Suggestions - Corporate phishing on flyertalk and corporate participation

Hello.

It has been of interest to me lately to notice a few threads discussing corporate participation on flyertalk. In some of these threads, for example, "UA monitoring flyertalk", i have express an opinion that corporate participation should be discouraged. This has been supported by a few Flyertalkers who are of the same opinion.

Some time back, there was an issue on the Marriot forum whereby corporate codes were deleted overnight and the discussion that ensured concluded it was due to possible interference by Marriot on flyertalk and could be indicative of possible legal lawsuits against flyertalk. It was notable that the incident happened after flyertalk was sold.

Observations on the spg forum have also indicated that there is probable suspicion that there are more than 2 starwood representatives participating or "lurking" on the forum. what i am concerned about is the phishing of information from flyertalk and the manipulation of information. Over the years, starwood has made changed to the spg terms and conditions. In the past 2 years, the changes have mainly been to clarify but to a certain extent been detrimental to spg members who use flyertalk. Some of the changes may not have been made intentionally but they have often coincided with discussions on flyertalk. Mistake rates and low reservation rates have also disappeared relatively faster in recent times in relation to their discussion on flyertalk. And even as we like to promote the site as being influencial to hotels making decisions, its mainly to the corporate entity's benefit and not to flyertalkers. As time goes on, unless things change, the number of participants on flyertalk will decrease and corporate entities will increasingly use flyertalk to phish information on low rates, and as a form of revenue control.

Perhaps to the administration, this may not be of interest, but when corporate entities continue to have free and unrestricted access, not only will they be able to inflict pain on customers but it also exposes flyertalk to huge litigation suits for defamation, copyrights, release of information that are of detriment to corporate entities and even negligence towards moderators.

To my knowledge, the story of flyertalk as explained to me is that Randy set this site up many years ago as a forum ONLY for frequent flyers to share ideas and allow mutual education on consumer rights and enabling the ignorant traveller to benefit from the travel loyalty programmes. IT WAS NEVER MEANT to be EXPLOITED by corporate entities. It has also been further suggested to me that flyertalk has always meant to be a neutral forum, impartial.

I like to ask the administrators whether they are aware of the issues i have raised and whether they intend to do anything about it. I do have a simple solution and if i may suggest, perhaps restricting access to only "logged in users and require all new members and "suspect" corporate users to declare their interests in any relevant corporate entities. I would also suggest the settling up of a sub-forum that questions may be sent to these corporate representatives without revealing non-relevant information. It can be done and im sure it can be done easily within the current framework without additional costs.

The question is whether will the administrators do something or do they need a huge lawsuit to start before taking action.

Thank you

As a hotel manager I totally Agree!

-snip-
Observations on the spg forum have also indicated that there is probable suspicion that there are more than 2 starwood representatives participating or "lurking" on the forum.
-snip-

"probable suspicion"? I think it's well known that starwood has multiple, active participants and that they are most certainly welcome to the forum. And the Marriott forum has been asking to get their own Marriott representatives for a little while...who are now participating much to the pleasure of that group of FTers.

But I kinda do see your point. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

This is a PUBLIC bulletin board system. Anything and everything that is written is indexed on numerous search engines and other sites. Anyone around the world who has Internet access can view what is written, sometimes even after it is deleted.

New members cannot be vetted in any easy way, and people lie all the time in life. There is nothing to stop them from lying for an online questionnaire about what affiliations they have. Certain nefarious websites have a system where the boards are private, but rely on 'invites' or other recommendations from current users as to who can see information/join. The real issue here is that eventually people who you don't want to have access end up with access based on similar theories to the '6 degrees of separation' type rules.

The solution is simple. Never mention anything you don't want to be public here or on any other Internet Forum.

PS, Phishing is nothing like what you claim it to be.

The purpose of vetting new members and making suspicious corporate agents sign waivers is to protect flyertalk and members in the event another Marriot corporate codes issue surface again. But with the freddies and Randy's apparent close relationship with the major travel companies, i'm not sure if flyertalk still serves its original purpose. To benefit the average traveller, not corporate representatives.

Any meaningful discussion about fares/hotels has long time ago migrated to private boards/lists.

I find the participation of corporate representatives in an official capacity very helpful. One of the boards I frequent, that of bmi's Diamond Club, has a regular representative here. That's part of her job responsibilities. So do several other airlines and hotel chains. I would hate to see them go away and see no offsetting benefit to losing them.

If someone wants to read what's being said about his/her employer, there isn't a thing FT can do about it - short of shutting off guest access, removing pages from search engine indexing, using stronger identity verification for new members than is probably practical, and probably requiring all 160,000+ current members to re-register with proof of who they are.

Posting a position on an issue without disclosing one's vested interest in it is, of course, unethical. (AFAIK, the above-mentioned corporate representatives to FT have never done this.) If someone is motivated this way, a rule won't stop them. It's easy enough to post from home to prevent posts from being traced to the employer's domain if it comes to that.

Folks who want to say something they don't want company representatives to read have come to the wrong place. That's life on the Internet in the 21st century. Deal with it.

I find the participation of corporate representatives in an official capacity very helpful. One of the boards I frequent, that of bmi's Diamond Club, has a regular representative here. That's part of her job responsibilities. So do several other airlines and hotel chains. I would hate to see them go away and see no offsetting benefit to losing them.

If someone wants to read what's being said about his/her employer, there isn't a thing FT can do about it - short of shutting off guest access, removing pages from search engine indexing, using stronger identity verification for new members than is probably practical, and probably requiring all 160,000+ current members to re-register with proof of who they are.

Posting a position on an issue without disclosing one's vested interest in it is, of course, unethical. (AFAIK, the above-mentioned corporate representatives to FT have never done this.) If someone is motivated this way, a rule won't stop them. It's easy enough to post from home to prevent posts from being traced to the employer's domain if it comes to that.

Folks who want to say something they don't want company representatives to read have come to the wrong place. That's life on the Internet in the 21st century. Deal with it.

I think that you are missing the point that these corporate raiders are taking advantage of flyertalkers by removing information that they do not like such as corporate discount codes or other issues for the purpose of revenue protection and using these individually while may not be morally right is not illegala nd not fraudulant.

ever since flyertalk was privatised, the marriot forum had diso.... codes removed, the spg forum had low/mistake rates removed or moved to low traffic forums and airline forums such as qantas, United and Singapore air has seen their fair share of corporate staff taking retalitary action against flyertalkers who use information here.

While we cannot completely deny entry rights to these raiders, we can certainly prevent them from causing harm to the community and restricting access to maybe one or 2 forums as a Q & A forum.

Do we want these raiders to give us trouble on our air tickets?

. . . the spg forum had low/mistake rates removed or moved to low traffic forums. . .

I can't speak to a lot of your examples, but I've been a Starwood forum moderator for many years, so I can speak to this one.

I'm not familiar with any situation where something was removed or moved in deference to SPG. I also don't recall ever having been asked by SPG or one its FT lurkers to take such an action on their behalf.

The only example I can think of which some interpreted as such (in spite of multiple clarifications to the contrary) was a LeMeridien NY mistake rate last year. Two threads were running simultaneously, one in SPG and one in Mileage Run/Hotel Deals. Many posters were bouncing back and forth, essentially posting the same information in both places. It was determined by a group of involved moderators that mistake rate/fare threads belong first-and-foremost in the Mileage Run/Hotel Deals forum, so we merged the SPG thread into the MR thread, and left a visible re-direct so that people would know about it and know where to find it. There was certainly pressure from SPG, or anyone else, to handle it in a particular way.

As for the issue in general, it has been my observation over the years that the benefit Starwood Lurker brings to the SPG forum and FT members far outweighs any perceived downside, such as what he may report to Starwood that he learns on FT. (In fact, if the LeMeridien NY case is any example, that rate stayed live for days before it was shut down.) I firmly believe Lurker's active participation as a resource to members is a key reason the SPG forum is the most popular hotel forum on FT, in spite of Starwood being far from the largest chain.

While we cannot completely deny entry rights to these raiders, we can certainly prevent them from causing harm to the community and restricting access to maybe one or 2 forums as a Q & A forum.

Do we want these raiders to give us trouble on our air tickets?

You seem to fail to understand how the Internet works, and how this board works. Go create your own private bulletin board, vet all members and see how you go. See how scalable it is, and see whether you can prevent industry insiders from accessing it.

Flyertalk is open to legal action from anyone, and some decisions are made in view of that. Some posters choose to put out information that opens them to open identification by an airline, and this could be detrimental to them at times, but it's no different to writing a feedback letter to a newspaper about an airline or otherwise discussing the airline in any other open method.

ever since flyertalk was privatised

Flyertalk has always been a privately-held entity.

You seem to fail to understand how the Internet works, and how this board works. Go create your own private bulletin board, vet all members and see how you go. See how scalable it is, and see whether you can prevent industry insiders from accessing it.


It actually works quite well. As I pointed earlier on this thread you really cannot have any meaningful fare related discussion on FT any longer.

Also what happened to the thread about Marriott corporate codes? Migrated to FW after Marriott's lawyers contacted Randy.

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/travel-deals/721745

It actually works quite well. As I pointed earlier on this thread you really cannot have any meaningful fare related discussion on FT any longer.

There are currently 172,044 members of Flyertalk. To create a similar vetted bulletin board would take an extreme amount of work and time. The more people that you have in your membership, the more 'industry' employees you have.

Other forums that host discount codes etc that companies dislike will be contacted as well in due course by those who wish to protect their codes. Whether they choose to fight or not is up to those forums.

I can't speak to a lot of your examples, but I've been a Starwood forum moderator for many years, so I can speak to this one.

It was determined by a group of involved moderators that mistake rate/fare threads belong first-and-foremost in the Mileage Run/Hotel Deals forum, so we merged the SPG thread into the MR thread, and left a visible re-direct so that people would know about it and know where to find it. There was certainly pressure from SPG, or anyone else, to handle it in a particular way.

As for the issue in general, it has been my observation over the years that the benefit Starwood Lurker brings to the SPG forum and FT members far outweighs any perceived downside, such as what he may report to Starwood that he learns on FT.

I usually do not comment on moderation in open forums as apaprently, i have been threatened and offensively given a scolding(mostly pvt mails) for even mentioning it even when it benefits the wider community by bringing it to the open. Since you started the discussion, i assume your comments is not as a flyertalker and as a moderator, there is consent for varrying the rule on discussion and that no one will not be taking any negative action against me.

There is a problem with your comments.

Firstly, the question is why put the le meridien thread in the mileage run forum where those issues very much pertain to spg. Doing so certainly creates a bias towards spg and conflicts the neutral reputation of flyertalk. If by leaving those comments on spg that spg is given a bad reputation, thats their problem.

Secondly, anyone who bothers to search up past threads as i do will know the following. I have been on flyertalk everyday and do log in for a few hours. I observe that yes the 2 lurkers in their open official capacity have been responsive to feedback by flyertalk but they only do so when it benefits starwood and most of the changes to spg in recent years have mostly been of clarifying nature or stringent revenue control measures. It is becoming rare to see responses that truly demonstrate genuine concern and help for the individual.

As much as some flyertalkers may disagree, flyertalk was set up as a forum strictly for frequent flyers and to empower the individual. I don't think it was ever meant for corporate participation.

As much as some may disagree, the threads and sharing of tricks/low fares/reservations are part and parcel of flyertalk. But with corporate participation higher than ever, many of us migrated to other forums.

I personally have suffered financially and emotionally from these corproate vultures as it is inevitable they were involved in the lemeridien issue, pulling of mistake fares and once when i tried to seek out the official spg lurker's help on a corporate discount programme, his involvement was unnecessary and lead to more hostility in the end. I actually resolved it , by luck, with a starwood director and getting starwood asia pacific corporate help instead.

the spg forum isn't alone. As holtju2 has commented, even marriot forum is not spared. Inconsistent rule application, the allowance of increased corporate participation and openess of flyertalk certainly sounds deceitful when many are told flyertalk is meant to be neutral and apaprent illusion that discussions is kept only within the community when they are not. I don't think i'm alone in this, otherwise flyertalkers wouldn't migrate to other forums.

Can anyone honestly say that with the many unidentified spg lurkers, that it is impossible they are more a bane than good?As someone on the United thread mentioned, i do not want information on my sfo-akl ticket to be noted by United. Do you?

As usual, anyone who wishes to delete/edit, please kindly inform beforehand

Flyertalk has always been a privately-held entity.

I could be wrong but when ownership was transferred from randy to John as part of XXX brand company, there were legal implications and the structure changed. Otherwise, how do you explain that the marriot codes issue arise soon after ownership changed.

If i could correct myself, i now fully understand that it may impossible to get rid of these corporate vultures entirely but we can certainly prevent them and protect our common interests by making flyertalk a "logged in" website only and encouraging flyertalkers to report suspected corporate representatives. We could restrict these reps into a forum that is a Q and A based only. thereby restricting information. Current users should not be affected but new members should be invited or vetted. Its not difficult to implement and could certainly increase users and advertising revenue from the banners alone only.

I suspect that if no action is taken, the logic behind my posts will only be seen when a group fo flyertalkers decide to sue flyertalk and maybe some of the moderators. You can take legal action against flyertalk now as marriot certainly threatened to do.

we can certainly prevent them and protect our common interests by making flyertalk a "logged in" website only and encouraging flyertalkers to report suspected corporate representatives.
I believe all members can RBP or contact mods if they suspect any fellow FTer is in violation of FT TOS. Just give the mods your reasons behind it and they will look into it. No one is stopping you as long as your suspicion is supported (with evidence).

I fail to follow the logic in most of your arguments. Such as:
We could restrict these reps into a forum that is a Q and A based only. thereby restricting information.
In an open online forum, members are not forced to post or share any piece of personal info. If the say member chooses to, that's her/his personal decision. (IMHO, better not to reveal too much about yourself. ;)).

There are FTers with dual-roles. They have both personal and professional lives. And FT TOS doesn't allow members to have two accounts. If FT applied your logic, non of the TSAer can participate in Travel Safety/Security Forum. None of the mods can participate as a FT member no more. All of those FTers who happen to have a professional lives & dual roles that might raise your suspicion of "conflict of interests" can no longer freely be a FT member. What century and what countries are we living in? :confused:

I believe any decent FTer won't have any problem to follow FT TOS. No one is perfect. In case someone steps out of the line, give the mods a headsup. I've been seeing our mods doing very great jobs. If you have issues with mods, you can work things out via PM first. When I need assistance from mods, I always get timely and helpful responses both in PMs and email. All my encounters with mods have been positive.

I am not a mod. But reading what you had posted in various fora so far, I did have the impressions that you might not be familiar with FT TOS. Some of your posts did challenge our TOS and need mods' intervention. (That's just my personal observation.)

I am no lawyer but I see many faulty logics behind your arguements (quoted below). Instead of going through them one by one, I will just point you to a different example about online coupons/codes. If you visit "Drug Store B&M Deals and Discussion Forum" at SD (Slickdeals), read this announcement regarding CVS coupons (http://forums.slickdeals.net/announcement.php?f=38&a=100). Due to the "popularity" of their online coupons, CVS recently changed their models & policy on coupons and requested all internet sites to follow the new guideline.

Sometimes good deals are simply ruined by those who aggressively abuse them, not because corporate representatives are on board or change of ownership. Corporates are getting "smart" as well, when they realize how much $$ they are losing. Just my 2cents.

I could be wrong but when ownership was transferred from randy to John as part of XXX brand company, there were legal implications and the structure changed. Otherwise, how do you explain that the marriot codes issue arise soon after ownership changed.

If i could correct myself, i now fully understand that it may impossible to get rid of these corporate vultures entirely but we can certainly prevent them and protect our common interests by making flyertalk a "logged in" website only and encouraging flyertalkers to report suspected corporate representatives. We could restrict these reps into a forum that is a Q and A based only. thereby restricting information. Current users should not be affected but new members should be invited or vetted. Its not difficult to implement and could certainly increase users and advertising revenue from the banners alone only.

I suspect that if no action is taken, the logic behind my posts will only be seen when a group fo flyertalkers decide to sue flyertalk and maybe some of the moderators. You can take legal action against flyertalk now as marriot certainly threatened to do.

If i could correct myself, i now fully understand that it may impossible to get rid of these corporate vultures entirely but we can certainly prevent them and protect our common interests by making flyertalk a "logged in" website only and encouraging flyertalkers to report suspected corporate representatives. We could restrict these reps into a forum that is a Q and A based only. thereby restricting information. Current users should not be affected but new members should be invited or vetted. Its not difficult to implement and could certainly increase users and advertising revenue from the banners alone only.

Huh? How does this help? How do you root out 'suspected' corporate FT'ers? Do you know who my employer is and how it could affect my posting traits? Is anyone who doesn't meet your posting guidelines immediately marked as a 'corporate type'?


I suspect that if no action is taken, the logic behind my posts will only be seen when a group fo flyertalkers decide to sue flyertalk and maybe some of the moderators. You can take legal action against flyertalk now as marriot certainly threatened to do.

Sue Flyertalk? For what? Giving a service that some people don't appreciate?

I observe that yes the 2 lurkers in their open official capacity have been responsive to feedback by flyertalk but they only do so when it benefits starwood

Well of course. What else do you expect them to do? You seem to think that this is a *bad* thing. Starwood has their interests, and they have the right to protect them.

and most of the changes to spg in recent years have mostly been of clarifying nature or stringent revenue control measures.

ibid.

What It is becoming rare to see responses that truly demonstrate genuine concern and help for the individual.

Businesses aren't in it to "truly demonstrate genuine concern and help for the individual." You're kidding yourself if you think that's their essential function.

As much as some flyertalkers may disagree, flyertalk was set up as a forum strictly for frequent flyers and to empower the individual. I don't think it was ever meant for corporate participation.

You might want to double check with Randy about this assumption.

I personally have suffered financially and emotionally from these corproate vultures as it is inevitable they were involved in the lemeridien issue,

Ah well, now we're getting to the nut of it. A FF scorned ...

I could be wrong but when ownership was transferred from randy to John as part of XXX brand company, there were legal implications and the structure changed.

Of course there were legal implications. What you fail to understand is that the transfer of ownership was private entity to private entity. What nefarious implications!!

Otherwise, how do you explain that the marriot codes issue arise soon after ownership changed.

Non-sequitur.

What's your point, icarius? That you don't like the fact of "corporate participation" on Flyertalk?? Your presumption of detriment seems trivially supported.

Well of course. What else do you expect them to do? You seem to think that this is a *bad* thing. Starwood has their interests, and they have the right to protect them.


Businesses aren't in it to "truly demonstrate genuine concern and help for the individual." You're kidding yourself if you think that's their essential function.



Of course there were legal implications. What you fail to understand is that the transfer of ownership was private entity to private entity. What nefarious implications!!



when the spg lurkers were introduced into flyertalk, it was in the spirit of helping flyertalkers, not for their self interest. and the many unknown lurkers have phish information on the spg forum.Obviously the lurkers have their corporate interets to protect but to change rules in effect to proect revenue due to posted information here consistently, quickly and on numerous occasions as well as other measures appear to cross the line.

can you please explain to me if it was a simple private-private transfer, why then did all the legal issues only appeared after Randy sold flyertalk. You mean to tell me that John was unable to keep the legal Vultures at bay and that randy was more capable at that.

If you read the United forum and other cited forums, i am not alone on this matter, many are increasingly disgrunted at corporate phishers here. Its just that i am highlighting the issue and hoping my solution will be considered so that all the fare information/tricks will be posted on flyertalk again. As Aus-Mal pointed out, we simply cannot that in the current circumstance.

when the spg lurkers were introduced into flyertalk, it was in the spirit of helping flyertalkers, not for their self interest. and the many unknown lurkers have phish information on the spg forum.Obviously the lurkers have their corporate interets to protect but to change rules in effect to proect revenue due to posted information here consistently, quickly and on numerous occasions as well as other measures appear to cross the line.

can you please explain to me if it was a simple private-private transfer, why then did all the legal issues only appeared after Randy sold flyertalk. You mean to tell me that John was unable to keep the legal Vultures at bay and that randy was more capable at that.

If you read the United forum and other cited forums, i am not alone on this matter, many are increasingly disgrunted at corporate phishers here. Its just that i am highlighting the issue and hoping my solution will be considered so that all the fare information/tricks will be posted on flyertalk again. As Aus-Mal pointed out, we simply cannot that in the current circumstance.

Do you have the first clue what phishing is at all?

If you read the United forum and other cited forums, i am not alone on this matter, many are increasingly disgrunted at corporate phishers here. Its just that i am highlighting the issue and hoping my solution will be considered so that all the fare information/tricks will be posted on flyertalk again. As Aus-Mal pointed out, we simply cannot that in the current circumstance.

Sounds like a case of sour grapes that the "tricks" have been caught and pulled by the "vultures." Problem is, no one is entitled to the benefits of loopholes any more than you're entitled to your proposed solution.

Do you have the first clue what phishing is at all?
A good question is worth being repeated for the 3rd time. I have the same question for OP as well.

I don't think what OP had described fits the definition of phishing. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing):

"In computing, phishing is an attempt to criminally and fraudulently acquire sensitive information, such as usernames, passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication. PayPal, eBay and online banks are common targets. Phishing is typically carried out by e-mail or instant messaging, and often directs users to enter details at a website, although phone contact has also been used...."

Its just that i am highlighting the issue and hoping my solution will be considered so that all the fare information/tricks will be posted on flyertalk again.
To all fairness, your suggested "solution" will NOT achieve your goal. Just go the Fatwallet & Slickdeals and you will see why.

Whenever a mistaken price/sale/price is posted online, it's for every eye to see, let it be corporate or not. When the say deal is publicly known and taken advantage of by a significant number of people, it will definitely bring attention to the business entity involved. The business has the right to decide if they are going to honor the sale or cancel the orders/reservations. Sometimes folks get lucky and get in before the deal is pulled. Most people are not as lucky.

Let me give you some more examples. Go and look for the Dell $25 e-cert deal (via email FOR FREE) posted a couple of months back in both FW and SD. That deal was eventually pulled and orders got cancelled after Dell spotted their programming mistake. From our own FT, the wine club 1-yr for free deal (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=634103) was stopped soon after the company found out their own mistake. Chase MP visa finally stopped giving out signup bonuses after all these years. And Citi AA credit cards seem to be following the suit very soon.

None of these example was due to corporate lukers or participation. Does the corporate know about it thru FT? Maybe. With over 170K registered FTers, you can't blame FTers' consumer power! ;)

We all want good deals (as cheap as possible). When you know talking about the deal/trick very openly in an online forum can possibly kill it, will you still share the details? As far as FTers going to other groups or online fora to discuss fares and deals, I heard but don't know much about it personally. But I do know whenever a "less-known" trick or deal is posted in FT, there are always folks saying not to discuss it publicly. Another camp will always state FTer should share as much info as possible with each other. Some folks are simply clueless but want to jump in (:p).

Even among FTers, there are at least two divided camps in terms of infor sharing. To share or not to share, that is the question. I would think that's a personal decision. It's not about phishing. It's not about corporate participation. Every individual gets to decide how to protect her/his own best interest. So does the business entity. In a free country, you get to decide what you want to do (without breaking any law, of course).

IMHO, you are simply barking at the wrong tree. My friend, welcome to the world of open internet! :D

BTW, for your own emotional and financial sufferings, if you think you have a strong case and are entitled to compensation from the corporate/party involved, you probably should get yourself a lawyer to pursue the matter further. Another 2 cents from me :). As for me, I've moved on. I don't think I am going to take any action for my cancelled wine club and Dell orders.

...i have express an opinion that corporate participation should be discouraged...

Observations on the spg forum have also indicated that there is probable suspicion that there are more than 2 starwood representatives participating or "lurking" on the forum...

one of the most ridiculous posts ever?

its http://www.flyertalk.com not http://www.mistakeratewatch.com

there are other public/private sites/etc that focus on mistake rates.

Starwood Lurker has personally resolved problems (on Starwood's end) with my SPG account on several occasions. ^