Free Apple iPhone 4 as seen in Channel 5

[shahidukok]

[wali]

Hi i have just looked at that website but i could not see any free offers you mentioned in your post.can u help me in that?
thanks

[wali]

There is not a single free offers!

[shahidukok]

[shahidukok]

There is not a single free offers!

Hi . I have logged in on my account and I can see that you have registered in Pakistan. The offers I mentioned was the UK offers . This websites operates internationally ( does not accept any new customers from India and Philippines due to the abuse of referrals) and the offers you get will be regional apparently. Watch out for any cheap offers. You can refer anyone internationally once you complete  one of your offers. Remember this trick have been sold in ebay before it got exposed in Channel 5

[wali]

Hi . I have logged in on my account and I can see that you have registered in Pakistan. The offers I mentioned was the UK offers . This websites operates internationally ( does not accept any new customers from India and Philippines due to the abuse of referrals) and the offers you get will be regional apparently. Watch out for any cheap offers. You can refer anyone internationally once you complete  one of your offers. Remember this trick have been sold in ebay before it got exposed in Channel 5

i have registered for uk not pakistan.

[shahidukok]

i have registered for uk not pakistan.

i am not sure about that then. on my account , it says you are registerd in pakistan right after your name Waqas Ali

[mobaholic]

I have received some reports about this thread, and as shahidukok will be aware of this, and ethical questions about 'referrals' are involved, I thought I should make a post to air the subject on the forum.

Firstly, I have not formulated a policy about 'referrals', and as they are not prohibited in our forum rules, shahidukok has not broken any rules, and so I will not remove anything at present.

Secondly, although I should have preferred it if shahidukok had shown the courtesy of consulting me about his intended OP, I would have allowed it had he done so - with the proviso that he was totally open about its referral component.  In my view this is patently clear from his OP, and nobody would have been deceived, so again I can see no great objection personally.

However, It has been put to me that there are ethical questions involved, and as it may be my failing that this issue has not been thought through thoroughly, I will invite members to send me their suggestions as to whether we should have a more concrete set of principles by which to judge such matters as they arise in future.

In general, I think that PMs would be preferable to off topic posts here, but anyone with strong feeling may make a post should they wish.  ( Just be aware that strong feelings one way may be countered by opposite opinions from others. )

mh.

[andy]

Firstly, I have not formulated a policy about 'referrals', and as they are not prohibited in our forum rules, shahidukok has not broken any rules, and so I will not remove anything at present.

Secondly, although I should have preferred it if shahidukok had shown the courtesy of consulting me about his intended OP, I would have allowed it had he done so - with the proviso that he was totally open about its referral component.
[...]

However, It has been put to me that there are ethical questions involved, ...

I think there's another point about courtesy: starting an argument with someone, and in the course of that giving out personal information that should be private, isn't the sort of thing that will endear people.

As for the overall question of whether to have referrals or not, well fine in certain types of case, but as this particular one is less distance away from what look more like pyramid schemes or outright cons on iPhones and so on, and also as it has now become obvious that it has certain privacy policy issues, and is maybe designed for people who also want to garner and perhaps resell information themselves as well as facilitate its sale by others, I'm not going to object in private, but here.

I recommend that anyone tempted to join up make sure they know just what kind of marketing lists their details are going to be resold to. Phone calls 5 times a week from some woman who goes on about the next guaranteed £23,000 cheque in the post might be a bit irritating

And the thread title is misleading. This is not recommended by Channel 5, or certainly not by the BBC as part of the OP misleadingly pretends to suggest.

And I'm not surprised that as that sort of deception is endemic by people who make a habit of spamming pyramid schemes, that some of the people who have contacted mobaholic may have seen this in pretty similar light

[shahidukok]

I think there's another point about courtesy: starting an argument with someone, and in the course of that giving out personal information that should be private, isn't the sort of thing that will endear people.

As for the overall question of whether to have referrals or not, well fine in certain types of case, but as this particular one is less distance away from what look more like pyramid schemes or outright cons on iPhones and so on, and also as it has now become obvious that it has certain privacy policy issues, and is maybe designed for people who also want to garner and perhaps resell information themselves as well as facilitate its sale by others, I'm not going to object in private, but here.

I recommend that anyone tempted to join up make sure they know just what kind of marketing lists their details are going to be resold to. Phone calls 5 times a week from some woman who goes on about the next guaranteed £23,000 cheque in the post might be a bit irritating

And the thread title is misleading. This is not recommended by Channel 5, or certainly not by the BBC as part of the OP misleadingly pretends to suggest.

And I'm not surprised that as that sort of deception is endemic by people who make a habit of spamming pyramid schemes, that some of the people who have contacted mobaholic may have seen this in pretty similar light

Not trying to make an argument with andy.

Firstly you do not need to submit any phone number while registering and no one is gonna assume your number and dial 5 times a day.Moreover, they have their own Privacy policy and Terms & Conditions clearly mentioned on the website which is accessible before you register.

Secondly no one is forcing anyone to make advantage of this offer and I have clearly mentioned that I am seeking referrals. The website is run by a registered company who is also registered under data protection Act 1998 (registration number 922 2128 60)

Thirdly, I have seen myself about this website in The Gadget Show in Channel 5 (I have given the youtube link as well in the post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIPB6Zk8imc ).And just a 5 minute of googling will give you the clear evidences about featuring this in BBC as well.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CGuF3GXsI0   
It wouldnt take a week just click and watch what is already given in the post before making any comment about something already mentioned here

And last but not least , I have joined on this website a few weeks ago and managed to get an iPod 8GB for 10 referrals without getting any marketing calls or emails. I admit that not all free offers are available to all customers such as the credit card application is possible only if you got a good credit history.What I have done is that I talked with my friends and asked them to register under my referrals. They completed  The World Winner game website offer which is the cheapest one ($5=£3.20) and I paid them the money as well.that means for 10 referrals , I spent around £75 only.At least I made sure that what they claim is true before I posted this here.

This websites works same like a cashback websites. Here the only difference is that you will get paid (you can redeem the referrals for money as well) when your friends complete any offers or purchases.

[shahidukok]

I have received some reports about this thread, and as shahidukok will be aware of this, and ethical questions about 'referrals' are involved, I thought I should make a post to air the subject on the forum.

Firstly, I have not formulated a policy about 'referrals', and as they are not prohibited in our forum rules, shahidukok has not broken any rules, and so I will not remove anything at present.

Secondly, although I should have preferred it if shahidukok had shown the courtesy of consulting me about his intended OP, I would have allowed it had he done so - with the proviso that he was totally open about its referral component.  In my view this is patently clear from his OP, and nobody would have been deceived, so again I can see no great objection personally.

However, It has been put to me that there are ethical questions involved, and as it may be my failing that this issue has not been thought through thoroughly, I will invite members to send me their suggestions as to whether we should have a more concrete set of principles by which to judge such matters as they arise in future.

In general, I think that PMs would be preferable to off topic posts here, but anyone with strong feeling may make a post should they wish.  ( Just be aware that strong feelings one way may be countered by opposite opinions from others. )

mh.

I really thought to consult with any of the moderators before making this post. However, upon going through the forum , I could not find any evidence that I am doing something against the policies of this forum and so there is no point in apologizing.Even so, I regret for not letting you know before I post this here

[andy]

Moreover, they have their own Privacy policy and Terms & Conditions
[...]

And just a 5 minute of googling will give you the clear evidences about featuring this in BBC as well.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CGuF3GXsI0   
It wouldnt take a week just click and watch what is already given in the post before making any comment about something already mentioned here

What sort of privacy policy is it that gives you the personal details of the people signing up?

And what sort of privacy breach is it for you to name one of those persons in public?

As for the TV, perhaps I'm not quite as lazy as you suggest

The website featured in the Newsnight programme does not exist at the moment, and nor does its sister website under which it was rebranded about 3 years ago; furthermore the Recent News section of the parent company website has not been updatedfor 2 years.

So the 'as seen on TV' suggestion may well be pure bullshit, an overt lie. Whatever your scheme is, it is unlikely to be that one.

And such practice, passing off one thing as another, that is deception. Such crap doesn't deserve a place here.

[andy]

p.s. slightly more time on Google discovers that:

 the parent company of the operation identified by Newsnight was accused by the Attorney General's office in New York of what was then termed the greatest breach of privacy law ever discovered by US law enforcement, selling email addresses to 3 firms who then sent hundreds of millions of emails on behalf of their customers.

It was also alleged that one of the email companies, which paid and settled the case, asked for and obtained changes in the other party's published privacy policy, and as soon as that happened the email addresses were then traded.

The firm countered that it didn't sell the email addresses, but had a service agreement with those companies to send the emails on its own behalf, though these were of course recommending products with which it had deals.

I don't know if the case continued to resolution, and that isn't actually relevant.

What is relevant is what is the real purpose of similar such operations and websites, and as well as the product sign-up referrals, do they forward contact details to other parties, whatever the actual contractual terms.

off-topic: that Attorney General had his own change of circumstance, becoming state Governor, but then resigning due to prostitution scandal. Now he's a political commentator, and joint presenter of a talk show on CNN

[shahidukok]

What sort of privacy policy is it that gives you the personal details of the people signing up?

And what sort of privacy breach is it for you to name one of those persons in public?

As for the TV, perhaps I'm not quite as lazy as you suggest

The website featured in the Newsnight programme does not exist at the moment, and nor does its sister website under which it was rebranded about 3 years ago; furthermore the Recent News section of the parent company website has not been updatedfor 2 years.

So the 'as seen on TV' suggestion may well be pure bullshit, an overt lie. Whatever your scheme is, it is unlikely to be that one.

And such practice, passing off one thing as another, that is deception. Such crap doesn't deserve a place here.

As I told you I do not need you to sign up neither did I forced anyone to sign. Its entirely up to their control whether to sign up or not.I am not running that website and I am just referring .
It is not a privacy breach in any type to mention his name. Coz his name has already mentioned by himself on his phone forum profile.Any fonforum user can see that clearly on his profile. There are moderators who are  authorized to take action if I breached any privacy policy. I would answer when that person itself or any moderators asks me and not to someone who just shows off..
Then regarding as seen on TV. Why did you just mentioned about BBC news night? didnt you see that Channel 5's gadjet show clip? I think you were busy googling when that guy clearly mentioned that freebiejeebies is a legitimate website. They have even apologized for mentioning them as a SCAM (just like you did) in the previous episode. But they are wise , they found out what is the truth rather than being so narrow minded like someone is doing here.

[shahidukok]

p.s. slightly more time on Google discovers that:

 the parent company of the operation identified by Newsnight was accused by the Attorney General's office in New York of what was then termed the greatest breach of privacy law ever discovered by US law enforcement, selling email addresses to 3 firms who then sent hundreds of millions of emails on behalf of their customers.

It was also alleged that one of the email companies, which paid and settled the case, asked for and obtained changes in the other party's published privacy policy, and as soon as that happened the email addresses were then traded.

The firm countered that it didn't sell the email addresses, but had a service agreement with those companies to send the emails on its own behalf, though these were of course recommending products with which it had deals.

I don't know if the case continued to resolution, and that isn't actually relevant.

What is relevant is what is the real purpose of similar such operations and websites, and as well as the product sign-up referrals, do they forward contact details to other parties, whatever the actual contractual terms.

off-topic: that Attorney General had his own change of circumstance, becoming state Governor, but then resigning due to prostitution scandal. Now he's a political commentator, and joint presenter of a talk show on CNN

That company mentioned in newsnight was actually running a website by the intention of getting referrals for their own freebiejeebies account. Any one clicks on their website was linked to the referral link of their freebiejeebies referral link and they managed to get hundreds of referrals. It was them who broken the privacy law but the actual freebiejeebies website still runs without any legal issue.
There are 100s of such SCAMS other cyber crimes happening these days.But you cant just assume that all of them are like that. Either you stop putting yourself in the darkness just by closing your eyes, or prove yourself the website that I mentioned here (not any parent or grand parent companies) is a SCAM or doing any privacy breach. Then I would be more than happy to remove this post and apologize to any victims who have had any problem because of my OP.
There is no point in asking me  questions which your are supposed to ask them directly if you are concerned.