> You do your Tax online?? (amazed!)

RG> If something can be done online then that's the way I do it.
RG> Only yesterday I re-registered my car online.

 My problem with "online" is the lack of comeback, when things go
wrong. I know that the computer gives you a receipt number, but what
good is that when things *have* gone wrong? I'll concede that things
rarely go wrong, but "rarely" worried the shit out of me. People are
rarely audited by the Tax Office (once in 50 years on average), so why
pay taxes at all?

> Do you *want* your private details to leak?

RG> Firstly I only send 'sensitive' information (CC details, tax
RG> records, etc) if the link is encrypted. Secondly, I thik
RG> privacy is grossly overrated. I have nothing to hide. I someone
RG> wants to know our earnings for the last financial year I'm more
RG> than happy to tell them (as long as they have good reason).

 My problem with electronic information is that it leaks to those you
*don't* want to give access (like a mailing list).

 For instance... Centrelink shares data with the Tax Office. The
privacy laws had to me amended to allow this, and the link is one-way.
In other words, Centrelink cannot access my tax records, but they can
*send* their records to the tax office for cross-checking by computer.

 I registered for unemployement last year and filled out the usual
shit (income, assets). There was no money in it for me, but it allowed
me access to their so-called (and utterly fucking useless) job
network. I assume they sent that data to the tax office and it checked
okay from their end (I assume).

 Then I got a bill from the Tax Office for $1,000 from two years
back. I'd accidentally put interest earnings from one year into the
next year. So I paid that year, and then claimed a refund from the
next year and ended up with a profit of $20 overall. (No one ever
accused a bureaucrat of intelligence)

 To me, that was an incredible coincidence, that the tax office
should query the very numbers that I had given to Centrelink. I am
totally sure that the link was not one-way, that the Tax Office broke
the law by using the Centrelink data... but what can I do? How could I
possibly prove it, and what would I gain anyway? It's called Catch 22.

 The answer is *never* give any more information than you have to,
and never give the same information twice. For instance, Lawrence is a
great name, I can spell it twenty different ways, and the postman
knows where I live so I can change the address, too - 5, 15, 50, 55,
150, 155... it's all the same address to the postman and the Street
name spells a few ways too, not to mention the postcode or Concorde
with an "e".

RG> My name, address, phone number is online (yellow pages, white
RG> pages, our own website, etc). My birth and marriage details are
RG> all on public record (accessable online). 

 They're the ones you can't avoid, or need to avoid, plus the
electoral rolls... not a lot of useful information there.

RG> I use "Flybuys" wherever I can, which means people can track
RG> what I buy, and how often, and if that isn't enough, if anyone
RG> really want to know, I wear blue underwear.

 They'd know a lot more about you than that, Rod...

RG> Oh, we also ACCEPT online credit card payments for the services
RG> we offer.

> Of course. Why not? What have you got to lose? Get the money
> first, then send the stuff. I'm talking about it from the
> consumer's point of view... not the seller's.

RG> So was I.

RG> Seriously, for the CONSUMER there is NO RISK in using credit
RG> cards online (or via the phone). For the SELLER (the person
RG> accepting CC payments) the risks are MASSIVE. If there is ever
RG> a dispute regarding CC transactions the Banks ALWAYS side with
RG> the consumer. The seller is left holding the bag. This has
RG> happened to us.

 Are you telling me you send the stuff before the transaction clears?
But there are large risks to the consumer when the "company" he is
dealing with are crooks. Safety systems work really well for honest
people and *large* companies.

RG> I called the local police to ask what I could do in regards to
RG> filing charges for either mail order or credit card fraud, and
RG> was told that they 'weren't interested' becuase the amount was
RG> so low (About $50 total). My only option was to go through the
RG> small claims court, which would cost me another $75 (to recover
RG> $50).

 Why are you arguing with me? That's what *I* am saying. Small users
of credit can get screwed. And you didn't allow anythign for the time
and angst you wasted, either. You got screwed for a lot more than
fifty-bucks. How much would you charge for the hassle - $500? *That's*
what you got screwed for.

 I'm pleased that you think of yourself as a major player in the
seller department, but in reality if you were Coles Myer, the bank
would take the loss and smile.

 And it works all the way up to the top. I worked for a major 
importer ($10-million a year) dealing with Coles Myer, and any returns
were simply passed back. Most had no fault, and they never incuded the
remote control or the box. He had to buy extra remotes (and boxes)
from China so he could remainder roughly 5% of his delivery. The real
fault rate was nearer 1%.

 It's the way business is done, and being on the bottom as an
ordinary consumer you are an idiot if you do not play the game
defensively... never pay in advance, no credit details, give no extra
information, get a receipt in writing.

RG> The point however is that if I didn't manage to put the shits
RG> up this kid we would have been out of pocket in spite of having
RG> evidence that the goods ordered were delivered to the address
RG> of the cardholder.

 You're not telling me anything I don't know. The law is utterly
useless, and worse than useless if you are dealing with a big player
like a bank or Coles Myer where "fair" does not apply.

 The point is... they cut their losses over $50 by shafting you and
showed maybe $45 profit. You spent $500 and too much hassle chasing a
kid and lost $450. My own attitude is to avoid the hassle in the first
place... and yet you think I'm wrong. I honestly don't understand your
position.

RG> The Cardholder/consumer carrys no risk at all. The Merchant is
RG> the one taking ALL the risks.

 Not true. How many people have had their accounts cleaned out
($5,000) and thebank says, "Sorry, you must have given them your PIN."
That's standard bank practice, and *please* don't tell me you can take
the bank to court and show a profit.

> No... you *actually* get a receipt, with a signature on it, a
> piece of paper that will stand up in court if it comes to that.

RG> You also get a reciept with most online banking transactions
RG> too. The signature of some employee that has recently been
RG> fired or left isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 Yes, it is. The only exception I know is where the teller is not an
officer of the bank. The bank itself exists as an entity, in law.

RG> The online reciepts all have a unique number that can easily be
RG> traced/referenced, so onless some bank employee has managed to
RG> modify the computer records these are actually more of a 'legal
RG> document' than a slip of paper that has had something scribbled
RG> on it by anyone.

 My problem is a "computer error." I'm not saying that msot online
transactions are insecure; just that when something *does* go wrong
you have no comeback short of a $5,000 court case. What if the
computer issues 10,000 reciepts all with the same reference. They
*are* running Windows, aren't they?

> Any loss is theirs.. and in any case, banks don't use the
> Internet as such.

RG> You need to keep up with the times Bob. What you say is/was
RG> true 5-10 years ago, but these days, the Westpac Bank (and
RG> probably many others) do use the regular Internet links just
RG> like the rest of us.

 Then what's the big satellite dishes on the roof? Watching Sky, are
they? Unless things have changed drastically in the last year or so,
there is a *separate* banking net...and it really fucked up a
bank-robber story I'd written.

RG> I started using online banking way back when they had their own
RG> dialin lines. I moved over to internet banking as soon as it
RG> became available (8-10years ago?). During all that time I've
RG> not once had any problem. That isn't to say that I will NEVER
RG> have a problem, but it hasn't happened yet

 That's the whole point! You don't just bank for 10 years, you bank
for a lifetime. If a wage payment goes missing, then your employer is
responsible; it's his battle with the bank (that he'll probably lose
and end up having to pay you twice), but what chance does an
individual have?

 Computers fuck up. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics in
action. I got booked for speeding the other day (fucking cameras).
Since then, I've had three the same. Thank God! they've all got the
same reference number, but I still expect to get four FINAL NOTICE
warnings, and then maybe they'll cancel my licence and rego, and a big
Islander with tattoos will turn up at the front door when the RTA
farms out the "debt" for collection.

RG> if/when it DOES happen I am pretty confident I'd have a better
RG> chance of having things put right than I would if I had some
RG> hand written deposit/payment slip with a signature that is
RG> indistinqushable from a kidies scribble, and MAYBE a smudged
RG> stamp of dubious authenticity to denote the bank where the
RG> transaction was made.

 You don't understand bank books and written receipts, do you? They
are *legal* documents, and inarguable as evidence.

> How do you get cash, then? Do you have a little printer on the
> side of your box, or what?

RG> Please re-read my first paragraph.

 If you can't bebotehred writing, I certainly can't be bothered
reading.

Regards,
Bob


 



  

    


          

--- BQWK Alpha 0.5