What interesting to me is just how prevalent this sort of thing is. For a long time (at least 10 years), students applying for financial aid in the US are routinely told to 1) fill out a FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) and 2) not click the top few results when they google it because they'll be semi-scam sites that charge you money to "help" you fill out the form[1].
Which is, as near as I can tell, exactly what these people have been convicted of doing? Maybe these people shaded the truth a bit more; the FAFSA application sites tend to have disclaimers. Eg https://www.fafsa-application.com/ has a fairly prominent disclaimer, presumably because they believe anything less will get them sued.
[1]: Although when I tested it just now, it seems Google has got better about filtering them out of the organic results, at least, since I went through college. Which is good for students I guess.
It makes sense for private companies to repackage government "services" in a more applicant-friendly way, and of course take a cut for doing so. Governments are notoriously bad at doing it themselves, especially visa applications. I suppose being open about it and not impersonating the government is the key difference between ethical and not.
> I suppose being open about it and not impersonating the government is the key difference between ethical and not.
That and being honest about how much value you are bringing to the table. If you don't actually improve on the free version, it is unethical to sell.
And you should never use language to imply a value proposition where there is none. For example, someone else posted a link to some green card scammers. One of their claims is:
> "USAFIS GUARANTEES 100% participation in the Lottery!"
This may be true, but it is still an unethical statement. It hints that this is a net positive vs. the free application the USG provides, but in fact any valid, submitted application participates in the lottery.
Absolutely and nothing illegal about that, at least in most reasonably acting countries. Dont forget you talking about UK where they continue attempt to ban encryption and pass laws toake all your data visible and accessible to the government at any given time.
Reading this article is remarkably comical. I understand what they did is labeled as criminal. Yet it's funny how a lot of businesses are similar and in this world they're legal.
"They showed no regard for the unnecessary costs they imposed on their victims - I would say they treated them with contempt." - Hmm that isn't new.
My friend has actually won a green card through a website like that (unofficial) he forgot about ever applying and people from this website spent considerable time and effort to contact him and let him know that he won, they called his Russian phone number and got a hold of him miraculously, I am pretty sure had he applied directly through the official dvlottery site, he would never know that he won. so sometimes this type of sites do what they say.
Yes the money trail would have been quite crucial in tracking them down I suppose. I don't think they could be accepting Bitcoins on a govt. looking site.
Readit News
Which is, as near as I can tell, exactly what these people have been convicted of doing? Maybe these people shaded the truth a bit more; the FAFSA application sites tend to have disclaimers. Eg https://www.fafsa-application.com/ has a fairly prominent disclaimer, presumably because they believe anything less will get them sued.
[1]: Although when I tested it just now, it seems Google has got better about filtering them out of the organic results, at least, since I went through college. Which is good for students I guess.
That and being honest about how much value you are bringing to the table. If you don't actually improve on the free version, it is unethical to sell.
And you should never use language to imply a value proposition where there is none. For example, someone else posted a link to some green card scammers. One of their claims is:
> "USAFIS GUARANTEES 100% participation in the Lottery!"
This may be true, but it is still an unethical statement. It hints that this is a net positive vs. the free application the USG provides, but in fact any valid, submitted application participates in the lottery.
"They showed no regard for the unnecessary costs they imposed on their victims - I would say they treated them with contempt." - Hmm that isn't new.
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/76-lost-in-a-cab
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/78-very-quickly-to-the...
They do offer a clear disclaimer though.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment