Getting spam e-mail from a company called "PD Callsaver" or "PhoneDirect"? These scam artists use unethical tactics and deserve to be named-and-shamed.
Are you getting spam from "PD Callsaver" or "PhoneDirect" with the subject line beginning "International calls..."
These messages contain a variety of (possibly false) e-mail addresses, including:
- PhoneDirect@pdtinternet.com;
- pdnsadvert@gmx.net;
- pdesadvert@gmx.net;
- pdesadvert@gmx.net;
- ukcs@pdtinternet.com;
- pdfsubman@mygb.net;
- pdhsubman@mygb.net;
- pd@pdtinternet.com.
Their web page additionally includes the address Support@pd-dial.com.
Spam pertaining to "dq118.com" appears to be related. Addresses given in the e-mail headers (again, possibly false) include Info@dq118.fsnet.co.uk, dq118xx@gmx.net, Contacts@dq118.fsnet.co.uk, and dq118s@mygb.net.
Of course the messages say "If you are not interested in reducing your phone bills and would not like to be informed of any other similar offers from ourselves, please reply to this message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject heading." This goes against widely publicised advice never to do this, as it informs the spammer that you have a valid e-mail address.
Who would do business with a company that utilises such unethical marketing tactics?
What can we do? Well, publish their addresses on the Internet so they get a dose of their own medicine! Both the pd-dial.com and dq118.com domains are registered to PhoneDirect by Scarlet Charger Internet (admin@scarletcharger.com); feel free to complain to them too.
Update 11.12.03: Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 came into force today. Spammers must not conceal their identities and must provide a valid "opt out" address; nor can they send spam without the prior consent of the recipient. You can download a form for making a complaint from the Information Commissioner's Office website.
![[Photo of Bruce McKenzie]]()
"Companies who break Britain's anti-spam law are likely to get away with it until next year because the government is not giving the information commissioner enough enforcement powers"
See http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39152267,00.htm
Dekker, don't you agree that any merits their product may have does not in any way excuse their tactics?
I am surprised that, if you hate spam, you would even consider using a product you had been spammed about. This strikes me as a significant risk. Will they sell your data? Will you be subject to "unexpected" credit card charges? Aren't you encouraging their ongoing bad behaviour? etc.
They've already demonstrated they don't give a toss about what is "moral". It follows that they will abuse you further given the opportunity. Is saving a few pounds worth that?
For those of you who wants cheap calls, theirs is not the cheapest, google for yourself, don't support spammer, or don't complain if you get spammed
I have just recived the same junk from this piece of shit loanshark outfit:
Phonedirect appears to actually be registered as Costal Credit (UK) Ltd.
Here is the record with the Data Protection Registrar.
http://www.dpr.gov.uk/cgi-bin/dpr98-fetch.pl?source=DPR&docid=34650
I am considering hiring a debt collection outfit to collect my spam levy from their address.
You may also find the host of this scum's website from here, so that you may complain to their service provider:
http://www.samspade.org/t/ipwhois?a=pd-dial.com
Maybe I shall have a little trip to Southampton myself to have a nice friendly talk with these defecate brained arseholes.
Just read your lil rant about these "people". I've been tracking them as well and have a website to list UK email and txt spammers at http://www.spamkiller.co.uk - please feel free to link to it.
I tried reporting this outfit to the Information Commissioner and got a letter back saying "Unfortunately, I must explain that we do have a very large amount of correspondence awaiting allocation. We will make every effort to give you a substantive response as soon as possible". Could this mean people are now venting their frustration to the IC? Does it imply the IC doesn't have the resources to cope with an increase in complaints?
Actually, the response was dated the following day! It read:
"Under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003 companies cannot send unsolicited email messages to individual subscribers without their consent, unless details were collected in accordance with the soft opt-in criteria. This allows the use of details which were collected fairly, during the course of a sale or negotiations for a sale, and relates only to similar products and services.
From the information you provided it is unlikely that Phones Direct are able to fulfil this criteria. Therefore, it is likely that the email you received was in breech of the Regulations. I have contacted the organisation to remind them of their obligations with regard to e-mail marketing, however, I am unable to request that they suppress your details because you have requested that they are not passed on to the organisation.
You should be aware that, where details were collected prior to the Regulations coming into force on 11th December 2003, there may be circumstances where companies can use e-mail addresses without prior consent. However, the Commissioner would expect any opt-out request to be complied with, within a reasonable period.
A breech of the Regulations does not constitute a criminal offence and complaints will be dealt with on an individual basis. The Information Commissioner aims to ensure that organisations comply with the Regulations by providing advice and guidance on their responsibilities. Further action will only be taken against organisations who persistently fail to meet their obligations under the Regulations."
Interesting: so the Regulations are toothless! They rely on the morality of an organisation immoral enough to spam left right and centre in the first place...
Yes I aggree and also hate all this spamming, BUT for some reason I actually went to their site and using their number to call a friend in Australia. WOW saved myself 75% off my regular Telewest charges. They have a UK landline to mobile number which I'll check out sometime this month.
Cheers Dekker