Thread: Banners Broker HYIP ponzi scam

Originally Posted by littleroundman

I suggest you do a quick Google for ALAN SILLS or JAMIE WATERS or PAUL DARBY or JOHN SCHERLING or JONNY SHERLING before you make such statements.

3 weeks ago, a Google search on any of those HYIP ponzi and cash gifting insiders would have brought up countless fraud reporting sites, including this one.

Today, all of them have spotless reputations and are free to move on to their next fraud.

References to these people have only been removed from Google.co.uk, not Google.com. That's because the removal legislation was brought in by the European Union, and therefore only applies to European countries. Google.co.uk HQ is in Ireland, so has to comply. Google.com HQ is in USA, so doesn't have to comply.

At the bottom of the Google.co.uk homepage is a link which says "Use Google.com" Click this link and you'll easily find the scumbags that have been removed from .co.uk

Anyone here in Europe who hasn't been on the moon for the last six months KNOWS to click the .com icon before doing a search, so the idiot European Union legislators have wasted time and money. AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Alkibone

References to these people have only been removed from Google.co.uk, not Google.com. That's because the removal legislation was brought in by the European Union, and therefore only applies to European countries. Google.co.uk HQ is in Ireland, so has to comply. Google.com HQ is in USA, so doesn't have to comply.

At the bottom of the Google.co.uk homepage is a link which says "Use Google.com" Click this link and you'll easily find the scumbags that have been removed from .co.uk

Anyone here in Europe who hasn't been on the moon for the last six months KNOWS to click the .com icon before doing a search, so the idiot European Union legislators have wasted time and money. AGAIN.

Odd when I search google.ie ( the Irish one) or .co.uk or .com the first page is basically a list of this Realscam thread on all three as I suggested.
and it was not the legislative branch but the judicial one which prompted this issue. while EU legislation and regulation is cumbersome I don't see how the legislation is "idiotic" in this case.

Originally Posted by Alkibone

References to these people have only been removed from Google.co.uk, not Google.com. That's because the removal legislation was brought in by the European Union, and therefore only applies to European countries. Google.co.uk HQ is in Ireland, so has to comply. Google.com HQ is in USA, so doesn't have to comply.

At the bottom of the Google.co.uk homepage is a link which says "Use Google.com" Click this link and you'll easily find the scumbags that have been removed from .co.uk

Anyone here in Europe who hasn't been on the moon for the last six months KNOWS to click the .com icon before doing a search, so the idiot European Union legislators have wasted time and money. AGAIN.

I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't know about the ".COM option", and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU ordered Google to remove that at some point.

Originally Posted by Alkibone

That's because the removal legislation was brought in by the European Union, and therefore only applies to European countries. Google.co.uk HQ is in Ireland, so has to comply. Google.com HQ is in USA, so doesn't have to comply.

To clarify again it ISNT "removal legislation" It is a decision by the EU court on one aspect of a directive with respect to a persons right to privacy. In the case of BB various promoters continually have claimed that BB is a "business" and not their personal private information.

An internet search engine operator
is responsible for the processing that it carries
out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties

What is the big problem with that?
Here is the actual judgement:
CURIA - Documents
bold added by me

4. Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

A Google search from Australia using Google.com.AU on any of the names mentioned produces the sanitized version WITHOUT any disclaimer that information has been removed.

What we have is a notoriously intransigent EU bureaucracy and a transnational company either unable or unwilling to differentiate between someones' "right to be forgotten" and the rights of its' users combining.

It is what it is.

To further clarify.
The criminals involved in BB have rights. It isnt for us to judge them. They have a right to be treated as human beings and they should be brought before a court. Lets not get into a Lynch mob mentality. Yes some countries have complicated slow or cumbersome laws. But just because the Us put people in prison for 100 years for not paying tax or for fraud and fry people in the electric chair or inject them does not make them "better".
Another botched execution, this time in Arizona | MSNBC
So it isnt a case of US law or Australian Law or EU law being better or idiotic although in the case of BB the enforcement has been lethargically slow in most jurisdictions. I can understand how people may be frustrated when on one hand they start censoring searches within weeks of a judgement but on the other hand people are waiting years for courts to act on BB and BB operatives. But the system is the one we have. Ignoring it or throwing it all out would make us no better than the criminals who ignore it.

Oh Good God

Originally Posted by littleroundman

What we have is a notoriously intransigent EU bureaucracy

Again Ill have to disagree and take issue. In fact it is the local State that decides the law and the local police that enforce it in each EU country. The EU court is not like a "Supreme Court" in that way. Nor is there an EU police force. Yes ther is a HUGE EU bureaucracy as ther is a huge Washington DC one! But iot is for Irish UK French etc. courts and police to act on this issue. Just as the EU court acted on a Spanish decision and an application to the EU court two years earlier ie in May 2012

Again the original opinion

7 In Section I (entitled ‘Principles relating to data quality’) of Chapter II of Directive 95/46, Article 6 is worded as follows:

‘1. Member States shall provide that personal data must be:

(a) processed fairly and lawfully;

(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Further processing of data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States provide appropriate safeguards;

(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed;

(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified;

(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed. Member States shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.

What is wrong with that?

While I want data to be available I would ask not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I would suggest people be very very very careful about giving personal data to Google Facebook or anyone else including BB.

By the way has anyone thought that Banners Broker as a processor of information is itself subject to this judgement as a "controller" of data they could be asked to remove personal data about people who are affilliates from the net. Of course that would mean they cant advertise "big winners" but they will ignore this legislation anyway just as they ignore all the other laws.

Don't misunderstand me, Beacon.

Of course, as usual, you're completely correct.

Jamie Waters, Alan Sills, Paul Darby et al are completely deserving of the full protection of the law.

They should be allowed to continue their activities completely free of any nasty consumers mentioning their name on forums such as this and those silly consumers should stop their nonsense and allow themselves to be ripped off.

So how do we win the war against these types of scammers if their "criminal" history is allowed to be removed?

JUST SAY NO to any "business opportunity" that holds meetings in hotels/restaurants, encourages recruitment of anyone and everyone regardless of skills so you can benefit financially off them, you pay to play, and it promises residual income and/or wealth.

IT WORKS LIKE A CHARM AND I'M BATTING A THOUSAND SINCE I LEARNED MY LESSON WHILE BRIEFLY IN AMWAY YEARS AGO. (I try not to repeat my embarrassing, stupid, idiotic, greedy, ignorant mistakes and warn others now)

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

I would think the vast majority of people wouldn't know about the ".COM option", and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU ordered Google to remove that at some point.

Anyone even marginally internet-literate in the UK knows about the .com option so, if the link were removed, people would just go to .com anyway.

Originally Posted by Beacon

To further clarify.
The criminals involved in BB have rights. It isnt for us to judge them. They have a right to be treated as human beings and they should be brought before a court. Lets not get into a Lynch mob mentality. Yes some countries have complicated slow or cumbersome laws. But just because the Us put people in prison for 100 years for not paying tax or for fraud and fry people in the electric chair or inject them does not make them "better".
Another botched execution, this time in Arizona | MSNBC
So it isnt a case of US law or Australian Law or EU law being better or idiotic although in the case of BB the enforcement has been lethargically slow in most jurisdictions. I can understand how people may be frustrated when on one hand they start censoring searches within weeks of a judgement but on the other hand people are waiting years for courts to act on BB and BB operatives. But the system is the one we have. Ignoring it or throwing it all out would make us no better than the criminals who ignore it.

It is all well and good that criminals have rights, but it seems all to often that their rights supersede that of their victims, and that is unacceptable!

Originally Posted by laidback

It is all well and good that criminals have rights, but it seems all to often that their rights supersede that of their victims, and that is unacceptable!

So true...besides..ANYTHING what HELPS criminals to DIMINISH the possibility of being discovered,can not and should not be seen as "right",but only as a pure oversight and thus subject to urgent correction ...I understand rights as a kind of post festum standards, a part of protocol in which criminals are targeted,identified,investigated,processed and possibly jailed

Originally Posted by Char

So how do we win the war against these types of scammers if their "criminal" history is allowed to be removed?

i dont think I got across the message.
It is always allowed to be removed.
What we are discussing here is whether information HAS TO BE REMOVED.
Personal information which is not in the public good Has to be removed if the person wants it to be.
A criminal history DOES NOT have to be removed!

There isnt a question of criminals rights superseding others!
Nor is it a question as LRM suggests of
"They should be allowed to continue their activities completely free of any nasty consumers mentioning their name on forums such as this and those silly consumers should stop their nonsense and allow themselves to be ripped off. "

Well, this information is in the public's good and should not be removed. Amazing how willing they are to put all their personal information all over the net when promoting these Ponzi's, but then want it removed when they get exposed for their participation. How in the world they can justify this is not in the public good is beyond me. They want it down because they don't like to have the attention focused on their being promoters of these Ponzi's and illegal cash gifting schemes.

Originally Posted by EagleOne

Well, this information is in the public's good and should not be removed. ... They want it down because they don't like to have the attention focused on their being promoters of these Ponzi's and illegal cash gifting schemes.

Which is why RS is here to archive it and I hope wont baulk at any scammers request.

Of course they always have the recourse to go to court to prove they are not scammers and to punish RS for their refusal to remove such information.

Originally Posted by EagleOne

Well, this information is in the public's good and should not be removed.

Now we get down to the splitting of hairs.

While the information has not been removed from REALSCAM.com it HAS been de-indexed by Google

Accidental, intentional or knock on effect ??? Who knows.

Does that or any other Banners Broker promoter have a "right to be forgotten" even as he or she continues to promote a "non paying" ponzi fraud ??

Apparently so, according to Beacon.

I enter the name of an American Banners Broker promoter into Google and I get sanitized results with no disclaimer information has been removed and I live as far from the EU as it is possible to be.

If it's happening to me, then who knows how many other consumers are left in the dark as they attempt to research where there money is going / has gone ??

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Now we get down to the splitting of hairs.

While the information has not been removed from REALSCAM.com it HAS been de-indexed by Google

Accidental, intentional or knock on effect ??? Who knows.

So the basis of your argument is that the legal change might just be a co incident and Google might well have de indexed it anyway? "Who knows?" isn't much of a case supporting your suggestion that it was certainly and only because of the court decision.

Does that or any other Banners Broker promoter have a "right to be forgotten" even as he or she continues to promote a "non paying" ponzi fraud ??

No it does not! And again I will point out as I have about FOUR or FIVE times now that the EU court does not either make it so nor does it even suggest that this is true.

Apparently so, according to Beacon.

Really? and where , anywhere, do I suggest that this is the case?

If Google want to refuse de indexing Banners Brokers promoters then it is for them to do so. Let them do so and let us see if those promoters have a leg to stand on because they DON'T in my view. They have no right to have references to promoting ponzi schemes removed. the Court decision was not about that! It was about having personal information NOT in the public good removed e.g. information about not paying welfare or the tax man money you owed them when in fact the tax man or welfare department had met with you and setteled the matter fifteen years ago. Not did it remove the right of the initial newspaper who reported on this from having the sroty online. READ THE JUDGEMENT!
CURIA - Documents
Section 4

However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

If Google want to include it they CAN. Google are involved in a much BIGGER case of tax avoidance with the EU and US. Look up "Double Irish" and "Dutch Sandwich" . Maybe they dont want more bad publicity? So what? that has nothing to do with what the EU court stated.

I enter the name of an American Banners Broker promoter into Google and I get sanitized results with no disclaimer information has been removed and I live as far from the EU as it is possible to be.

What american BB promoter?

Lets take Mark Ghobril
Here is what the IRISH google.ie gives me today
First two links in the search "Mark Ghobril Scammer" lead directly to this discussion
Third link http://www.scambook.com/report/view/316280/Banners-Broker-Chris-Smith-Mark-Ghobril-Complaint-316280-for-$500.00
Fourth link is apparently Ghobrils own Wordpress page promoting BB

What has been de indexed by Google that related to him promoting BB?

If it's happening to me, then who knows how many other consumers are left in the dark as they attempt to research where there money is going / has gone ??

If someone is selling you insurance and they had an embarrassing episode twenty years ago when they were arrested for streaking they have a right to have reference to that removed. If they had a fraud conviction for insurance fraud then they dont have that right.

I understand that BB has now done its "genealogical compression" and the website is now back up.

I'm posting this as I am wondering if BB are now in breach of Data Protection laws here in UK and elsewhere. See this screenshot below which indicates that all the names of non-activating affiliates are now on show....

BB and Data Protection.jpg

Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

Thanks.

Originally Posted by AshKen1

I understand that BB has now done its "genealogical compression"

wouldn't this require a sending in of DNA? lol

Originally Posted by Scammers Broker Bullshit

That is why your team list might be showing more people than it did before.

Its like in your teens when you give an older kid some money to buy you beers. You sit on the curb and wait, and wait. Maybe he is bringing the cold stuff, pizza, a bottle of Jack? Nope you just sit on the curb and start to hope he at least comes back with your money. Sooner or later you get up, kick the curb, and realize you've been had. The people left in BB at this point are not only out their money, they keep losing time on a lesson that long ago should have been learned.

Teams getting bigger, LMAO! (100% * you are not getting paid = ZERO)

We have now a lovely atmosphere on grand Trinidad tour put on video...the joy of masses really impress
youtube.com/watch?v=lFr2ueo4wGU …

Don't be selfish.

Let EVERBODY have a good laugh

1. Wigs Australia | Costume Wigs | Fashion Wigs | Medical Wigs Cancer
   
   www.thewigoutlet.com.au/ - Cached - Similar
   Cheap Wigs from $9.95! Australia's #1 Discount Wigs Outlet - Save up to 90%. Express Delivery. Bulk Discounts. Phone Orders 1300 669 690 Free Advice.‎Costume Wigs - ‎Deluxe Fashion Wigs - ‎Costume Wigs - Female - ‎Bargain Price Bin
   

a) probably made in that warehouse that 'stellar point' offices were.
b) why worldewallet clown there when they already know he can't do for them what they promised affiliates?

Originally Posted by Whip

why worldewallet clown there when they already know he can't do for them what they promised affiliates?

I was wondering where he has been up to since The Wire came down.



What was up with aka Chris Smith's written and read speech? I would think someone at the fore of such a massive fraud would have at least a few buzz phrases etched in his mind. Apparently "how many times you get knocked down" is a new euphimisim for a consistently empty e-wallet.