Bike Register anyone?

[Dirk]

I'm not the one claiming that they are a bunch of dodgy ne'er do wells. Surely the onus is on the person making those claims to substantiate them?

 

[mjr]

So they are not, as you described them - "snake oil salesmen".

That's not exactly what I wrote, so I don't know why you put it in ""s, but if you define "snake oil salesmen" as outright fraudsters then no, they're sellers of snake oil instead, but that's really getting rather pedantic.

I'm not the one claiming that they are a bunch of dodgy ne'er do wells. Surely the onus is on the person making those claims to substantiate them?

Who other than you has ever called them "a bunch of dodgy ne'er do wells"?

Anyway, all I'm asking is that you substantiate this claim:

a reputable site such as Bike Register

Also, the bit of the ASA ruling not quoted earlier:

We acknowledged that all 45 geographic police forces in the UK held accounts with BikeRegister, and that, wherever a bike was stolen, it would be possible for the relevant force to trace the owner if the bike was registered with BikeRegister.

We understood that the complainant had had their bicycle stolen in a different neighbourhood of London from where they lived, and had been told by the local police station that they did not use BikeRegister. However, we considered that consumers were likely to understand that it would not necessarily be the case that an account was held by police in every local neighbourhood.

We therefore concluded that the claim that BikeRegister was used by every police force had been substantiated.

So all that claim "used by every UK police force" means is that someone somewhere in the force has an account - not that it can actually be used by the officers recovering - doesn't anyone think that's dodgy behaviour?

They say that they'll track their users to "understand the interests and buying behaviour" and use their details for "other functions" but neither is explicitly mentioned on the registration forms on the website or the materials handed out at police cycle security events. Instead you have to go Menu → Information → Privacy Policy to discover this. Doesn't anyone think that's dodgy behaviour, not making it clear what people are signing up to? Isn't it dodgy when it's at a police event and the materials are made to look like police ones, with the checkerboard pattern? I suspect many people might not realise that they've given their info to a private company until later.

And now I've looked at it, how about the site setting Google Analytics cookies, but the cookie policy claiming that they are cookies for bikeregister.com and not mentioning Google? Instead, to find out about Google cookies, you have to look in the Privacy Policy not the Cookie Policy. That sort of stunt is less severe than capturing personal data and not rare but still indicative of dodgy behaviour IMO.

 

[Dirk]

That's not exactly what I wrote, so I don't know why you put it in ""s, but if you define "snake oil salesmen" as outright fraudsters then no, they're sellers of snake oil instead, but that's really getting rather pedantic.


Who other than you has ever called them "a bunch of dodgy ne'er do wells"?

Anyway, all I'm asking is that you substantiate this claim:


Also, the bit of the ASA ruling not quoted earlier:

So all that claim "used by every UK police force" means is that someone somewhere in the force has an account - not that it can actually be used by the officers recovering - doesn't anyone think that's dodgy behaviour?

They say that they'll track their users to "understand the interests and buying behaviour" and use their details for "other functions" but neither is explicitly mentioned on the registration forms on the website or the materials handed out at police cycle security events. Instead you have to go Menu → Information → Privacy Policy to discover this. Doesn't anyone think that's dodgy behaviour, not making it clear what people are signing up to? Isn't it dodgy when it's at a police event and the materials are made to look like police ones, with the checkerboard pattern? I suspect many people might not realise that they've given their info to a private company until later.

And now I've looked at it, how about the site setting Google Analytics cookies, but the cookie policy claiming that they are cookies for bikeregister.com and not mentioning Google? Instead, to find out about Google cookies, you have to look in the Privacy Policy not the Cookie Policy. That sort of stunt is less severe than capturing personal data and not rare but still indicative of dodgy behaviour IMO.

OK - I really can't be arsed with this any more.
You win the internet.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

If the authorities were serious about this, all they have to do is require every sale of a NEW bike sold in the UK to be recorded on an official database (PNC/DVLA etc) including details of the frame number and legal owner. You can't buy a TV set without giving your details, so it goes on the TV license database, and it would be just as easy to require all manufacturers/retailers to capture the customer's identity so the owner and the bike could be linked. Given that the most valuable bikes are generally the newest ones (and not the £20 secondhand station hacks used by many commuters), bike theft would instantly become more risky and less profitable.

 

[mjr]

OK - I really can't be arsed with this any more.
You win the internet.

So we get a rare sighting of the lesser-spotted double-flounce, rather than actually try to substantiate the claim that the website of "I can't believe it's not imitating the police" bikeregister is reputable.

 

[Dirk]

So we get a rare sighting of the lesser-spotted double-flounce, rather than actually try to substantiate the claim that the website of "I can't believe it's not imitating the police" bikeregister is reputable.

I don't need to substantiate anything. I, and many others, accept that they are a reputable site.
You are the one saying otherwise. It's up to you to provide evidence to back up your case.
That's generally the way these things work.

 

[fixedfixer]

I use a register and the bikes have an electronic tag thing in the frame. I used my work address and details- never cycle to work these days

 

[mjr]

I don't need to substantiate anything. I, and many others, accept that they are a reputable site.
You are the one saying otherwise. It's up to you to provide evidence to back up your case.
That's generally the way these things work.

Generally the person making the claim should provide evidence to back it up. The claims were that bike register is somehow reputable and better than doing nothing. Now, additionally, you're claiming that many others also consider it reputable.

I've been quite clear that I merely don't see the point or see any reason why bike register won't be another burglar's shopping list like immobilise was. Putting an address where the bike never is seems like a good idea but it still gives them your personal details.

 

[Dirk]

Now, additionally, you're claiming that many others also consider it reputable.

That's probably because there are many thousands of registered users and the Police endorse the scheme.

 

[mjr]

That's probably because there are many thousands of registered users and the Police endorse the scheme.

Maybe they just thought that it must be better than doing nothing, possibly incorrectly, or they were registered before realising the full horror.

The police still endorse immobilise despite their data loss. It's not clear how closely the police are checking security on the IT services they endorse. The police are not IT experts.

 

[Dirk]

Maybe they just thought that it must be better than doing nothing, possibly incorrectly, or they were registered before realising the full horror.

OMG what have they done?!

 

[Slick]

It's not so absurd.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...150-million-myfitnesspal-accounts-were-hacked

 

[mjr]

It's not so absurd.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...150-million-myfitnesspal-accounts-were-hacked

Oh come on, it's not like it was a reputable website with millions of registered users.

 

[Slick]

Oh come on, it's not like it was a reputable website with millions of registered users.

To be fair, I thought it was a good idea when the thread started.

 

[ozboz]

To be fair, I thought it was a good idea when the thread started.

It is a good idea , as said it was a factor, a big factor in me getting my £1200 + Surly back ,
I noted on my thread at the time ,


https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/talk-about-lucky.227475/

So I do not think people should be discouraged from registering ,
I would find it hard to believe that all of us now have not got all their details /data on some website or gov gateway ,
ie DVLA, if people can hack the US Military ,German political aides etc , Id say anything can be hacked,