Doyenne of reactionaries and climate change sceptics, Jeremy Clarkson, decided to belittle the concerns of civil libertarians last year. Protesting at the clamour over the government’s loss of a HMRC CD of people’s personal details, he published his Barclay’s bank account details in the Sunday Times, asserting that readers would be able to do nothing but put money in.
Unfortunately, he forgot about direct debits. Mr. Clarkson has unknowingly become a £500-a-month donor to Diabetes UK. I hope he keeps it going.
In typically measured style, he now says:
Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the discs and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy.
Should we begin a petition campaign asking Mr. C to make a monthly donation to Liberty or No2ID after his experience?
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
A website on Alec Guinness's two BBC series as George Smiley
Back to reality on datacentres
Peter Martin
Gerard
David Raw
George Thomas
10 Comments
But the problem in this case, surely, is not “the idiots who lost the discs” – in JC’s case, it is that the banking system allows you to make withdrawals from other people’s bank accounts using only publically available information.
IIRC correctly when a new Direct Debit is set up the beneficiary has to write to the customer at least 14 days before the new payment is taken confirming the details so you shouldn’t just find out that a Direct Debit was set up when the money gets taken.
He would also be entitled to have the money taken refunded – assuming the Direct Debit guarantee doesn’t have an exclusion for being a muppet 🙂
And the Data Protection Act shouldn’t be a bar to investigating a pretty clear case of fraud
Hywel, I’d like to know how it was done too, and am a bit dubious about Barclays’ security if the steps you outline weren’t followed.
I /do/ find it a bit alarming that people are calling Clarkson stupid for publishing information which was already public, and crowing that he’s lost money because of it. Yes, the man’s public persona is anathema to most people who post here (although I personally must confess to finding him terribly amusing)
… but the site et the rest of my post. D’Oh!
… but there seems to be a bit of missing the target when we all point and laugh at a man who has lost money, rather than the bank who has allowed it to be lost.
If you leave the ignition keys in your car, and someone drives it away, they’re still guilty of theft.
The insurance company may argue that you were careless and suggest you have forfeited any right to compensation but a crime has still been committed.
The joker who set up the direct debit is guilty of fraud, and Barclays is guilty of neglecting a duty of care.
“If you leave the ignition keys in your car, and someone drives it away, they’re still guilty of theft.”
Yep. And you’re still guilty of being stupid, or at best foolish. I find it amazing that people can’t draw a distinction.
James, I’m not saying it was the most self-preservatory act that Clarkson has ever done; I just think it’s a bit off for everyone to be pointing and laughing at HIM for being stupid, rather than Barclays for (presumably) letting someone set up a direct debit without the proper signature etc.
“Clarkson is a tit” is not news.
“Barclays’ security is so crap that even an eminent celebrity’s bank account can be easily breached” IS news, and worrying news at that.
The issue is with the “paperless” direct debits which you can perform online without a signature. See the Red Cross for how easy it is.
Clarkson wasn’t stupid, but it brings up an important issue around identity.
He was right that, if everything works as it should, giving someone you account number, sort code and address should not be a security problem. On the continent it’s been standard for years and most businesses provide the info on request for BACS transfers.
If you do give out your account details, you’ve done nothing wrong and shouldn’t find yourself out of pocket (though there is the added hassle of sorting out problems).
Where Clarkson was wrong is in not realising that the important thing about a security system is not how it works, but how it breaks: what happens when something goes wrong or someone deliberately tries to break it.
In the case of the missing HMRC CDs, the more information a criminal has about someone, the easier it is to break the security system. Even if the information on the CD alone weren’t enough, it would make it much easier for a criminal to find out the extra information they needed and use that to steal serious money.
While I would happily accept that Clarkson being hoist on his own petard isn’t news, merely funny, I have to say that banks being crap isn’t news either. That’s why I think the people who are so quick to defend him miss the point.