Slashdot Mirror

Question is fairly USA-centric.

Elsewhere banks introduce their own payment systems (working within the country), apparently to avoid paying fees for Visa/Mastercard/Google/Apple/Paypal processing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.finextra.com/press...

Not so long ago ebay was forcing you to use paypal,

Because eBay and Paypal were effectively the same company. They split in 2015, and as part of that split they had an operational agreement that eBay would process at least 80% of its payments via Paypal (see https://www.finextra.com/newsa...).

Now that eBay is becoming a true free elf, they are looking to cut costs by using another payment processor.

The biggest threat to most Gov. agencies is malware*. If the Pentagon can't protect itself, I don't see how other gov. agencies can.

On another note, the fact that TFA labels Snowden+Russia as a "potential threat from Russia" there is enough bias in the article to ignore the illegal activity of the NSA. If the NSA had been operating within the letter of the law, Snowden would have nothing to leak, Russia no need to give asylum, and NYT wouldn't be publishing an article worrying about 1960 spy technology.

http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22157

http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22662

Getting the point of my post requires some awareness of what the world is like outside of the post and what current context the original story is implicitly embedded in.

Clear that up for ya?

It is alleged that the men had a "crisis of conscience" in 2006, but were persuaded to continue with the fraud after being offered a salary increase of nearly 25% along with one-time bonuses in late 2006 of more than $60,000 each.

Now you know why I start laughing when I hear people say "Why does Wall Street and the banks keep giving those huge bonuses when they know it just pisses the American people off?"

'Tis either that, or wonder who will turn state's evidence.

Um, they didn't work for him from 1990 to 1991. One was hired in 1990, the other in 1991. They still worked for him beyond 2006: http://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=21200

I mean you can't make the owners do anything. They own it, it is theirs to do with as they please.

Not quite. By law, the owners don't own anybody's credit card info, and they sure as hell can't do with it as they please. CardSystems tried that, and it got them shut down as an independent corporation.

Paypal acts like a payment processor, not a bank. They don't have a bank charter among other things. ...

Yes they do, the UK FSA forced them to become a money issuer in 2004 and to escape FSA ruling in 2007 they managed to get a banking license issued by the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF) in Luxembourg - under the name eBay SA. The European Paypal HQ is therefore now in Luxemburg.

The problem with this is that Luxemburg has well known lax regulations for banking and is a well known tax haven - that has seriously pissed off the German government for harbouring criminals and tax evaders. Also, they have strict banking secrecy laws so that Paypal can operate autonomously reporting to no-one.

When Paypal europe moved to Luxembourg last year, due to EU regulations it had to become subject to banking rules. More information here: http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=16927 I don't think it's a bank outside europe though.

>The cleverest thing to do though, is to probably make it harder to do international transfers of cash using accounts, or impossible online.

But then all the bad guy has to do is pay a cut to local recipients of phishing proceeds who will pass along the funds. No need for the online transaction to go straight to Elbonia in one step.

>some countries may not cooperate.

Notice the destinations are never squeaky-clean places like Finland. It's always some place where it's easier for the crooks to have an under$tanding with law enforcement.

>Anyway, how many people do you know who have had their money stolen from their bank accoount online. I guess very few.

It can't be that many, given that the highest estimate I've seen is USD 500 million annual phishing losses. That's couch cushion change compared to credit card fraud.

This article is nothing new. THat chip and pin does not increase security was shown by Ross Anderson (author of "Security Engineering") et al http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads//featur edocs/spin.pdf. That people do not correctly verify credit card signatures was shown by zug.copm http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/