‘Former TfL commissioner Sir Peter Hendy performs Ian Dury songs’
What A Waste?
‘Former TfL commissioner Sir Peter Hendy performs Ian Dury songs’
What A Waste?
A hacker who carried out attacks on a string of companies before selling customers’ data on the dark web has been jailed for more than 10 years.
Grant West, 26, carried out cyber-attacks on high street brands including Sainsbury’s, Asda, Uber, Argos and bookmakers Ladbrokes and Coral.
He obtained the email addresses of more than 160,000 people and sent them phishing scams masquerading as Just Eat to get their personal data.
West, who used the online identity “Courvoisier”, sold the information on the dark web, stashing his ill-gotten bitcoin profits in online caches.
He was sentenced to 10 years and eight months at Southwark crown court on Friday. The judge, Michael Gledhill, described West as “a one-man cybercrime wave” and said he had “secreted away” some of the £1.6m worth of cryptocurrency that is unaccounted for.
He said: “Regrettably, as this case has demonstrated, security of information held electronically is at best poor. When such inadequate security is confronted with a criminal of your skills and ambition it is totally unfit for purpose and worthless.
“This case should be a wake-up call to customers, companies and the computer industry to the very real threat of cybercrime.”
He added: “You have a deep and impressive knowledge of computers and if you had decided to use your abilities lawfully I have no doubt at all that you would have had a very successful career.
“Unfortunately you saw the potential of using your skills to make a great deal of money not lawfully but by crime, blatant crime and your crimes were highly sophisticated.”
West’s two-and-a-half-year scam came to an end in September last year when he was arrested in a first-class train carriage in the act of accessing the dark web. He had been returning from a trip to visit his girlfriend and co-defendant, Rachael Brooks, in north Wales.
West, who was living in a caravan park in Sheerness in Kent, used the stolen email addresses to send out messages posing as Just Eat with offers of cash rewards in exchange for customers filling out a survey.
Respondents were asked to confirm personal emails and supply extra details in order to obtain the reward, which were then harvested by West. The information, which included everything needed to make purchases online, was then advertised and sold to customers from his dark-web shop.
He built up huge caches of bitcoin and other cryptocurrency in online “wallets”. Police also found £25,000 in cash and a stash of cannabis when they raided his home last year.
The prosecution estimated that the total loss to customers and businesses was more than £1m.
A total of £84,000 was fraudulently taken from compromised accounts held at Barclays, costing the bank more than £300,000 to remedy. British Airways also suffered a £400,000 loss after Avios accounts were targeted.
Just Eat said no financial information was obtained in West’s fraud, but estimated the cost of combating the scam at more than £200,000.
Brooks, of Denbigh, north Wales, was previously given a community order after she admitted using the details of two of West’s victims to buy herself a bikini online.
West previously admitted a string of charges including conspiracy to defraud, unauthorised modification of computer material, possession and supply of cannabis, possessing criminal property and money laundering.
He has a number of previous convictions, including drug offences and other frauds.
Anna Mackenzie, defending, said West has been a cannabis user since the age of 14 and suffered from low self-esteem, lack of confidence, anxiety and depression.
“He has expressed remorse and shame and acknowledges his irresponsibility, selfishness, greed and hunger to succeed,” she said. “He wishes to offer apologies to the victims and businesses affected by his actions.”
Source : The Guardian.
Almost one in five Met Police officers have secondary business interests, figures obtained FOI request.
Is this the reason why Taxi drivers sitting on Kings Cross rank are constantly being harassed by Met Police officers?
"Hundreds of London police officers are moonlighting as minicab and private-hire drivers", said the Evening Standard. Perhaps someone should point out to Gideon Jeffrey Osbourne, editor of the Standard, that Minicabs and private-hire drivers are one and the same!
The article goes on to say:
More than 300 Metropolitan police officers have declared business interests as drivers or chauffeurs, figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show.
In total, 5,395 serving Met police officers — almost one in five — declared business interests with the force.
Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Ken Marsh said many of the business interests were likely to relate to consultancy work or property. But he added: “Our job is a professional job and it clearly shows you we aren’t paid a professional salary. You have to ask the question, why does someone need a second job when they’re a police officer? It’s not right at all.”
Police officers declaring business interests included chief superintendents — one of the highest ranks.
But more than 70 per cent of officers with declared business interests were police constables, the lowest rank. A Police Federation spokeswoman added: “The sad reality is that some police officers are having to find additional means to make ends meet. Given the choice, officers would rather not take on a second job, but some unfortunately have no alternative.”
Scotland Yard allows officers to hold second jobs down
The Met police said in a statement that secondary employment or business interests are permitted “providing it is compatible with being a member of the police service”.
It added: “An officer/staff’s role in the Met will always be considered as a priority over any business interest.
“The police service, the regulations and procedures that govern external business interests recognise that there is a need to ensure that where officers/staff have secondary employment or business interests that these are compatible with their role and do not create any conflict of interest.”
The figures come after a warning that key workers including police officers were being priced out of London. Only eight per cent of homes in the capital can be afforded by an officer on an average salary of £44,824, according to research by website reallymoving.com.
One former Met officer, Claire Hearn, said she left the force after previously juggling her duties with a tea party business.
“It was never a problem,” she said. “But it’s not the sort of job you can do without giving 100 per cent. As the business grew, I realised the passion was with that really.
“It’s not something that the Met stop you doing — they decide whether it’s something suitable you can do alongside the police.”
Taxi Leaks Extra bit :
I suppose it's a bit like the Standards editor (GGO) moonlighting for Uber investor BlackRock. With reposts of a £600,000 salary for one day a week, you'd think he wouldn't need a second full time job.
Gideon Jeffrey Osbourne, just one of the Tory Chumoxcray who leaned on Boris Johnson, who in turn, leaned on Transport for London to ..."Go easy on Uber".
The Court of Appeal decided yesterday, TfLs requirement on Private Hire operators to have a voice contact capability for customers is lawful.
From 1st October all Private Hire Operators must be contactable by Phone.
TfL brought in the requirement back in 2016 to make it easier for passengers to complain or contact the operator in the event of an emergency.
Hold on a minute didn’t TfL’s Leon Daniels go before a GLA transport committee and say that Uber actually provided the customers with a voice/phone contact ?
Didn’t Leon Daniels give out the phone number in front of a packed gallery of irate taxi drivers?
Was TfL’s Leon Daniels lying to the GLA transport committee?
After the regulation was bought in, Uber took TfL to court and won the case to have the requirement removed.
Yesterday, the appeal by Transport for London was heard in the Court of Appeal and the original High Court judgement was overturned.
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Mitting was wrong to rely on the distinction between an emergency requirement and the voice contact facility, which was not raised in the consultation or suggested as a less burdensome alternative by ULL.
It accepted TfL's evidence introduced on the appeal that an emergency requirement would not be practicable, would not achieve the same benefits, and would not necessarily be less burdensome. The Court of Appeal also held that, because the emergency requirement would not achieve the same benefits as the voice contact requirement (speed of response and customer comfort outside emergency situations), it was not a less burdensome alternative.
It rejected ULL's arguments that the benefits outside of emergency situations were negligible.”
Hold on a minute!
Haven’t we been shown evidence by journalist Tim Fenton that the Uber app is actually serviced by Uber BV and not Uber LL?
Haven't we been shown evidence that TfL have known about this since 2014, but said nothing and failed to stop the illegal operation ?
Does this mean that Uber BV can carry on disregarding any or all of TfL’s regulations?
Again, Uber can appeal this JR decision, but it’s highly unlikely...as after stating publicly they are making efforts to conform to regulation and move forward, the last thing they want to do is make enemies in the justice system with their current licence appeal is running.
Oh what a tangled web they weave....etc.
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :