Your computer's not working? Sure, I can fix that problem – which I caused Welcome to another edition of On Call, the weekly reader-contributed column in which Reg readers share tech support tales in which they triumph over terrible and tyrannical taskmasters. This week, meet a reader we'll Regomize as "Bill" who told us about the time he wrote "a fairly simple stock control system for a hardware …
I believe there seems to be a little law about computer fraud and abuse that could have put a stop to those shenanigans pretty quickly.
I understand what he did, but he was skating on very thin ice.
Not that I blame him.
Computer Misuse Act came into law in 1990.
Section 3 very clearly applies (see below). I also think it's very close to fraudulent behaviour and is certainly unethical.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he does any unauthorised act in relation to a computer;
(b)at the time when he does the act he knows that it is unauthorised; and
(c)either subsection (2) or subsection (3) below applies.
(2)This subsection applies if the person intends by doing the act—
(a)to impair the operation of any computer;
(b)to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
(c)to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data;
(d)to enable any of the things mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) above to be done.
It was just a few months ago that I discovered this behavior. I generally keep my Kindle in Airplane Mode to save battery life, but I decided to see if there was an update to the Kindle software as it had been a year or so since my last update. After the update, all of my side loaded books (purchased from Barnes & Noble back when I used a Nook, and decrypted later so I could move them to my Kindle Paperwhite) were gone, and I had to reload them. Then few weeks ago, I purchased a new book from Amazon. When I turned off Airplane Mode to download it, all the side loaded books were gone again. Whether Amazon considers this a bug or a feature I do not know, but I have my suspicions.
Check here for Firmware, not via WiFi on Kindle. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html%3FnodeId%3DGKMQC26VQQMM8XSW
If you buy a Kindle ebook, use browser and go My Devices & Content and Download for PC transfer (works on anything with a browser that can mount a Kindle. Scribe and newer Kindles may be be awkward as they use MTP). Some newer Kindles don't seem to have the D&T.
Don't use Send To Kindle. Use Calibre conversion to AZW3 and USB.
Use USB and never ever turn on the WiFi. Next time buy a Kobo, or even a Pocketbook.
Thanks for the tips. I already use Calibre and USB for the side-loading. It's good to know the Download for PC Transfer option is there, but that sounds like about the same amount of hassle as reloading my non-Amazon ebooks every time I buy a new book. I will definitely look for something more "libre" if the Paperwhite ever needs an upgrade.
What's the situation with DRM removal on Kindle books these days? Relatively easy, I hope? It was a bit of a chore a few years back to liberate my old Nook books.
I'm fairly sure that amongst the reams of T&C's that accompany such enshitification these days there will be a clause that gets them out of it and ensures that any lawsuits are settled in a friendly court with their uncle being the judge and their cousins being their lawyers for whom you will end up paying the legal fees.
Exactly. Big Tech normalises the crappiness of software by hiding behind the notions of "we're always updating stuff and making it better" and "keep paying us to do that". Just look at the number of apps on phones and tablets which have regular updates that says "bug fixes and performance improvements". And by regular, it could be several times a month or even week.
They've basically done one better than the bloke in this story by not only setting up a direct debit to take the money but putting it under the guise of "it's not just extortion, this is a contract to agree to be extorted every month".
It does raise some important questions about progress in IT. The updates are there because we now expect them. The environment changes, so the software changes. Tech changes. The threat landscape changes. We all know WHY we have to keep paying for updates to things, but is there a better way?
> Just look at the number of apps on phones and tablets which have regular updates that says "bug fixes and performance improvements". And by regular, it could be several times a month or even week.
The ones that always make me wonder are the apps that are clearly "done" but keep updating anyway. Like a ten year old game with a set number of levels, no interaction to any external services (like Game Center or such), and no ad platform integration. OK that some things in the back-end might need tweaking along with OS updates, but I have several such "finished" apps that update pretty much, as you say, once per month. What are they changing? Are they just updating unimportant things to stay top-of-mind?
This is the reason.
Both Apple and Google arbitrarily require you to update the SDK at intervals. You have to update to stay in the store, as they will both automatically remove your mobile app if you don't.
Usually it's simple to recompile with a newer SDK, but sometimes it isn't.
Of course, it means devs are more likely to abandon apps as having to do work on something that nobody has bought for a few months is difficult to justify. I've lost several useful tools that way.
Re the non updated app.
I've got a very handy one for DVD's on my current phone, unfortunately as it's not had an update for 2 years I can't seem to download it onto my tablet.
It's a mature app that hasn't really "needed" updates for a while and I think the last few were basically to keep Apple and Google happy.
Just look at the number of apps on phones and tablets which have regular updates that says "bug fixes and performance improvements".
That's absolutely normal for the sort of abuse of Agile that modern companies make, which is "throw together some arbitrary user stories, pass them off to the cheapest junior programmer you can find, and ship it, QA can wait until later".
One case where you get the "bug fixes and performance improvements" line is for apps connected to global services. In this case, the company has to add every new bit of functionality to the same app because all global customers are using the same binary. If their change log said something like "enabled the extra controls now being offered to customers in Finland, updated Finnish, Swedish, and English translations for that bit", people would get annoyed about being served an update for something they weren't using. If they tried to list every change for every country, the change logs would become a maintenance burden as well. These aren't good reasons to justify not doing it, because having an accurate change log that you can share with the users is important and useful. Still, that's one of the reasons why a company might choose to cut that corner.
It's still and always was a shitty trick to play though
So is refusing to pay what you agreed to for work that was performed. I have little sympathy for people who pull a Trump and try to negotiate down agreed upon amounts over false claims that the work wasn't up to snuff, and whatever they get as a result is well deserved.
The Computer Misuse act was introduced in 1990 and appears (to my non-solicitor eyes) to cover what happened in the story.
Michael Colvin (Conservative) introduced a private members bill in 1989, which the government supported resulting in it becoming an Act and thus law in 1990.
I wonder whether there is a modern version of “The Hackers Handbook”, or if publishing such a book today would constitute a crime…
The owner didn't know anything about computers so how would he figure it out, short of paying someone else to look at it - and probably trying to stiff him on his fee too if the guy said "I removed this one line that formatted the hard drive that should take care of it" because the guy hardly did any work and no way he's paying for an entire hour!
My software used to generate a unique licence number on each PC it was installed on and the customer had 30 days to pay their bill. Each time they ran the software they were reminded of this and how many days remained to pay. Once I'd received payment I gave them a code number which granted a perpetual licence on that PC. Simple and legal and everyone knew where they stood.
I think "Who, Me?" is for unintentional stories - although I accused the tech who wiped a customer's router on purpose in a previous story of doing a "Who, Me?" I think I was wrong. The story actually belonged to their colleague who was sent out to fix whatever was wrong, and for that worker, it was an "On Call".
This story has the smell of those things that we'd all have liked to do to get our well-justified vengeance on a cheapskate or deadbeat customer but which we didn't end up actually doing because it would have been totally unprofessional, whatever the legal minefield we might have been stepping into.
No, instead you look at the amount you're going to lose on the deal if you let them get away with it, how much it would cost you to sue to recover that money, whether that hassle is worth it...
And, most of the time, you just write it off and quietly spread the word through your local grapevine that they are not worth working for unless you get at least some of the money up front. Let THEIR reputation take the hit, not yours.
There were several tactics I used to use - including the "Early Settlement Discount". GOF above is entirely right about reputations - it's usually very effective to make someone's non - or late - payment known to the local Chamber of Commerce. In extremis I've used the "Small Claims Court" in the UK, which can be especially effective, particularly if you get to know the "Clerk of Court", who will help you with the paperwork. The other upside of the Court procedings is that they get reported in the local newspapers, further trashing the reputation of the non-payer!
If the evidence was solid enough I think I might have written it up without actually laying the blame on any particular individual, told him that that was what the software had found and there was the bill. If he wanted to challenge it in court it was up to him. He might then have been put in a position of trying to defend his staff. But then giving evidence in court used to be part of my job so it might have bothered me less than Bill. That past career tells me that it's not uncommon for businesses to be ripped off by employees and not be aware of it.
I used to know someone, who, in the 80s and 90s, would put a deliberate "bug" into his code that would activate a couple of months after his software was delivered and fail the software with a spurious error code. The company would obvioulsy call him after this happened, and if they had paid their bill for the software, he would make a free visit and "fix" the error quickly, apologising for the inconvenience.
If on the other hand they hadn't paid their bill, he would say he would only come out if they had a cheque ready for him.
Nowadays, it's just expected that software will stop working until an invoice is paid.
Reinitializes the database every month and verifies the backups. A service even. Well worth 150 quid pcm, no?
I imagine there are quite a few SMEs out there that have suffered significant data (and other) losses through dodgy accounting/business packages and/or trusting their data to the "cloud" who would have benefited from such a "personalized" service. :)
If regonomized* Bill were a complete bastard he would have fiddled it, so the firm's VAT was under reported (under remitted.)
That he didn't shows he likely didn't work on Horizon or for Fujitsu - a chap must have standards don't y'know.
* my inserted nom is really required I feel.
> Well worth 150 quid pcm, no?
Assuming 1990, that’s circa £360 today.
For a call out that’s barely half a day. I’ve had (bona fida) tradesmen (emergency plumber, tv aerial installer, electrician) charge over £500 for a couple of hours call out…
The VAT fiddle would have been a complete bastardised act, but also ran the risk of the accountant/auditors finding out and pointing a finger, so ruining a renumerative relationship.
I suspect Bill did not have any evidence the warehouse manager had a side fiddle. From working with small business owners, I suspect some of the stock loss was due to the owner. Hence why the owner didn’t see it that way and rather than accuse the warehouse manager, who probably knew the owner often took stock. Probably Bill’s big mistake was not to show the warehouse manager how to do stock adjustments…
My father had exactly this problem with a young and naive employee in his restaurant, but he knew from the till records that it was happening, who was doing it, and that is wasn't a one-off, so he fired her.
She made the mistake of telling her dad that she'd been fired for no reason, and he arrived demanding to know what was going on. My father had the embarrassing task of taking the guy to his office, telling him his daughter was a thief, and showing him the proof.
A very chastened father left to have words with his teenage daughter.
Hmm. As it happens my late dad once worked for a wholesaler that mistrusted the sales staff and watched them like hawks in case they nicked some of the stuff that they stocked and did regular stocktakes, after which they'd claim that the staff were robbing them (despite their hypervigilance). The staff weren't. But the bosses regularly helped themselves from the shelves .On the basis that "it's our stuff innit", but totally failed to account for the stuff they were lifting. Dad reckoned it was deliberate- for tax purposes, claiming against the wastage.
I remember that in the '90, a company working on the Calais <-> Dove sea link added a computer system to manage the on-board sales.
After the first trip, it was discovered that a bag of peanuts was not registered as being sold and was missing in the inventory (a sailor may have eaten it without bothering to pay).
On the return trip, the sailors had turned the computers' screens so they faced the walls, because "they are spying on us"...
(it is to be noted that at that time the pilfering on that company ships was so intense that it was said that all shops on the coast got their ware from them at a fairly reduced price, up to and including whole half beefs)
I learned early on that most customers are reasonable, honest people. I also learned that a minority... aren't.
One thing that a friend who sold hardware taught me early on was to add the line "Title and ownership transferred only upon receipt of final payment". He learned that the hard way when a customer went bankrupt. All of the customer's assets, including those my friend had sold to him, were liquidated at 15 cents on the dollar. Fortunately, it only resulted in something like a $300 loss, but it could have been a lot worse. From then on, by explicitly retaining ownership until payment was complete, hardware sold to later customers that went bankrupt could be recovered without going through the receiver or liquidator.
Software and licenced intellectual property are a little more difficult to repossess, however.
So, I always programmed a expiry date in any custom application I wrote for customers. It wasn't for blackmail purposes; after final payment was made, the date check was removed in the final build. But if the customer decided to renege on that payment, and/or pass along a copy to other users in violation of the contract terms (and a few have), they'd eventually see a popup that stated "The software licence for this software has expired. To extend or purchase a licence, please contact XYZ at 416-xxx-yyyy".
I had a few shady customers basically laugh in my face when I presented the final invoice and tell me to go fornicate myself, because they had the code deployed and "there isn't a damned thing you [sic] can do about it". And they weren't all fly by night operators, by any means. A couple were in the Fortune 100.
When dealing with a Schedule A bank with billions in assets, it's a lot easier to get them to pay their bills when not doing so affects their business.
I will always cherish the look on the face of the MegaBankCorp lawyer who was initially full of bluster when the private banking side of the bank had sicced him on me for "sabotaging" their customers with my logic bomb. The lawyer was in full bore "sue you into the ground" mode. But when I asked him to provide proof of payment, the bank - the bank - financial person at the meeting said "umm, actually, we haven't been able to find any cheques or money transfers, but we're sure we paid him", his face went white. The finance guy showed the first two payments via money transfer just fine, but the third one, the biggest one, had no record of being paid. Then he said "oh, we must have paid him in cash, and forgotten to ask for a receipt". He paused, and asked the lawyer if that was a problem. The lawyer just looked at him, and in an absolute deadpan voice said "big time".
And just like that the problem went away. When I invoiced them for my time with their lawyer, they paid without even challenging it. As a lawyer friend put it, "suing people for not doing work they haven't been paid for is rarely a successful argument in court"
Being in the right doesn't always help.
There's a certain well known business person that happens to be in the news a lot who (allegedly) has made a career of stiffing suppliers.
To paraphrase an old stock market axiom1, they can keep you tied up in court longer than you can stay in business.
___________________
1 "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." Author disputed.
Being in the right doesn't always help.
Oh, absolutely. One of the adages my lawyer friend (referenced above) mentions a lot is "when the law is against you, pound on the facts; when the facts are against you, pound on the law; when the facts and the law are both against you, pound on the table".
I'm well aware that a corporation with billions of assets can keep me tied up in court, pounding away on the table far longer than any disputed contract is worth, regardless of whether I am in the right or not. They know it, too. As the saying goes, "the process is the punishment".
That's why I deployed the logic guards in the first place. By doing so, it makes the time any time in court just as painful for the customer as for me, and likely a lot more painful.
I'm not going to sue them and spend six months in court for $20,000 and they know it. But if they refuse to pay, and the software stops working, it's going to cost them a lot more than $20,000 in lost sales and other business costs to if they try to take me to court for six months, too. That's especially true if they're going to try to argue that failure to pay in unrelated to the paid-for product being disabled. It's not a good argument.
As I said, for the great majority of customers I've dealt with, it's never an issue. But even good, reputable companies can have sleazebag employees who try to stiff suppliers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
