-
Following on from the Curve NS&I freedom of information request, I have had an update from NS&I on ‘Mr X’, who tipped Curve and NS&I off on the use of the cards to generate points.
It seems Rob has edited the page to remove the link from the original article. The original FOI response is here: https://pdfhost.io/v/yT2WtvKaF_FOI_20211007
NS&I update is:
This person [Mr X] was emailing as a private individual and so it was appropriate to remove their name.It therefore seems that NS&I was emailed by a private individual. NS&I also confirmed they had entered in to no correspondence with Creation on the issue.
Which of you snitched???
(And why did Rob remove the link? Did Curve complain?)
Mr X clearly has some clout, if Joe Public emailed NS&I they wouldn’t give a flying whatsit.
Mr X clearly has some clout, if Joe Public emailed NS&I they wouldn’t give a flying whatsit.
The available evidence disagrees
Mr X clearly has some clout, if Joe Public emailed NS&I they wouldn’t give a flying whatsit.
Once NS&I are aware of something, if they don’t look into it and it later turns out to be laundering they could get into hot water over it.
It’s possible someone had a quick look, confirmed whatever they were tipped off on and that then triggered a wider trawl of the net to cover their own backsides.I am MR X
I am MR X
And so is your wife?
I am MR X
And so is your wife?
Surely she’s Mrs X?
If people knew that their names could be released as part of an FOI request if they provide info to a publc authority they may be reluctant to raise issues of concern.
Imagine you were Mr X and provided info to NS&I and then imagine Curve used the FoI to find out your name and then shut down your accounts or took relaliation against you.
Would you be happy with that?
I’d imagine not. Which is why the name is redacted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
