charges that are only mentioned after you've queued and secured a ticket. Dreadful companies - and that's before you ever have to request a refund when they show their even less customer-friendly side.
Some of this is due to, what a parallel thread calls, outsourcing. i.e. damn fool beancounters thinking that they can provide a service that doesn't directly earn them revenue and might leave them with unsold tickets ( collecting in the money) by off-loading it to another company.
In the case of theatres they do this by turning a blind eye to the downsides. e.g. price gouging and unfair sales practices.
That they "buy their own tickets" in a kind of self-scalping way and then resell for crazy mark-ups too. I'd hate to think they'd do something as unethical as that but after seeing this article, it wouldn't surprise me.
Of course, that's all rumour and hear-say until there's proof.
Blocking that is what noscript is good for. Has the beneficial side effect of blocking facebook, etc.
Unfortunately: some web sites just do not work when I block 3rd party JS - so I usually just go elsewhere. I'll allow JS from a payment processor that I recognise, but rarely much else. When will web developers recognise that they are losing their customers business, or are people like me rare enough for them to not worry ?
After Apple made the change you'd be able to block it using Noscript or whatever on your browser, even if you never use Apple products.
Too much JS used for things that it should not be used for.
Way too many pages are just blank if JS disabled - fucktards! I piss offstaright away when taht happens: Basic content sghould always render irrespective of JS - use JS for a few bells % whistles if you must, but as much as possible core functionality should not rely on JS (not always possible e.g. depending on implementation may need JS for purchasing)
I've taken to noting the intrustive js (such as facebook or google on EDF's webpages) then asked pointed questions about GDPR compliance and legal liabilities of the company - including how they thing that giving away data to third parties without permission or notification is remotely GDPR compliant
TicketMaster genuinely doesn't care about this, because they have a captive audience and the majority of people do not care.
Hilariously, we created the option to disable analytics when we implemented cookie warnings for GDPR compliance and no one has ever used the option, not once.
The ICO can't prosecute for one offence twice. So they've chosen to prosecute under the newer legislation which allows for much, much higher fines. This is a "good thing" (tm).
The reader's compensation issue is not affected by this: Ticketmaster are just using red-herring / bogosity tactics to try and put him off. What is clear is: Ticketmaster committed an offence and as a result the reader was subject to cost and inconvenience that he wants compensation for. It's irrelevant that the conviction for the offence came much later after the cost and inconvenience was incurred.
This is not unusual in law: think of cases like industrial diseases where the disease diagnosis comes years after the events, and the relevant industry and safety legislation could have changed two or three times.
Streamlined small claims procedures, yes. But results depends on the company involved. I used the process against a well known big (well it was big at the time) travel company. After 2 years of dragging their feet, they then tried to object to the interest charge (8%) that the court was allowed to add over the time taken to settle. After that they still would not pay up, so I paid the extra fee for the bailiffs to be sent in. Net result was they ended up paying out over twice as much as I was originally claiming. Adds a new dimension to any claim to be "customer focused".
"I paid the extra fee for the bailiffs to be sent in. Net result was they ended up paying out over twice as much as I was originally claiming."
Yes, but if only one in ten claims take the effort to pass to the Bailiffs then overall the company wins. We need more claim and shame, and more "The Sheriffs are Coming" and "Don't Pay We'll Take It Away"
"Yes, but if only one in ten claims take the effort to pass to the Bailiffs then overall the company wins."
cookie cutter press releases to local media can make that 1 in 10 start climbing rapidly
Don't forget that whilst you pay a fee to call in the bailiffs, it's clawed back from what's owing so you don't end up out of pocket in the end - and it's usually cleaper than constantly arguing back and forth with their lawyers
I second this. Small Claims Court is fantastic. And if that doesn't work, yes, sending in the bailiffs tends to focus their mind beautifully... as RBS once found out when bailiffs walked into a local branch and started confiscating stuff.
Read *that* story here: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/customer-sends-bailiffs-in-to-seize-banks-computers-7197321.html
> The response of "You've just lost over £20Bn! Why should I listen to you?" didn't go down too well.
Which is funny because in Germany that's exactly the sort of question you would expect.
I find dealing with German clients an intensely character-building experience because of their directness. Last thing it would occur to me is try to bullshit them.
Yes, unfortunately YMMV.
Back when the SCC only got started with their all newfangled streamlined procedures, Norn Iron wasn't covered either, and I had to resort to engaging a debt collection agency who were very happy to scare the bejezus out of an NI 'businessman' (I use that term very loosely) who thought that he could get away with stiffing me out of a three-figure invoice since I was in Ingerlund and he was in NI.
I was very pleased when I received a pretty cheque in the mail from said agency for the amount of the invoice minus their fee. Score!
I was very pleased when I received a pretty cheque in the mail from said agency for the amount of the invoice minus their fee.
(Different country, different procedures) In the one case I had to open the invoices were paid in full to me, and the collection agency's fee had to be paid by the 'business' I was dealing with.
As it should be.
"I was very pleased when I received a pretty cheque in the mail from said agency for the amount of the invoice minus their fee. "
I assume you altered the contract T&C afterwards to allow for "costs and commissions" to be added onto any owing amount?
Debt collectors love these ones - you get 100% of your money and they get the fees - ALL the fees - which can add up surprisingly quickly when they put their minds to it....
"Ticketmaster seemingly wants to use that to avoid admitting liability for its systems becoming compromised in the first place"
The fact that the breach persisted for a month after the GDPR had come into force is the deciding factor. How and when it came about is entirely secondary.
reporting fraud to any financial services organisation. Very few actually have a link on their web site to report fraud. Most want your account number (so if the fraud is that an account has been fraudulently set up in your name you can be a bit stuck). The 'Contact us' link usually has sections for what product you already have or want, and not all of them have a section marked 'other'. If you telephone them you have to wait for all of the menu options to expire before you actually talk to a human being, if you can get that far without giving them an account number or applying for one of their 'products'.
The next time you do internet banking or anything where fraud could be involved, just have a quick look for the 'Report suspected fraud' link on the front page. Oh and most of the phone lines are not available at the weekend, so if you only find out on Saturday morning that someone has stolen £36000 from your pension fund and £40000 from your building society account, you have to wait until the following Monday morning to tell them.
I shall remain C-A-L-M
When I was on my credit card website I spotted that a dodgy transaction had appeared.
They have a button to flag transactions you don't recognise, so they can investigate.
Great! I'll press that.
Except it doesn't activate until a transaction moves from 'pending' to being on your bill.
So you have to wait for the fraud to complete before you can mark it as such.
Couldn't he call his CC company and have them re-activate it and just left the clearly fraudulent Ticketmaster charge blocked? Sounds like "his" particular issue is with the CC company. (I'm reading this story as 2 parts, the problem he had, and the overall Ticketmaster response)
No as one of my cards was suspended via this and I was out shopping. I could at least purchase what I needed. I rang the bank to ask why my recent card was not working and they told me that they had stopped it and a new card was on its way. I said that I was not aware blah blah blah and could they reactivate ? They said that once it is deactivated it is dead and no way to reactivate. New card *has* to be issued
Just checked wtih my misses who works for a bank and she concurs
Well that's a pretty fucked up way of doing things.
My European bank, if a transaction gets flagged the first thing they do is they pick up the phone and call you (who would have ever thought of it, eh?)
Only ever happened to me once, in the classical way: new guy at the car hire agency not knowing how to put a block on your card. Ten minutes later, I got a call from the bank, they explained that their system had flagged up a transaction and did I know anything about it. I told them yes, that was the car hire guy, they asked if they should let it through as a false positive, I said yes and that was it. I was abroad and this was outwith office hours so if they'd gone all out and cancelled the card without asking first I would have been less than pleased.
In that case, the transactions were not only "flagged", they were *actually* fraudulent, and the bank knew the card was compromised. So ultimately, the bank was likely to be liable for the sums spent once the card bearer would deny them. There was no way they could be merely classified as false positive with a phone call.
> In that case, the transactions were not only "flagged", they were *actually* fraudulent
Yes but there are ways of restricting use of a card without cancelling it outright. In the above instance, my bank would have disabled online or customer not present transactions, for instance. They can also set the card to manual approval (on their end), so you're not locked out of your money while you're abroad, for instance.
Actually, they can. Barclays does this, Egg used to do this. They call you and ask to confirm multiple transactions. If the transactions were fraudulent, all you had to say so and all those transactions would a) be reversed or b) stopped if they were pending.
I've had a similar issue with car rental where something was done wrong, the bank called to check, and when I confirmed that I was in fact stood outside the rental company offices to take the call, they said "ok, please ask them to retry the transaction", which they did and everything was hunkydory.
It all depends on the bank's fraud department, their procedures, their detection of 'unusual transactions', and actual *humans* available to discuss.
If you get an unsoolicited call " from your bank", the very first thing they must do is identify themselves in a way that's hard to spoof
Some banks use passwords, some will tell you the last few transactions you had.
Asking YOU to identify yourself is a non-starter. I had a lot of fun with one insissting I give a pin after telling him I'd recorded the call, had the originating phone number and was calling Actionfraud on my other line (and ended up with a grovelling apology letter from the bank abiout a week later - mainly because he got quite sweary at me)
to bad they cancelled it right off and didn't just block the charge, but at least they took some action and didn't let charges build up, and have to deal with that.
Still would have been nice if they notified you when they cancelled it - before you had to deal with being declined and having to call them.
Depends on the bank. Unbeknownst to me, a bank I'm a client of had been notified by one of the credit card vendors that a block of card numbers assigned to them could *potentially* have been compromised. They immediately cancelled all cards and issued new ones. When I attempted to use my old card literally within hours of this having happened, the transaction was (obviously) declined, and I then had to contact them to ask what was going on.
They were so kind to reenable the card for a *very* limited period of time (something to the tune of 30 minutes) during which I could use the ATM to draw cash, as well as continue my shopping bonanza I was in the progress of. They even ringfenced the transactions to the country I mentioned I was in, limiting things even further.
Needless to say, this is no British or US bank. ;-)
" They said that once it is deactivated it is dead and no way to reactivate."
I kicked up a huge stink over this and got £200 credited to my account after they agreed they could (and should) have phoned me
It didn't make up for missing the movie I'd driven 20 miles to see, but it made them at least pay a little
If every customer griped louder (and fofrced compensation) they'd treat it diffenetly, You train aomebas not to do things by hurting them as is they only thing that works.
I assume the Credit Card companies still issue blacklists of cards to other organisations to stop small value fraud. Back in the day online transactions over a certain value made an "online" authorisation, those under the value only checked a local "cancelled" list. Technology has moved on, but I'm betting there is still a place for the blacklist and once your card is on it, it isn't coming off.
Couldn't he call his CC company and have them re-activate it and just left the clearly fraudulent Ticketmaster charge blocked?
Think a little bit more. Some scum have installed skimming software on TMs payment page - so they have your card details. It's not TM purchases you need to worry about, but all the other purchases that can be made with those card details. Put another way, someone has what is effectively an electronic copy of your card - so there's no way to automatically flag up fraudulent transactions and the only way to stop them is to cancel your card and make that electronic copy of it useless.
> there's no way to automatically flag up fraudulent transactions and the only way to stop them is to cancel your card and make that electronic copy of it useless.
There is. As I just posted, my bank will just disable online transactions without cancelling the entire card, and thus not leave you in a bind. Obviously, it would still be advisable to replace the card as soon as it's practicable.
Maybe it's just my bank that's unusual in not being hostile to their customers, I don't know.
I tried to buy tickets for the 2001 Australian GP from the UK. You could only get them through Ticketmaster 7. No idea if this is the same company, but at the time the website was only open during office hours for some inexplicable reason. Australian office hours. On top of this, it constantly timed out.
Eventually managed to order by going into work in the morning (my home internet at the time was too slow). Had to put all my answers to the web form into notepad in advance, then copy/paste into the website as fast as possible hoping I could get it to complete without timeing out, before the website closed for the (Oz) night.
I can't recall how many attempts it took. I know it was more than one, but was eventually successful.
I had a kind of positive experience on fraud in that my bank froze my card when I used it for a few purchases at a shopping center about an hour away from where I live for a few $100-200 purchases, wasn't a place i'd been to before (was in Australia and an AU bank). Was declined in a store and had an SMS a few minutes later. Called them up (checked their support number on their website) and confirmed who I was and unlocked. Oh and it was on the weekend, got straight through, phone menu did list fraud or issues with my card sort of messages.
I don't know if it was a good or bad thing, I mean it took 10 minutes of my day but I feel like it was appropriate. This was going back a few years.
These days I can freeze my card with an app on my phone and approve purchases with MFA, so much easier. Realtime payment info as well. Seems like the big historically major banks are dragging their feet on some of this.
"These days I can freeze my card with an app on my phone and approve purchases with MFA, "
Some banks are also issuing "disposable" CC/Debit card numbers usable for a sinlge transaction if you're forced to do business with outfits you don't trust
It helps THEM, because any subsequent use of the numbers shows exactly where the leak originated
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021