I love you, man
but all the happened to Clarkson was someone set up a charity DD. So, on that, he's got a point. You might pay DDs to lots of people, bills etc, but where is the advatage to anyone in setting up a fradulent gas bill payment?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 12:56, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

Free gas?

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:04, Reply)

you can only set up a DD for the address that the gas is supplied to.
and it'll need to match the bank address (if it doesn't you'd need permisson from the account holder)

So a fradulent DD off your account would only give you gas to your property .. which would seem a rather odd fraud.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:07, Reply)

Can you imagine if I set up £1/month to every registered charity in your name/details in the UK? Or something like that, if I could work out a way of automating it.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:10, Reply)

See below.
What for? there's nothing in it for you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:15, Reply)

Anyone who accepts DDs though, which are most subscription based company charges...
...will accept and take out the money, even if it does get refunded because it was fraudilent, it's still a fucking hassle. There is nothing to stop someone getting hold of that paper and, say, photocopying it and adding a '1' before whatever figure you put down.

Not just anyone can take out money, but that's not the only nafarious thing someone can do to your account.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:04, Reply)

Yeah, but most subscription companies provide a tangible service to an address
so, for instance, with your DD details I could set up a lovefilm subscription - but only to your address, because the addresses have to match. So it would be a fairly stupid fraud really. Charities are about the only thing where it could work, and fradulently contributing to a charity on your behalf is fairly odd. You still need the person'a address too (the journalist did it to Clarkson by getting his address from another source) .. although I apprectiate you give your address to the chugger wankers, too.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:10, Reply)

Exactly, the details on that paper are the exact details needed to set it up (otherwise they wouldn't have asked).
See the above example with signing you up to everything. Say they do sign me up to Lovefilm, a few 100 similar things would require me to call up all these companies to cancel them or push me way over into the realms of debt. And can you imagine what it would be like to phone up all the charities to cancel? The amount of OH WOE IS ME they'll give you.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:13, Reply)

Yes, but WHY would someone do it, it my point?
there is absolutely fucking nothing for them to gain by doing it (unless they have a vendetta against you) and an awful lot to lose (being prosecuted for fraud)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:15, Reply)

That's exactly why someone would do it, financial gain is not the only motive for people to do nafarious things.... sometimes it's for the lols, sometimes it's for revenge, sometimes it's just 'cus they can.
Yes, there is a lot to potentially lose, fraud and all that, which would stop a lot of people, but not all people.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:19, Reply)

sorry, had to work there
if you're worried about that than I suggest "don't be cunt to other people" is a better mantra than "never hand out you DD details"

You're being excessively paranoid though, mate, it's an awful lot of trouble for someone to go to in the name of "mildly inconveniencing" you.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 14:01, Reply)

All this talk of DDs is making me think about ladies' bosoms.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Wed 26 Oct 2011, 13:27, Reply)