False declaration to use askMID database
Discussion
There is another thread where a poster admits to checking up on his neighbour's car insurance by using the free check of the askMID database.
To use the free check you have to tick a box to confirm that you have read and accepted the terms and conditions below:
If no penalty what's the point of askMID making users tick a box to say the car is theirs?
To use the free check you have to tick a box to confirm that you have read and accepted the terms and conditions below:
askMID said:
Legal conditions
You can only check insurance information if you live in the United Kingdom and:
the vehicle is registered, owned or insured by you or your employer; you're allowed to drive it; or,
you're an Insurance Broker or Agent acting on behalf of your client.
It's an offence to check a vehicle if the reasons above do not apply to you.
What is the comeback or penalty for the offence of using the free check to check a car when the above reasons do not apply?You can only check insurance information if you live in the United Kingdom and:
the vehicle is registered, owned or insured by you or your employer; you're allowed to drive it; or,
you're an Insurance Broker or Agent acting on behalf of your client.
It's an offence to check a vehicle if the reasons above do not apply to you.
If no penalty what's the point of askMID making users tick a box to say the car is theirs?
I use it all the time to ensure my vehicles have been put on the database correctly ( a few years ago an insurer removed the wrong bike from a multi bile policy I had and I caught it before riding un insured )
I suspect others use it to confirm vehicles the do not own are insured, I have when borrowing a van from a friend as I had any other vehicle policy but he was unsure if his policy had run out.
I suspect others use it to confirm vehicles the do not own are insured, I have when borrowing a van from a friend as I had any other vehicle policy but he was unsure if his policy had run out.
You know if you look a website for say beer, and it says you must be over 18 to continue, so you have to tick a box saying that you are?
Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
snuffy said:
You know if you look a website for say beer, and it says you must be over 18 to continue, so you have to tick a box saying that you are?
Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
Ah, but your IP address....Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
I only use the askMID via a VPN and wearing a balaclava with my laptop camera taped over.
Still not sure if I should have also hid under the duvet whilst clicking submi...wait, there's these blue flashing lights outside...
GasEngineer said:
To use the ....... you have to tick a box to confirm that you have read and accepted the terms and conditions below:
That line appears in almost every website you use which involves payment/subscription/age and also a lot that don't.Nobody ever reads the T&C's (small print!) but millions of people tick millions of boxes every day without any problems.
dundarach said:
They're protecting themselves against you being a serial killer, stalker, weirdo or peado I'm guessing.
I've never used it, but how would they track you down, I'm guessing you enter your credit card to pay for it??
Yes because all of those nefarious characters would love to know the insurance status of random vehicles on the roads. I've never used it, but how would they track you down, I'm guessing you enter your credit card to pay for it??
snuffy said:
You know if you look a website for say beer, and it says you must be over 18 to continue, so you have to tick a box saying that you are?
Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
Not at all likely - hence my question. Its the same level of nonsense as the MID website.
And, since you dont have to provide any information at all relating to you, how are they going to know who had just ticked the box?
They could log your IP address, and from that, your ISP is known. With that they could request from your ISP who had that IP address at the time in question. And then cross reference that name with the DVLA to see if the keeper's names matched.
But they would have to do all that for every single reg search that was performed.
How likely is that, do you think?
What's the point of saying you must own the car; the DVLA don't require that you own a car that you want to check is taxed.
GasEngineer said:
Not at all likely - hence my question.
What's the point of saying you must own the car; the DVLA don't require that you own a car that you want to check is taxed.
That is true. You can check the MOT and tax details on the DVLA's site, and as you say, and it does not say it needs to be your car. What's the point of saying you must own the car; the DVLA don't require that you own a car that you want to check is taxed.
And, what type of an "offence" is not an offence if you pay £10?
It is all a bit silly.
We have systems at work that require multiple levels of authentication before getting to a certain point in the system. At that point, you get a message that says something like "Proceeding further if you are not authorised to do so is a criminal offence. So stop now if that's you".
To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
snuffy said:
We have systems at work that require multiple levels of authentication before getting to a certain point in the system. At that point, you get a message that says something like "Proceeding further if you are not authorised to do so is a criminal offence. So stop now if that's you".
To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
As well as discouraging casual misuse, it makes it much easier to prosecute or discipline after the fact.To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
trashbat said:
snuffy said:
We have systems at work that require multiple levels of authentication before getting to a certain point in the system. At that point, you get a message that says something like "Proceeding further if you are not authorised to do so is a criminal offence. So stop now if that's you".
To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
As well as discouraging casual misuse, it makes it much easier to prosecute or discipline after the fact.To get there, if you are not authorised, means you have already hacked through several layers of security, so you have already broken several laws.
I have asked what the point of the message is, i.e. do people really think that will stop some hacker - "ooh, I better stop now, as I've been very naughty", but no one seems to be able to answer that question.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff