Slashdot Mirror


Gift Card Hacking

TheSauce writes "MSNBC has this discussion of how easy it is to hack and jack the contents of those lovely Plastic Gift Cards one sees at most Mass Merchants and Consumer Electronics stores. One retailer notes that the odds of this occuring are about at the level of being pickpocketed."

264 comments

  1. Theft isn't new. by ThroughYourEyes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Theft happens all the time. Why is this news?

    If security was doing their job, it wouldn't be such a problem.

    1. Re:Theft isn't new. by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1

      Read the article buddy. Its about stealing the numbers off of cards in the stores and reprogramming legit cards to use them as they are activated by consumers.

    2. Re:Theft isn't new. by Vodak · · Score: 1

      Because now little billy can get much more outta that bestbuy card his Mommy put in his stocking.
      =]

    3. Re:Theft isn't new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ya know, I bet the cards are built on Windows technology -- that's why they were so easy to break.

    4. Re:Theft isn't new. by Lughlamfainne · · Score: 0

      and anyone wants to do this why?? that would be my question... or are we *that* bored?
      :)

      --
      .sig under construction
    5. Re:Theft isn't new. by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why didn't I think of that?

      Now I can get everything on my christmas list and screw over a horde of people during the holiday season! Isn't technology great, even when it's old technology...

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    6. Re:Theft isn't new. by ThroughYourEyes · · Score: 1

      Oh, I read the article.
      When I said security, I meant the people programming the cards in the first place. Not the rent-a-cop types you see at the mall store.
      Sorry for the misconception.

    7. Re:Theft isn't new. by nomadic · · Score: 2

      If security was doing their job, it wouldn't be such a problem.

      No, if people had some sense of ethics this wouldn't be a problem. Why does every security lapse mentioned on /. blamed on the victims? Yes, they made a mistake. Yes, there are ways to counteract it. But the way blame is constantly shifted away from the actual criminals here is sickening.

    8. Re:Theft isn't new. by dfn5 · · Score: 1

      You have to realize that we don't live in a utopian society. Everyone in the world isn't an honest person. If that was the case we wouldn't need security at airports. Therefore if a store is going to use a technology such that it is easy for a person to misuse it, they might as well put a sign in their front window saying steal from me. Microsoft is another prime example. Are you going to blame hackers for writing viruses, or are you going to blame Microsoft for making it so easy for one to write viruses. Microsoft would have you believe that the hackers are to blame. I am going to blame Microsft, and I am going to blame the retail store.

      --
      -- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
    9. Re:Theft isn't new. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Penalty! Non-sequitur kneejerk Microsoft bashing! Go stand in the corner!

    10. Re:Theft isn't new. by dhogaza · · Score: 2

      Crime and criminals have been with us from the beginning and will be with us until the end. Most people are honest, but there will always be a small minority that aren't. There's not much point in wringing one's hands over this fact and whining about "people not having some sense of ethics".

      In this case the victims aren't the retailers, the potential victims are those who purchase the gift cards. Blaming the retailers for not taking adequate precautions against the theft of the funds in question isn't a case of "blaming the victim" (the person buying the gift card who has every right to assume that the vendor takes reasonable security precautions).

      It makes perfect sense to blame vendors who don't take adequate precautions to protect their customers from theft. Remember that the customer can be ripped off even if they keep the card secured in Fort Knox, in other words the customer can't do a damned thing (short of not buying the product) to protect the card, only the vendor.

      And also keep in mind that simple security measures are available that greatly increase the safety of the card, and the article points out a few retailers who implement such measures. Those who don't are fair game for criticism, IMO.

    11. Re:Theft isn't new. by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      the way blame is constantly shifted away from the actual criminals here is sickening

      The fun thing about blame is that it doesn't have to unilaterally assigned to one person. Many people can share blame.

      For example, if you leave a diamond the size of your fist on the table of your motel room, and I come by and relieve you of it, then, yes, I am to blame for being a thief. The motel is to blame for providing completely inadquate security.

      And you are to blame for being a moron.

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    12. Re:Theft isn't new. by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 2

      So what happens when you walk into a store and your gift card crashes?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  2. but its true that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    gift cards want to be free!

  3. Big Deal by mlknowle · · Score: 1, Funny

    Big deal - this is theft. Why does it get featured on ./ ? Because it involves something remotly technology related. Guess what - it's still stealing - this is no different than rummaging through an open cash register drawer.

    1. Re:Big Deal by Vodak · · Score: 1
      Of course it's stealing, but that's not to say it shouldn't be on slashdot. assholes using technology to do stupid things like this is normal and should be reported.


      Would you rather be in the dark to such activities? If so then why why the hell are you even coming to this website to begin with.

    2. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't stealing anymore than trading mp3s is stealing. It's just information on a card. Nobody gets hurt or loses anything real. It's all numbers.

    3. Re:Big Deal by Lunastorm · · Score: 1
      Big deal - this is theft. Why does it get featured on ./ ? Because it involves something remotly technology related. Guess what - it's still stealing - this is no different than rummaging through an open cash register drawer.

      I disagree. Although I'm probably alone in this opinion, I believe that hacking a gift card is not stealing, as nothing is taken out of the store. I am merely exagerating the value of the gift card, which isn't that bad considering how often corporations exagerate the value of their merchandise, thereby inflating inflating the prices to unreasonable numbers. Besides, the store will still receive the money that is used with the gift card. Nobody is hurt.

      --
      You die too easily.
    4. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they do. The people's card who was duplicated lose their money.

    5. Re:Big Deal by Brian+Kendig · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's hear you say that next time your girlfriend gives you a $50 gift card for your favorite electronics store, and when you go to use it, the store clerk tells you there's no balance left on the card. He also points to the small print on the card which says (as quoted from the article) "We cannot be responsible for funds used without your knowledge."

      The hackers aren't just inflating the value of the card -- they're re-encoding the card so that it represents a card that someone else bought. Sure, they're "exaggerating the value of the gift card," but by lowering the value of someone else's card.

    6. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you flaming retard... trading mp3's is stealing. Just because it is relatively easy and relatively popular to do does not change the fact that you are taking something for free that is not intended to be free.

      Many real people lose real money when you trade mp3's. Whether or not you care is beside the point, convincing yourself that it is not stealing is dillusional idiocy and points to deep rooted denial issues.

      Biatch.

    7. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your calling trading mp3's stealing is an offense against the english language.

      Take that fat dictionary out from under the broken couch leg and read it sometime!

    8. Re:Big Deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement has its own laws, completely distinct from those covering theft.

      By your logic, I "stole" $15,000 from Ford the moment I bought a Saturn.

    9. Re:Big Deal by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      Um, DUH? It's being featured on SlashDot because it has to do with security of computerized devices in which big corporations put their trust and ours. Why do I say "ours" ? Because if the stores get ripped off, it costs us all. Do you mean to tell me that if the retina scanner protecting fort knox could be spoofed by sending "The Hacker's Manifesto" over the IR transciever on a Palm VIII, you wouldn't care, because it's just theft, and therefore does not meet discussion requirements here?

  4. Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Maiko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Being in the UK, and in a countryside area at that, I haven't heard of Gift Cards before. Here we stick to paper-based vouchers, or indeed, just to send cheques to people in christmas cards. At least if they are posted and stolen before they are delivered, then it becomes "interfereing with her majesty's post" (Seeing as it belongs to the crown etc etc etc) and can carry up to 10 years in prison. Mmm...handy that...

    --
    I am the breaker of Chairs!
    1. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Vodak · · Score: 1
      Personally I see gift cards as a very selfish gift. "I couldn't think of a real present to get you, so I'm giving you this gift of pseudo cash. btw you can only use it at XXX"


      Damn if your gonna be so impersonal as to give a gift of money then give something that can be used anywhere.

    2. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We have those vouchers here on the continent too. Of course they are generally protected through security measures and they are made by the same companies which print money, bank cards etc.

      It seems the merchants tried to reinvent the wheel with these gift cards. They could have used scratchcards such as for prepaid GSM phones, for instance. These contain a unique random number.

      --
      -------
      Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
    3. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selfish? I'd much rather have a gift card to Best Buy or Blockbuster than get some pink sweater from my relatives. If it makes it easier for them to shop, so be it. It's the ultimate in gifting.. give them the cash and they can buy what they want rather than having to guess. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten things I really would rather not have but I've felt too guilty to return because someone went out of their way to buy it for me. I'd rather just have cash or a gift card and I'll get exactly what I want. Maybe you think that's selfish of me but hey, that's what Xmas is about. presents. Lots and lots of presents.

    4. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      gift cards are basically a replacement for gift certificates. whomever came up with them was probably trying to solve a problem with paper certs fraud. the idea is you go to the store, ask for a card with N amount on it, pay, and you're given a card that can be used later. you give that card to the person you wish to. when making a purchase with the card, the amount is deducted from the balance on the card.

      the gift cards double for the store as store credit. return an item w/o a receipt? get the amount of your refund on a gift card.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    5. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Lunastorm · · Score: 0
      Personally I see gift cards as a very selfish gift. "I couldn't think of a real present to get you, so I'm giving you this gift of pseudo cash. btw you can only use it at XXX"

      Asking computer illiterate relatives for specific hardware items or software always results in hassles for me. They tend to purchase the wrong versions of items for which I ask, such as the Mac version of Quake 3 when I wanted the Windows version, and the ordinary Microsoft Intellimouse when I wanted the Intellimouse Explorer. Gift certificates and money are much better gifts. That way I won't be busy taking everything back for the right products.

      --
      You die too easily.
    6. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Malc · · Score: 1

      They also hope to suck more sales by re-use. I'm sure some people in a hurry will just call the 800 number, put more funds on to the card and then pass it on. That saves them having to even go shopping!

    7. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Her Majesty owns all of Britain's mail? Jeez, no wonder she's so rich...she must really rake in big piles of gift certificates around this time of year.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Malc · · Score: 1

      Rubbish! I acknowledge that I'm a difficult person to shop for. People's feelings can get hurt as I'm not too good at hiding my reactions... it's hard to hide your reaction when you get something you're not bothered by or even dislike. Some people are very good in this situation, but really, hiding it will do the giver no favours. In fact, a gift certificate for a good independent music shop would be good for me... I really like going and browsing the racks of discs - I can spend hours doing that looking for a rare treasure.

      In another situation, consider buying lingerie for a woman... if you buy it too big, she could be upset because she'll think you think she's that big; if you buy it too small, she'll be upset because she'll feel too big. IMHO, it's much better to go shopping together and have some fun, and pick out something you both like that fits the first time ;)

    9. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those Intellimouses feel fucking AWFUL to use! Dude, get a Logitech!

    10. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by Chiasmus_ · · Score: 1

      Okay, then, why don't we just each give each other $300 and call it a wash?

      --
      "Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
    11. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by AvatarADVathome · · Score: 1

      Merchants have a good reason to move to gift cards rather than printed voucher GCs... internal theft. It's not particularly hard for a register jockey to grab a stack of GCs and take them home or hand them over the counter to a buddy. Sure, they won't be validated or whatever the store has to do with them.

      On the other hand, that's not the thief's problem. If the store doesn't use some kind of verification, he's just jacked a bunch of money. And if it does, it's going to be the fault of the clerk that accepts the unvalidated GCs.

      I'm also unsure of whether trying to pass such an invalid GC is a crime, at least in the manner of counterfeiting.

      With a gift card that isn't active until it gets run through a register, you eliminate this problem - either the clerk is taking home a bunch of worthless cards, or he runs them through and his till is way short that day.

    12. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by skotte · · Score: 1

      You know, i agree with you on principle, here. it's so impersonal. But then i think: ok, i can tell my grand-ma i want a CD fFrom "The butthole surfers", and "orgy", and "lords of acid".. or i can just say "get me a gift certificate to here, here, or here." the latter makes it a lot less awkward. and no-one needs to worry about getting me two of the same item. so it really kinda makes sense, in a couple ways.

    13. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      I've been told that microsofts mice are made by logitech.

    14. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by operagost · · Score: 1

      And Jaguars are made by Ford. So how much is a Festiva like an S-Type?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Strange..."Gift Cards"... by ROBOKATZ · · Score: 1
      Some people are extremely "careful" with money and would rarely spend money on themselves. If they received cash it would just disappear into a bank account or groceries. They would get no pleasure out of it. For these people, gift certificates to a place that sells "fun" things hold an added value.

      Of course, other people have the opposite problem, so it's all the same to them.

  5. Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting... after describing a company who is particularly lax in their security practices wrt the gift cards:


    The company's name isn't being published to avoid giving criminals a too-easy target.


    Swell. So there's no significant economic reason for that company to change their policies yet. -sigh-
    At least Microsoft is internally consistant in their views on disclosure of security concerns... albeit consistantly wrong.

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    1. Re:Nondisclosure by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Swell. So there's no significant economic reason for that company to change their policies yet.

      Sure there is, its the internal economic justification of the manager in charge of the gift card program. The boss is likely to hear about this, and when (s)he does (s)he will either change the program or get canned.

      No one wants an easy-to-rip-off gift card system. It invites attack from other fraud artists (if this system is lax, then others likely are too), pisses off customers and ruins loyalty.

      The larger problem is that there's little financial incentive for stores to fix the problem generally (other than being seen as generally lax), since the losses aren't their own, they're someone else's, and even hijacked cards are money made for the store.

    2. Re:Nondisclosure by alen · · Score: 2

      And then there are plenty of dishonest people around who aren't inventive enough to think this up and would jump on the bandwagon if the retailer's name was mentioned. Banks keep stuff like this quiet all the time and just improve internal security.

    3. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> pisses off customers and ruins loyalty.

      In a nondisclosure situation, nobody's going to get pissed or be at risk of losing their job until a significant amount of money is already ripped off.
      If, on the other hand, MSNBC ran a list of 'top ten shittiest gift card security offenders', this would impel an immediate change be made by those ten offenders, lest they incur huge losses in reputation .

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    4. Re:Nondisclosure by novarese · · Score: 2

      Even worse, they act like they are doing consumers a favor by not spreading the information. The bad guys already know who the target is - they certainly don't get their info from MSNBC. Meanwhile, consumers who have cards from this retailer are oblivious to the fact that they are potentially vulnerable.

    5. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> And then there are plenty of dishonest people around who aren't inventive enough to think this up and would
      >> jump on the bandwagon if the retailer's name was mentioned.

      No doubt. And what do you think would give these companies a reason to change their policies and fix the problem faster than a thundering bandwagon of thieves armed with this groovy new idea to make easy money ?

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    6. Re:Nondisclosure by swb · · Score: 2

      Most smart managers want to fix a problem before it bites them. The fact that the name of the company ain't in the news has little to do with the amount of internal heat people are facing. You can bet your ass that the MSNBC called a lot of the company's management asking "Did you know how easy your gift cards are to rip off????" and the person in charge of the gift card program, who had probably touted its security previously, will be sitting in the boss' office on Jan 2 answering some hard questions.

      At least that's how it'd work where I work.

    7. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >> Most smart managers want to fix a problem before it bites them.
      >> At least that's how it'd work where I work.

      In my experience, most companies operate on some variation of the Fight Club 'formula'. In this case, if the cost of closing the security hole is more than the estimated value of the loss of customer loyalty plus the value of any out of court settlements, then it won't get fixed.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    8. Re:Nondisclosure by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Well, at the retail joints where I worked, nobody would have the guts to bring this up formally. The managers I've worked with are just putting in thier time like the rest of us, and are more interested in problems that stay under the bed where they belong than in seeking out more work.

    9. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      In this case, if the cost of closing the security hole is more than the estimated value of the loss of customer loyalty plus the value of any out of court settlements, then it won't get fixed.

      Isn't this the way it should work? Why spend money to fix a problem that virtually no one cares about?

      In the case of fight club it's completely different, because we're talking about the loss of lives, not the loss of money. In this case we're talking about whether or not to spend money to stop losing money. A simple greater than or less than approach seems perfectly reasonable.

    10. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> In this case we're talking about whether or not to spend money to stop losing money.

      No, we're talking about spending money to prevent your customers from being robbed due to deficiencies in your product. For an obvious (to slashdotters) analog, compare the total number of damages in billions of dollars caused by security deficiencies in Microsoft products, to the amount of actual financial liability incurred by Microsoft itself.
      Suppose the company in question is Circuit City. How many hundreds of thousands of customer dollars have to be stolen before the amount of dollars that the thefts cost Circuit City corporate warrants them doing something about it ?

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    11. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1
      In this case we're talking about whether or not to spend money to stop losing money.
      No, we're talking about spending money to prevent your customers from being robbed due to deficiencies in your product.

      Same thing.

      For an obvious (to slashdotters) analog, compare the total number of damages in billions of dollars caused by security deficiencies in Microsoft products, to the amount of actual financial liability incurred by Microsoft itself.

      Here in the United States we live in something called a free country, where we allow individuals to make stupid decisions. As a result, for better or worse, we tend to have a system when the stupid get poorer and the smart get richer. Compare the total number of dollars lost by idiots who play the lottery to the actual financial liability incurred by the state governments which run those lotteries. When you buy a lottery ticket you take a risk that you're going to lose your money. When you buy software from Microsoft you take a risk that it's not going to work perfectly. When you buy a gift card, you take a risk that it's going to get stolen. As long as these risks are presented upfront, there shouldn't be any lawsuits involved in the first place.

      Suppose the company in question is Circuit City. How many hundreds of thousands of customer dollars have to be stolen before the amount of dollars that the thefts cost Circuit City corporate warrants them doing something about it?

      The money does not have to be stolen to warrant them doing anything about it, only the potential for the money to be stolen needs to be made aware to the person in charge of making the decision. How much in potential losses are needed depends too much on the specifics such as how hard the system is to fix, how much additional protection the fixes will protect, whether or not there is already a sufficient warning on the product, how much benefit the consumers receive from using the gift cards, what percentage of consumers use the gift cards, whether or not there are laws against charging service fees for the gift cards, how long the average float time is for the gift cards, etc, etc, etc, etc. The "Fight Club formula" is a good summary of these factors.

      If you don't like capitalism you shouldn't be in Circuit City anyway.

    12. Re:Nondisclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always get a chuckle when yanks talk about their "free country" Go for a walk down the street downtown with a lit joint and see how free you are. Then come try it in Canada. See the difference?

    13. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> Same thing.

      Same thing to the corporation. Not the same to the consumer. (That's you, slick.)

      >> When you buy software from Microsoft you take a risk that it's not going to work perfectly.

      Microsoft wants to keep you from ever finding out that there are any problems with their product. Being stupid and not being allowed to have enough information to make an educated decision are most certainly -not- the same thing.

      >> If you don't like capitalism you shouldn't be in Circuit City anyway.

      I like capitalism fine. I just advocate a system that gives corporations a significant capitalist interest in promptly and proactively fixing problems with their products that put their customers' money (gift cards), health (aspartame and other drugs), or lives (automobiles) at risk.

      Businesses are not going to expend money fixing any problem, no matter how severly it affects me as a customer, until it starts to affect their profitability. I wouldn't expect them to; they are a construct created with the express purpose of optimizing profitability. My goal as a security-conscious consumer is to -make- it the corporation's best interest to fix any problems that would have a detrimental effect on me as quickly as possible.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    14. Re:Nondisclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The company name was released.... it is in fact TARGET.

      and yes their cards are insanely easy to copy. Just go to your local target and see. they have sequential numbers (hell even on the same rack!) and is plainly visible. oh and the equipment to read /rewrite? available on ebay or most any electronics surplus. you can also easily make a strip writer from a reader with a little software and hardware components.

    15. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      That's not a federal law, it's a state law.

    16. Re:Nondisclosure by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      As long as these risks are presented upfront, there shouldn't be any lawsuits involved in the first place.


      Well that's just the thing, isn't it? When are these risks ever present up front? With the lottery, they publish the odds of winning (in fine print, of course), but up until I saw this article I had no idea that buying a gift card represented any kind of a financial risk (other than the risk of physically losing the card, of course). I suspect that most other people have no idea either, mainly due to companies having no incentive to publicize the risks involved with their products.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    17. Re:Nondisclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes this especially bad is that the article notes that these cracks are already being discussed in "internet bulletin boards" and that "one poster reveals the exact data format for the retail giant's magnetic gift card stripe."

      That means the criminals already know who the target is and how to exploit the hole. The gives the lie to the reasoning behind the nondisclosure. It is not being disclosed to avoid embarassment, not to protect the financial interests of the company or consumers.

      In fact, since consumers don't know what the target is, they are vulnerable and don't even know it.

      This is an especially egregious example of bogus "security" through obscurity. The information is denied only to those who most need it.

    18. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Same thing to the corporation. Not the same to the consumer. (That's you, slick.)

      No, same thing to society. If the money is lost, it's going to hurt the company one way or another (either lost future business or lawsuit settlements); which ultimately will hurt the consumer through higher prices.

      Microsoft wants to keep you from ever finding out that there are any problems with their product. Being stupid and not being allowed to have enough information to make an educated decision are most certainly -not- the same thing.

      "This software is sold as-is" is all the information you need. Plus, obviously you are incorrect about not being allowed to have enough information, since you apparently have this information.

      I like capitalism fine. I just advocate a system that gives corporations a significant capitalist interest in promptly and proactively fixing problems with their products that put their customers' money (gift cards), health (aspartame and other drugs), or lives (automobiles) at risk.

      And how exactly would you enact such a system? Lawsuits and free choice seem like a fine solution to me. If the legal system were perfect, the Fight Club cost/benefit analysis would also be perfect. True, the legal system isn't perfect, but that doesn't seem to be what you're complaining about. You seem to be blaming corporations for the problems with the legal system. Well one thing about human nature is that both corporations and consumers are going to exploit any holes they can find in the legal system. Short of banning corporations, you're not going to fix that, and even if you did ban corporations individual business owners would take up the slack.

      Businesses are not going to expend money fixing any problem, no matter how severly it affects me as a customer, until it starts to affect their profitability.

      In general, you are right, but consumers are likewise not going to expend money fixing any problem, no matter how severely it affects a corporation, until it starts to affect them. If you make corporations liable for stolen gift cards, the consumer is not going protect the gift card against being stolen. Unscrupulous consumers will probably even sell copies of their gift cards at a discounted rate.

      My goal as a security-conscious consumer is to -make- it the corporation's best interest to fix any problems that would have a detrimental effect on me as quickly as possible.

      As a security-conscious consumer I don't see why you'd ever buy a gift card in the first place. To fix the problem, give the person cash. Circuit City has no responsibility to provide you with gift cards on your terms. They offer the product, and you have the choice to buy it or not. It's sad that we've become a society dependent on having the government protect us from ourselves, to the point where we don't even read the disclaimers on the products we buy.

    19. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      With the lottery, they publish the odds of winning (in fine print, of course), but up until I saw this article I had no idea that buying a gift card represented any kind of a financial risk (other than the risk of physically losing the card, of course).

      Unless there is some type of disclaimer, there is no financial risk other than losing the card (or the company going out of business). If the store tells you otherwise, you can sue them in small claims court and win.

      .
    20. Re:Nondisclosure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm willing to bet that it's a certain big box
      retailer headquartered in Bentonville, AR
      There are enough cues in the story to figure it
      out.

    21. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > No, same thing to society.

      Not even. From the standpoint of me, the consumer:

      Scenario 1: There's a big security problem with Product X, which I have purchased. There is no disclosure of that vulnerability by corporation Xmaker, inc. The way I find out about it, then, is I get all my money stolen away in my use of X, or it fails and causes my car to crash, or whatever. Even then, there's no action taken for just me, it has to happen to a BUNCH of people before it becomes a spot on the radar of Xmaker, inc.

      Scenario 2: There's a bug, and it makes the evening news. Thousands of mostly unsophisticated criminals learn of the vulnerability and how to exploit it. The Xmaker inc realizes that things are about to get really really rough unless they fix the bug, and they do so. I, as the consumer, am vaguely aware that there was a bug, but it's fixed now, and nobody, or some terrifically small number of people compared to scenario 1, was adversely affected by it. As bonus points for Xmaker, inc, my trust of, and loyalty to said corporation increases somewhat.

      >> obviously you are incorrect about not being allowed to have enough information, since you apparently have this information.

      No I don't. I don't know what corporations have vulnerable gift cards and which ones have taken the (trivial) steps to make these devices relatively safe to use. In the case of Microsoft software products, I have this information because of independant research groups publishing it, the very practice Microsoft is trying to suppress.

      >> And how exactly would you enact such a system?
      By allowing, and encouraging (through an avoidance of suppressive legislation, if not actual financial support) the independant review and disclosure of consumer goods. Such things as Bugtraq and other consumer watchdog organizations.

      >> consumers are likewise not going to expend money fixing any problem, no matter how severely it affects a corporation, until it starts to affect them.

      I, as a consumer, am not in a position to fix security issues with products I purchase, or I most certainly would. I don't have the source code to Windows or Outlook to fix those bugs or they'd be fixed by now. I don't have the ability to restructure Circuit City's gift card system or I would do so. The only recourse I have is to simply avoid using the products that have security flaws. But, if the bugs are kept closely guarded secrets, I am not able to make even that simple decision! Furthermore, assuming I know full well that a product from a given corpoation is full of security problems, and want to boycott it, what do I do if that corporation has a (judicially proven) abusive monopoly in that product space ?

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    22. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> Go for a walk down the street downtown with a lit joint and see how free you are. Then come try it in Canada.

      Well, at least now everybody has the same enemy... try to create and/or publicize a workalike for the product of a billion-dollar corporation in Russia (Skylarov - Adobe eBook), Norway (Johansen - DVD player), or the US (Bleem, 2600, et al). See the difference ? Nope, me neither.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    23. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      No I don't. I don't know what corporations have vulnerable gift cards and which ones have taken the (trivial) steps to make these devices relatively safe to use.

      I was referring to Microsoft mainly, as I thought you were in your original statement. But still, the knowledge that there are vulnerabilities in any of the products is enough to make an educated decision - the decision to get more information before making a purchase, especially if there is a disclaimer of some sort on the product. If there is no disclaimer I would assume that the implied warranty of merchantibilty would apply, and your risk would be zero.

      By allowing, and encouraging (through an avoidance of suppressive legislation, if not actual financial support) the independant review and disclosure of consumer goods. Such things as Bugtraq and other consumer watchdog organizations.

      OK, I agree with you, but I'm under the impression that that's something that our current system already has.

      >>consumers are likewise not going to expend money fixing any problem, no matter how severely it affects a corporation, until it starts to affect them.

      I, as a consumer, am not in a position to fix security issues with products I purchase, or I most certainly would.

      My point was that most consumers are not going to spend time or money fixing problems that only cost the business money, just as most businesses are not going to spend time or money fixing problems that only cost the consumers money. It's unfair to single out the businesses for not being philanthropic.

      I don't have the source code to Windows or Outlook to fix those bugs or they'd be fixed by now.

      I'm sure Microsoft would be willing to hire you for minimum wage to fix all bugs in Windows, if that statement were actually true.

      Furthermore, assuming I know full well that a product from a given corpoation is full of security problems, and want to boycott it, what do I do if that corporation has a (judicially proven) abusive monopoly in that product space?

      Borrow someone else's copy of that abusive monopoly product and burn it to CD. If Microsoft sues you for copyright infringement (which they won't), counter-sue.

    24. Re:Nondisclosure by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> Borrow someone else's copy of that abusive monopoly product and burn it to CD
      >> If Microsoft sues you for copyright infringement (which they won't), counter-sue.

      Advocating civil disobedience as a way to deal with abusive monopolies ? Finally, something we agree on completely. =) Seems like a good place to end this little thread.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    25. Re:Nondisclosure by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Advocating civil disobedience as a way to deal with abusive monopolies?

      I'm not sure if doing something which may or may not be a crime under civil law, almost certainly isn't a crime under criminal law, and has almost zero chance of being caught could be considered civil disobedience.

      Finally, something we agree on completely. =) Seems like a good place to end this little thread.

      Absolutely :).

    26. Re:Nondisclosure by screwtheNSA · · Score: 0

      I can strap on a .45 Auto and walk downtown and it's okay because "WE" have that right! Try THAT in Canada...SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

      --
      206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
    27. Re:Nondisclosure by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      "Sure there is, its the internal economic justification of the manager in charge of the gift card program. The boss is likely to hear about this, and when (s)he does (s)he will either change the program or get canned."

      Or not. There's a quote in the MSNBC article from one of the anonymous company's executives that dismisses the risks addresses in the article. It appears that they don't care enough to fix the problem, even now that it's been highlighted. If they'd been explicitly named in the article, it wouldn't have been nearly as easy for them to shrug it off, and prudent consumers could avoid the company if it continued to engage in such risky behavior.

  6. Whee by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Funny


    So, after spending hundreds of dollars in equipment, casing the store and memorizing the numbers, your reward is:

    Books!
    Cans of Paint!
    Socks!

    The risk/reward here is pathetic. They would be better off stuffing things into their oversized coats during the holiday rush.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    1. Re:Whee by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      >> Books!
      >> Cans of Paint!
      >> Socks!

      Easily pawnable goods !
      Books, DVDs, CDs, video games can practically be spent like cash money if you have a pawn shop closeby.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    2. Re:Whee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can use the Best Buy gift cards and use it to buy computer games, computer equipment, blank cd-rs... oh the list is limitless the only thing that matters is the value of the card!

    3. Re:Whee by polter · · Score: 1

      Well, if I were an evil &trade person doing this, I'd target someplace with good stuff like HomeDepot. Snag the numbers and walk out with a laser-guided compound power miter box. (Course H.D's IT group consistently has a clue so it's unlikely that they're vulnerable.). I'm also not evil :)

    4. Re:Whee by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2
      Easily pawnable goods ! Books, DVDs, CDs, video games can practically be spent like cash money if you have a pawn shop closeby.

      It's always amazed me the lack of ethics that one apparently needs to run a pawn shop: trafficking in stolen goods, and encouraging theft from others.

    5. Re:Whee by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've always wondered why there's not a lot more effort expended to fight petty theft from this direction. If law enforcement is able to crack down on pawn shops dealing in stolen goods, then in one fell swoop they've cut most of the profitability out from under bike theft, car breakins, home invasions, baggage theft (at airports, etc)...

      My girlfriend's house was broken into last year. They didn't take ANY cash, but they took a laptop computer, some DVDs, and a whole lot of jewelry. That's where the money is in theft...

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    6. Re:Whee by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess you missed the part where they returned the goods for cash...

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    7. Re:Whee by sparkyz · · Score: 1

      I spend all my damn money in the boook store anyway. for me, it would be as good as cash.

      --
      Oops
    8. Re:Whee by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      At the K-mart where I work, gift carded goods cannot be redeemed for cash--just for the same sum on another gift card. (It's the same way with goods brought in without a receipt--the customer gets the value of the lowest sale price, which usually isn't much, on a gift card--or else an even exchange.)

      On the bright side, one does have to have the actual card, not just the number--at least so far as I know.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    9. Re:Whee by dgroskind · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If law enforcement is able to crack down on pawn shops dealing in stolen goods, then in one fell swoop they've cut most of the profitability out from under bike theft, car breakins, home invasions, baggage theft (at airports, etc)...

      Many police department have a pawn shop squad that regularly checks for stolen goods, primarily those with serial numbers.

      There are many ways besides pawnshops to convert stolen goods: family, friends, neighbors, flee markets, black markets. There is a vast underground economy in stolen goods. It indicates that a high crime rate means there has to be a large number of otherwise honest people willing to break the law to get a good price on something.

      My neighborhood computer store sells RAM at half the advertised discount retail price. It's probably stolen but I don't know for sure. The owner is a nice guy who works long hours, makes a modest living and makes minor repairs on my computer for free so why would I want to report him to the cops? He probably doesn't consider himself any more a criminal than the people he sells to.

    10. Re:Whee by sjames · · Score: 2

      It's always amazed me the lack of ethics that one apparently needs to run a pawn shop: trafficking in stolen goods, and encouraging theft from others.

      Some pawn shops do no doubt traffic in stolen goods (knowingly). Others are just tryinmg to make a living and are victems of the theives as well.

      I'll bet that if police kept a net accessable database of serial numbers for stolen goods, many pawn shop owners would check that list for their own protection.

    11. Re:Whee by eander315 · · Score: 1

      Best Buy is at least one major electronics retailer who has loads of these cards available at the registers. I bet I could find a few thousand dollars worth of stuff I would actually want to keep, not to mention sell on eBay, return, etc. for cash. It wouldn't take too many hardware purchases to cover the cost of that equipment, even if the hardware was sold at a rediculously low price. There are no margins when the merchandise is stolen to begin with.

    12. Re:Whee by llzackll · · Score: 1

      You can't do this with Best Buy gift cards. The cashier has to type in the last 4 digits of the gift card number printed on the back. If this doesn't match what's on the magnetic stripe, then it cannot be used.

    13. Re:Whee by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2
      The owner is a nice guy who works long hours, makes a modest living and makes minor repairs on my computer for free so why would I want to report him to the cops?

      Because he's breaking the law? (Assuming that he is for the sake of argument)

      Your thesis seems to be that if he

      1. is a nice guy,
      2. doesn't make a lot of money,
      3. does nice things for you personally,
      4. doesn't see his actions as criminal
      that his criminal actions, and the effects they have on others, are excused.

      This whole issue came into perfect focus for me once as I was poking through the used CDs at a pawn shop one day. A woman walked to the counter with a stack of 80s metal. She plunked 'em on the counter, got her cash from the owner who clearly knew her, and said "Next time, I'll prob'ly get some country for you."

      I left my stack of planned purchases and walked out.

      That stack of CDs was someone's collection, or part of it. Think about that next time you buy something stolen: I wonder what the person who had this feels right now? Outraged that someone broke into their car or house? Sad that something they enjoyed is now gone? Violated that another person thinks so little of them that the thief would just take something that isn't his?

      Aside from the ethical issues, there's also the pragmatic one: The machine you save may be your own. Your computer store owner gets his cheap memory from stolen machines. Who's to say that the next one won't be yours?

    14. Re:Whee by dgroskind · · Score: 1

      I left my stack of planned purchases and walked out.

      My point was that crime is so endemic in North American society that an honest person can get caught up in it in the most casual of transactions. Even in the example you gave, you didn't report what you saw to the police. If you saw someone breaking into a house, you probably would have.

    15. Re:Whee by jandrese · · Score: 2

      The problem is the burden of proof. You (and the Pawn shop owner) has no way to prove that those CDs were stolen. She might have been just cleaning out her attic and going through her and her brother's old CD collection and selling off the stuff she doesn't like anymore.

      Of course if you don't believe that you can always vote with your wallet and just walk out (as the original poster did), but it'd be pretty pointless to bring the police in. Also, Pawn shops serve a legitimate purpose as well, they give immediate cash for goods, which is necessary if your rent is due and you can't pay it (but have a nice stereo sitting in the corner), and your credit is so bad that you can't even get a credit card.

      Still, it would be nice if there were some sort of stolen goods reporting system that the pawn shop owners could check to avoid buying too much stolen merchandise (or at lest it would allow the cops to set up half way between the scene of the crime and the pawn shop and catch the crook trying to get cash before the goods are entered into the system).

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  7. Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ten to one says it's Walmart. The cards the article describe sound exactly like Walmart's. Another thing that makes me think it's Walmart is that although they are HUGE retailer, they aren't mentioned in the article.

    posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

    1. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Medieval · · Score: 1

      To get gift cards at Wal-Mart, you have to go to customer service and they take one out of a locked cabinet, charge it, and give it to you when you pay. At least, that's how it works at Wal-Marts in the southeast.

    2. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by johnmc · · Score: 1

      > Ten to one says it's Walmart

      sounds about right, making them the microshaft of the retail world in security circles as well as business practices.

      > they aren't mentioned in the article.

      umm, not totally true. They are mentioned but only because of the $1/mo. charge on unused cards after a year

      --
      -- johnmc.
    3. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      They sit right out in the open at the Wal-mart in Windsor, Ontario. Just hanging there in the checkout aisle begging to be taken.

      Tells you something about:
      A) Honesty of Canadians.
      B) Trusting nature of Canadians.
      or C) Intelligence of Canadians.

      I'll let you pick

      AWG

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    4. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by druiid · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me more like target. I'd have to go look at the gift cards, but from everything they're stating in the article, it sounds like target. If it's not target, walmart would be my next guess.

    5. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by AgTiger · · Score: 1

      Got news for you: I'm in the Midwest U.S., and Sam's Club (the wholesale side of WalMart) does the same thing.

      No country has a hammerlock on stupidity - it's so plentiful!

    6. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      Damn, I thought that we held the record. Wanna count again, on a per capita basis this time?

      AWG

      4 out of 5 dentists think that the fifth one is a real jackass!

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    7. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Knightmare · · Score: 1

      Having worked for Wal-Mart a few years back, you are welcome to steal as many of those gift cards as you want.... they do you no good unless you are going to change the mag strip to match another customers card... There is no money associated with that card until you run through the register and have them "activated." I used to use them all the time as gas at the gas station in the back of the parking lot was cheaper if you used a Wal-Mart gift card.

    8. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      "they do you no good unless you are going to change the mag strip to match another customers card."

      Right. Like the article says people are doing. Remember the article? The one you read before...oh.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    9. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by johnmc · · Score: 1

      > Sounds to me more like target.

      Hmmm... I think that the Target gift cards use barcodes instead of mag stripes. I'd check the one I gave my wife for Christmas but she redeemed and tossed it as soon as the store re-opened :)

      --
      -- johnmc.
    10. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by xbrownx · · Score: 0

      Wow you just described the scheme they use in the article!

      Thanks for summarizing.

    11. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by fscking_coward_2001 · · Score: 1

      Uhh...did you even think to read the article?

    12. Re:Wonder which LARGE retailer it could be? by Knightmare · · Score: 1

      Aren't we cute, why yes I read the article but I was trying to clarify for the poster I was replying to that it wasn't just simply taking the cards that were, as he put it, "begging to be taken" were not piles of money waiting to be claimed. And they would actually have to put some effort into making the cards useful. And the fact that they are just laying there is no more a problem than the fact that they could get the cards legit and recode them after spending the $2 they put on them.
      And if you have a problem with me trying to help out the reader which I replied to, without being a jackass and pointing out that had he read the article, the fact that they were just laying out did you no good, then you can well.. lick my balls.

  8. Barnes and Noble. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I worked at Barnes and Noble for a while a couple Christmases ago, and here's how their gift card system worked:

    When you got the card, it was preauthorized with a certain amount of money in a certain account number, like any other debit card. The account number was on the magstrip of the card, was printed on the card, but was _also_ printed on the gift receipt that came with the card.

    Now, all that was necessary to redeem the gift card was that number. But most people just tossed the second receipt. Which meant that a quick swipe through the trash outside the store doors could probably yield a few hundred dollars worth of gift card credit as yet unredeemed.

    Nice, eh? Even when we told people expressly not to do it, they still did. Wonder how many got burned.

    --saint

    1. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Grimmtooth · · Score: 5, Informative
      The account number was on the magstrip of the card, was printed on the card, but was _also_ printed on the gift receipt that came with the card.


      Which is EXACTLY why several states, California foremost among them, have begun to implement consumer protection laws that require that the receipt NOT display the account number and/or the expiry date (depending on the state). I believe in the case of California, it goes into effect on Jan 1 2002.

      My company's ready. I wonder how many other POS vendors aren't? :-)

      At any rate, it is the store's responsibility to comply, by using compliant POS software. Since it is easier to implement across the board than on a state by state basis, I presume that if a vendor has fixed it for CA, they will be prepared for the other states, too.

      Outside the US is not something I'm familiar with.
      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    2. Re:Barnes and Noble. by JordanH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?

      I could see a law where the vendor had to inform you to protect the numbers, but not allow them to give you a slip of paper with the number on it? That's pretty paternal, don't you think?

      A lot of receipts have credit card numbers on them, too, which is why you should always dispose of receipts carefully. It's a real convenience to have this reference information on a receipt, and I imagine there's a good business case for having the gift card number on the receipt as well. Makes it easier to bring the card back and get it worked out if the magstrip goes bad, for example.

      What we need is a less paternalistic government to train people to be smarter and more responsible for themselves.

      Oh, never mind, most people with a public school education have been trained not to think for so long now that any arguments are useless. OK, I give up... What we NEED is for these gift cards to be implanted in a chip in your wrist so you don't accidentally throw them away. That's the law we REALLY need.

    3. Re:Barnes and Noble. by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      a lot of stores are like that. I used to work for KMart back when their cards were intro'd, and it worked the exact same way. The plus for KMart is that (according to the article) is that there is a conf number in the stripe not found on the card and not given to the customer. The only loophole would be a card that had it's stripe damaged, as the clerk would have to punch in the card number printed on the front, nothing else. But this article talks about re-programming the the stripe on the card, which is made difficult by the conf code.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    4. Re:Barnes and Noble. by jeffy124 · · Score: 3, Funny

      most places already do this. looking through a bunch of receipts from christmas, Texaco, ShopRite (a PA-area food store), Kmart, Walmart, and Bed Bath & Beyond print the last 4 digits, Levi's Outlet at Franklin Mills Mall prints the whole number.

      That's ok for me though, as I know how to protect myself. Dont trash the receipt at the store. At home, carefully cut up each digit individually using a pair of scissors, separate the piles into several seperate trash bins somewhere downtown, the more blocks apart the better.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    5. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?

      Because most people aren't braniacs like you and I, I suppose.

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    6. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      At home, carefully cut up each digit individually using a pair of scissors, separate the piles into several seperate trash bins somewhere downtown, the more blocks apart the better.

      Oh, that's just too easy. You skipped a couple of steps. Fist, after cutting up the individual digits, you should burn them, stomp on the ashes, and distribute the ashes over the Canadian Rockies from an airplane.

      :-)

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    7. Re:Barnes and Noble. by delysid-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless you have access to blank cards, in which case you just punch the number into the plastic, put some bogus data on the stripe and have the clerk type the number in thinking it's a "bad card".

    8. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?

      What's stupid is printing my credit card number/exp/full name on a receipt. That's essentially making a copy of my credit card. At restaurants I make a point to cut out my CC number because it's just as bad as leaving my credit card on the table and leaving.

    9. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?


      You could argue the same point for any product-safety law. Why do we need a law that forbids companies from selling cars with defective brakes? (and yes, the account-number-on-the-receipt is a defect: specifically, it's a security hole)


      I could see a law where the vendor had to inform you to protect the numbers, but not allow them to give you a slip of paper with the number on it? That's pretty paternal, don't you think?


      Seems like common sense to me.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re:Barnes and Noble. by txguy1 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I've always taken the ashes and combined them with lye and animal fat to make soap. I keep it in a small safe by the sink.

    11. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I've always taken the ashes and combined them with lye and animal fat to make soap. I keep it in a small safe by the sink.

      I bow to your greatness, O ObscureOne :-)

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    12. Re:Barnes and Noble. by sjames · · Score: 2

      A lot of receipts have credit card numbers on them, too, which is why you should always dispose of receipts carefully.

      They shouldn't. Putting the card number on the recipt changes it from a simple record of a transaction (which may be used for budget management, expense reimbursement, or proof of an expense in an audit) to a securety risk that should be carefully destroyed as soon as possable.Suddenly, a simple slip of paper that should have no value to anyone but the purchaser becomes the target of theft.

      The laws against putting the card number on a recipt are protecting you against the merchant's stupidity much in the way that DUI laws protect you from another motorist's stupidity.

      While we're at it, there are a few other numbers that should be protected. Credit card account numbers should be distinct from the credit card number. That way, my bill isn't worth stealing and I can write the account number on a payment check so that in the likely event that check and payment slip become seperated in handling, the payment may still be credited.

      All bank accounts should have two distinct numbers. One that only allows deposits. That way I could write my account number on the back of a check (same reasons as above) without wondering who will see it when the check clears and is returned.

      For that matter, account number shouldn't be enough to remove money from an account in the first place.

    13. Re:Barnes and Noble. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?"

      Because you're not only trying to "protect people from doing stupid things", you're also attempting to combat the criminals who take advantage of people who do stupid things. You may like to think that this is a dumb idea, but things that make crime harder also make it less likely that someone might turn to crime. In addition, remrmber that your "normal" street criminal doen't have access to gift card blanks or mag strip writers. Usually, these low-level types are merely information collectors and end-product purchasers for a more organized high-level operation. It's "penny ante" stuff like this that supports most organized crime in America.

      In the end, it's not only the "people who do stupid things" or the stores that enable them that get protected (though they receive a large amount of the benefit), it's you and me. Now you can debate whether people need protection from criminals, but it is a debate you're likely to lose...

      P.S. This sort of law also helps increase the use of this kind of financial instrument by increasing its security. This may actually improve the economy. And besides, I doubt that you're the one person in existance who has never done anything stupid. Maybe we all need protection from you :-).

      --
      That is all.
    14. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is great news. GameStop annoyingly printed the whole number and expiration date on my receipt recently, and Fry's has the most moronic approach -- it prints everything but the last four numbers of the card (the least secure part!) It's probably very handy for them but is idiotic and a royal pain in the ass to customers.

    15. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm very curious where the "sheeple" and libertarianism arguments collide myself.

    16. Re:Barnes and Noble. by xbrownx · · Score: 0

      I used to work for bn.com in a temp summer position, and as an employee of Barnes & Noble I was entitled to the employee 15% or 20% discount (can't remember the exact figure).

      For up to six months after I stopped working there, I was still able to use my ID card (which they forgot to collect upon termination) to get my discount.

      If they can't keep track of their employees, why would they bother to keep track of your money?

    17. Re:Barnes and Noble. by BrianH · · Score: 2

      Common sense? Sorry, but I this "law" is already becoming a pain in my arse as retailers begin to implement it. I have six credit cards which I am constantly using. When I go to enter my transactions into my account register (MS Money), the number on my receipt is often the ONLY way I can recall which card I charged something to. Some retailers, luckily, are still printing the last four or five digits on the receipt, but with the others I now find myself having to write account info on my receipts just to keep my accounts straight.

      --

      There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
    18. Re:Barnes and Noble. by sholton · · Score: 1
      Putting the card number on the recipt changes it from a simple record of a transaction...to a securety risk that should be carefully destroyed as soon as possable.

      There's no inherent problem with identifying the account on the receipt. The problem is with a system where simple knowledge of the existance of the account is presumed to imply authorization to charge to it. Unfortunately, it's this which is hopelessly broke.

      For security, the system should include an out-of-band method for verifying that the charge is authorized. The receipt does not need to contain enough information reproduce the verification transaction, although a completely anal receipt might contain enough information to uniquely identify the specific verification transaction which was used. That's what we call an "audit trail".

      For that matter, account number shouldn't be enough to remove money from an account in the first place.

      Now you're getting it.

      --
      A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
    19. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Zigg · · Score: 2

      Come again? The defective brakes don't require the consumer to be stupid to cause injury or death. The account number on receipt requires the consumer to be stupid, and certainly wouldn't cause injury or death.

      Quit insulting some of our intelligence, eh?

    20. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Zigg · · Score: 2

      Err, the last four digits are the part that is most likely to identify your account. The first six digits, IIRC, identify the card company and are pretty damn near public knowledge.

      Please get your facts straight.

    21. Re:Barnes and Noble. by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      It doesn't just require the user to be stupid (although it does); it also makes it easy for the user to be stupid. In other words, it requires the user to be very careful in disposing of his receipts, or risk getting screwed. And the only reason for making things so error prone is for the business's convenience (it saves them the hassle of developing a more secure system); there is no advantage for the consumer.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:Barnes and Noble. by hawk · · Score: 2
      >When I go to enter my transactions into my
      >account register (MS Money), the number on my
      >receipt is often the
      >ONLY way I can recall which card I charged >something to.


      the solution, of course, is for the receipt to only display the last four digits, as many do.


      I got a "rebate" check for $10 towards my credit card bill--identified by only the last 4 digits of the accdount . .


      hawk

    23. Re:Barnes and Noble. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Better authorization schemes DO need to happen, and perhaps won't until forced by law. However, until that time, it IS stupid for a merchant to print cc# on a recipt and the practice should be banned to protect the consumer.

    24. Re:Barnes and Noble. by M-G · · Score: 2
      There's no inherent problem with identifying the account on the receipt. The problem is with a system where simple knowledge of the existance of the account is presumed to imply authorization to charge to it. Unfortunately, it's this which is hopelessly broke.

      Ahh, but even when the full account number isn't sufficient to provide authorization, printing the full number on a receipt is still a security risk. A few years ago, ATM machines routinely printed full ATM card numbers on receipts. Many people toss these receipts at the nearest trash receptacle. Crooks would set up in, say, a shopping mall, where there was lots of traffic and a good vantage point. One person would watch people punch in their PINs, and another would swoop in and recover the discarded receipt. After harvesting this info, a bunch of blank cards and a magstripe machine were all that was needed to suck accounts dry.
  9. Value and cost of cards by Shant3030 · · Score: 1

    I have worked in retail for many years and stores do not pay as much attention to gift cards as they should because they have no real value. They are like coins at amusement parks, they are only good at the respective stores. To put more money into safeguarding them, would destroy the supposed cost effeciency of these cards. Another point to consider is the switch from paper gift certificates. I believe that this was a much safer way to do business, but stores needed to "get with the times" and have a more electronic certificate. I guess this is one of those instances where advanced technology does not benefit us more than we think...

    --
    100% Insightful
  10. fear mongering? by filtersweep · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OK, OK... it holds the *potential* to be a problem- big deal. They cited NO actual examples of theft other than the money laundering example, and there are many easier ways of laundering money if you use your imagination.

    There have been several local stories about people stealing money order machines, or printing MOs on their PCs... this stuff actually happens all the time, but a nice "holiday piece" about gift cards without even anedotal "evidence" that this is a widespread problem? Gimme a break!

    There are no named sources to the story, the internet site they reference is not given, and they only list retailers viewed as less problematic (and give us a nice caveat to explain why). Not only is the problem a "scenario"- the news story itself is a scenario. Boring journalism... might as well be an op-ed piece.

    I'm more concerned about issues such as identity theft, etc... at least your gift card leaves no personal identification about you.

    --


    Those that suggest you "dance like no one is watching" really want to see you make a complete fool of yourself.
    1. Re:fear mongering? by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      What bothered me most about the article was the mention that gift cards are selling on eBay for 75 cents on the dollar. They said they hadn't verified any of the current auctions as being fraudulent (how would they have gone about doing this, anyway?) but the article implied that every gift card on eBay is probably illegit.

      Gimme a break! I can't count the number of times I've been sent gift certificates to stores that don't exist here, or to stores I have no interest in visiting. Not every retailer will let you shop on their website, and some of the ones who do won't let you redeem gift certificates online. In cases like this, you wind up with a nice (and maybe expensive) gift that you can't use. The obvious solution is to sell it - cheaper than it would cost to buy at the store, of course, or else what's the point - to someone who does have a store in their area.

      Who'd have thought that there might actually be unwanted/unusable gifts for sale on eBay a few days after Christmas? Apparently not MSNBC...

      Shaun

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:fear mongering? by alcmena · · Score: 2

      An easy way for these eBay sellers to sell seemingly "legit" gift cards is to simply program them back. Buy the card, store the original info, reprogram the card and steal lots and lots of money, program the card back to the original, sell it on eBay so it's no longer in your possession. Repeat.

  11. HA! by BiggestPOS · · Score: 5, Funny
    According to the Tyler Morning Telegraph, teen-agers used a similar method for using gift cards to steal money from an electronics retailer in Tyler, Texas last December.

    I fucking live in this town. I had no idea a vast conspiracy to defraud Best Buy was happening all around me this whole time. I figured this town had the collective IQ of a walnut. The whole time I lived here I could of been hanging out with sk1pt k1dd13z.

    --
    What, me worry?
    1. Re:HA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh..yeah..hanging out with script kiddies sure sounds like a blast to me..

  12. What are the odds by Alien54 · · Score: 1, Troll
    What are the odds of something like this actually hapening? How many thieves are there out there with the technical know how to pull this off, compared to the public at large? one hundred? one million?

    Most places I know of keep the gift cards at least out of sight, but if they were to keep them out in the open, well that would be sort of stupid, given the scenario.

    heck, I even wonder about the telphone cards, which I never use. I would have to go to a store to look at one to see if they have visible numbers on them.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:What are the odds by ellem · · Score: 1

      How many thieves are there out there with the technical know how to pull this off, compared to the public at large?

      7

      --
      This .sig is fake but accurate.
    2. Re:What are the odds by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Around here, the gift cards are just sitting by the register back by the candy (Meijer's and Walmart both did this). They were easy to get, even easier to swipe because they were just glued to the back of a bigger card. To swipe one, one would just have to drop a bunch of cards, and then while bent over, peel the card off the bigger card. Also, I don't know about Walmart, but Meijer's were all precharged. The UPC's on the bigger card were even all the same (probably something like 41250 *****, I used to work at Meijer and all Meijer Branded stuff including the gift cards start with the same 5 numbers.). Thing is most stores don't have the storage or available UPC's to give each card a separate UPC code (only way they could keep the cards as they have them and keep them deactivated until they are scanned). The only way I think they could make these things more safe is if you had to do what you used to do and go to Guest Services and buy the card and have the guest services folks charge a denomination on them by swiping the card. Most of the cards I have seen as of late all had how much money each card held printed right on the card! This was at every place I have been this season including even some of the nicer stores! Meijer did not even have cashier's type in a code or anything to activate them. They just swiped it and the appropriate figure was added to the total along with your groceries. This may have changed, but I agree with the article that it is easy. I doubt many would even have to have the card programmers to steal lots of cash.

      --

      Gorkman

    3. Re:What are the odds by AsylumWraith · · Score: 1

      The telephone cards I used to buy when I was poor worked like this:

      Buy the card, no authorization procedure. Now, when you dial the 800 number on the back, you're asked for a card number. The card has to be scratched off to reveal the card number. Now, scratching the card off in the store would be pretty conspicuous, (sp?) but also, if you were buying the cards, you would at least be able to know if a card had been compromised (ie, it's on the shelf, but scratched off.)

      Seems like a pretty simple, and secure, system to me. Don't know if this is the case with all the phone cards on the market though.

    4. Re:What are the odds by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      I don't know about Meijer's, but at my K-Mart (and, as far as I know, at Wal-Mart) you have to put money on the card when you buy it. Until then, it's simply empty. I scan the card, enter the amount, slide it through my credit card reader, then blammo, that card has money on it (or at least it does after the customer pays)--but not before. Someone could come along and take all the cards we had on the shelf--but none of them would be worth anything. It's the same for the long distance phone cards that hang along the impulse buying lanes--they have to be swiped through the register to activate them.

      But even so, when I was checking out at a Wal-Mart a few months back, buying a $10 gift card because of their gas pump system that gave you a cheaper rate if you bought with a gift card, the checker said they'd had to move all their gift cards to one single island, because people kept stealing them. Yes, she said, they were valueless until they were activated, but people seemed to keep stealing them anyway. Go figure, eh?

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    5. Re:What are the odds by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Funny
      What are the odds of something like this actually hapening? How many thieves are there out there with the technical know how to pull this off, compared to the public at large?

      A lot more now :)

    6. Re:What are the odds by Suppafly · · Score: 2

      Your walmart sells gas?

    7. Re:What are the odds by petree · · Score: 1

      heck, I even wonder about the telphone cards, which I never use. I would have to go to a store to look at one to see if they have visible numbers on them.

      I remember a friend of mine once had some trouble with her phone card. The second time she used it, she noticed that it had more money than the value of the card. As it turns out, all of the cards were sequential and she was accessing the money on someone else's card. She used it once, but then feeling bad went back to using her own card. Two weeks later she went to go make another phone call and all of her minutes were gone, someone else had fucked her. Great eh? Just goes to show you how stupid people who make up these systems are. I wouldn't be suprised if by looking at the cards in a store (20 or more) you might be able to derive the formula that they use to generate card numbers. Wow wouldn't that be cool. Then they could steal EVERYONE's money. Once you had a bunch of people out of money, I bet companies would change their practices.

    8. Re:What are the odds by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      Actually I checked out the cards today. It appears that Meijer changed their cards and they have to be rung and a code typed into the register to be activated. Must of had the problem I described above. So, you would have to have a card reprogrammer in order to steal off of the card. I think the article did describe how it could happen. It could still happen. It's just not very likely. I think the article raises some concerns, but nothing the average customer should worry about.

      --

      Gorkman

    9. Re:What are the odds by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

      The one I bought that card at was just south of Kansas City, actually--I forget the name of the city, but it was on the way. Though at least one of the Wal-Marts here in Springfield, Missouri does have gas pumps, too, as does the Sam's Wholesale Club.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    10. Re:What are the odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not very likely" is a little misleading. It's virtually certain that a few people will/did figure out the details of doing this. The only question is how many card holders they'll defraud, and whether they'll ever be stopped.

  13. Minnesota Walmarts have them at the checkout by swb · · Score: 1

    Which is a good thing, because at the Walmart in my area "Customer Service" more closely resembles the customs area of an east-African country than a place where you go to get helped.

  14. Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by swb · · Score: 2

    Why not just assign a PIN number, stored in the store computer, not on the card, when the card is bought and charged?

    Sure some yokels would write the number on the card and get it lifted or lose it, but the same could happen to cash.

    Requiring extra information not available on the card would be ideal and would make the type of counterfeiting described in the article very difficult, as long as there was no simple way of resetting PINs. It wouldn't prevent inside jobs or people laundering stolen credit cards, but those types will always be hard to stop.

    1. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Nonac · · Score: 1

      PINs won't go over with gift givers. The benefit of a gift card is you can buy it, mail it to the nephew you never see and forget about it. Having to call your snot-nosed nephew to tell him the PIN would defeat the purpose.

    2. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      Why not just assign a PIN number, stored in the store computer, not on the card, when the card is bought and charged?


      Because a secure PIN requires encryption devices on one end and decruption devices on another.

      But, good point on the PIN, if you HAVE a debit card, take the Gift Card and 'cash it out' immediately, then deposit the cash into your bank account. Viola, your money is as secure as your paycheck :-)

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    3. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Lunastorm · · Score: 0

      That sounds to me like that would be a huge hassle, such as dealing with activation schemes and serial numbers with commercial software.

      --
      You die too easily.
    4. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      The big thing going for the criminal is speed. A majority of these cards would have been cashed out by the time that they were received. If I were to pull this stunt, I would grab a bunch of cards in November, and then the last two weeks before Christmas, I would copy the numbers of the cards hanging there. Then Christmas eve and Boxing Day, I would cash in on a whole bunch of virtually untraceable consumer goods and electronics. Video games and stereo equipment would be the best bet, as it can be quickly pawned, or sold off, whereas the larger consumer goods are not as easy to dispose of.
      Shopping during the christmas rush is the best way to avoid being caught, gives you plenty of time beforehand to watch if the cards you copied have been sold, and get the most value for your ill-gotten dollar.

      AWG

      But this is only theory, please don't accredit the author when you get busted.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by oooga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not just assign a PIN number, stored in the store computer, not on the card, when the card is bought and charged?

      That's a flawed suggestion. Gift cards are, typically, gifts. When I buy one at Borders it's not for me, it's for a cousin. And when my Uncle sends me 40 bucks in Best Buy Legal Tender, there's no frickin way I'm going to remember the arbitrary 4-digit number _he_ chose 4 months ago as I'm trying to purchase an extra nintendo controller. See? Gift cards aren't like debit cards. Nobody wants to put that much effort into them, especially the retailer and least of all the customer.

      --
      -- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
    6. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Twiki · · Score: 1

      I think there are a couple ways to use a PIN, or similar, feature with Gift Cards, without creating /too much/ of a hassle for consumers. Below are a few examples - do y'all think any of them would fly?

      -------

      1. At time of purchase, have the card be deactivated. The receipt will print out with a PIN number of some sort, which will have to be activated by phone, web, etc. As part of the activation process, the Gift Card recipient must change the PIN to something of their own choosing. This PIN, of course, must be entered when using the Gift Card for purchasing merchandise.

      PROS - It's simple. The mentality of today's society, in general, is capable of handling this, I think. Everyone has an ATM or Credit card these days, all of which require similar PIN expertise. It's definitely tolerable.

      CONS - Does no good if someone steals the receipt and the card before you use it/give it away. (see #2)

      -------

      2. At time of purchase, employee encodes the GiftCard with the purchasers phone number as the PIN. When you give the card, just tell the recipient your phone number is the PIN. The Gift Card recipient, of course, always has the option of changing this to their own phone number later, or to some other 10-digit PIN.

      PROS - PIN will be 10 digits, and for the most part random. Unless the hacker had access to the merchant database, or perhaps found the card in someone's wallet and found the phone number based on the wallet owner's address, there should be very little theft.

      CONS - If the phone number is entered wrong at time of purchase, you're screwed (well, whoever you give the card to is screwed! :P )

      -------

      3. Make it a standard requirement that you MUST have the card at time of purchase in order to use it. Plain and simple. (For internet purchases, you could use the same security feature that credit cards use; that small-print 4-digit number printed ON the actual card (ie. not embossed) or sometimes on the back just after the account number where the signature goes.)

      PROS - Assuming the card never gets stolen, you're good to go.

      CONS - If the card DOES get stolen, good-bye card balance. Oh yeah, don't lose it either.

      ALTERNATIVE - Combine the PIN feature with the must-have-card requirement. That way if it IS lost, the "finder" can't do much.

      -------

      4. Implement an "Authorized Customer" feature for GiftCard recipients. (**NOTE - I don't expect a lot of folks, especially here, to buy into this type of setup, but just hear me out... :P ) Basically, before you can use a Gift Card, you have to set up some kind of Known-Customer account with the merchant. This would require that you fill out some kind of questionaire, provide a valid ID, etc. You'd, of course, get some kind of Store ID card, maybe one of those valued shopper barcodes, or a magstripe card...something along those lines. Anyway, you'd need to have one of these to activate any Gift Card, and when used must be accompanied by your Store ID or whatever.

      PROS - Purchases require "light" authentication of the purchaser, which shouldn't be a hassle if you're prepared. Also, not a very difficult challenge/response system.

      CONS - Purchase requires authentication, albeit "light." Also, the customer must provide personal information up front, etc. May be considered a hassle/invasion of privacy, etc.

      OTHER NOTES - Most grocery stores already implement a "Valued Customer" card or whatever, that provides discounts to the consumer, and good demographics for the merchant. I would embrace this type of setup at Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. (CC has requested this information for a long time, if I'm not mistaken.) I'd be willing to give up anonymity for a $1.00 off a CD/DVD coupon, etc., from time to time for being a "repeat" customer or whatever, and knowing that any GiftCards I received would be "protected" would be very comforting. If this was used, per my plans, along with GiftCard PINs, then I think theft, if any, would definitely be reduced. Also, success of this system would only work if the "Known Customer" thing was properly marketed to the public. I think it could work, though, but would require quite a bit of infrastructure to do so.

      -------

      Hrm, now I'm wondering if there's a market for a third-party Gift Card vendor...? I think Visa or MasterCard already have something similar for kids, right? It's a valid Visa account number, but the parent or guardian can add/remove funds at will...? Kinda similar to a check card, but somehow attached to their own credit card account?

      --
      mySig
    7. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it occurs to me that maybe if the cashier had to type in the number on the front of the card after swiping it, and then the system compared it to the number in the strip, the specific problem of the strips being rewritten would be solved. unless the criminal printed the new number on the front of the card to match the number he wrote into the magnetic strip, there would be a mismatch and a red flag

    8. Re:Why not just assign PINs at purchase? by stressky · · Score: 1

      Over here in Oz, gift certificates almost exclusively have "not redeemable for cash" printed in big letters on the back of the certificate. So no go on that...

      However, I've never seen gift-cards here. We're still using paper (and it seems, just as well that we are).

      --
      ...this is getting out of hand
  15. Too cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magnetic stripe security expert "Tom Trusty"?? Awww...

  16. Reading comprehension by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ?In theory, I think there might be potential for what you?re concerned about here, but there?s concerns for peoples? pockets getting picked, too,? said the spokesperson.
    does not mean anything remotely close to
    One retailer notes that the odds of this occuring are about at the level of being pickpocketed.
  17. Why not two numbers? by VertigoAce · · Score: 1

    An easy way out would be to put two account numbers with every card. One is printed on the card and is used for the 1-800 number to check the balance. The other number could be on the magnetic strip and be used to redeem the card. All that's left is to watch for shoplifters.

    1. Re:Why not two numbers? by Grimmtooth · · Score: 1

      An easy way out would be to put two account numbers with every card

      Do you realize how difficult this would be to implement? We're not talking about a cottage industry here, we're talking about dozens of companys for processing, dozens for the POS systems used, hundreds of actual merchants ... sure, if we were redesigning our financial infrastructure from scratch I would be all in favor of cards with NO real account on the face, smart chips, and encrypted PINs for ALL transactions. but it ain't gonna happen this decade.

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    2. Re:Why not two numbers? by delysid-x · · Score: 1

      >>An easy way out would be to put two account numbers with every card
      >Do you realize how difficult this would be to implement?

      Uhh... only slightly harder than one account number? The db record for that card would have two fields for the card number. Hell, if you want to make it really easy to do, make the numbers start differently, then you know right away which db field to look in.

    3. Re:Why not two numbers? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      I have another idea: Pretty much every store had barcode readers at this point, how about we have the gift card have both a magstrip and a barcode, and that the cash register require the cashier to both scan and swipe the card for acceptance. If the numbers don't match, the register silently alerts security, and they nab the perp on the way out the door.... Ideally, the barcode and magstrip should be cryptographically related, because forging a barcode is even more trivial than forging a magstrip....

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  18. Cash out policies with Walmart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got one of these at Christmas, and called the helpdesk hotline published on the card - Walmarts' official policy on "cashing out" the card is that it is up to the local store management.

    You might want to get there before the run on cashing in the cards...

  19. Why they don't care by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see why the retailers don't really care. If someone forges a paper gift certificate and redeems it, the store is out the money. The thieves are just printing money.

    But when someone forges a stored-value card, they're stealing from other customers. The "value" has already been paid for, so the store doesn't lose anything.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  20. the perfect crime? by bo0push3r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this had occurred to me some time ago when i saw the ramping-up of these things. i think it kinda started with best buy and spread from there. now every major retailer has them.

    one previous respondent had said something to the effect of, "..this is just like digging in a cash drawer.." this isn't just any kind of theft.. it's the ultimate kind! a better imperfect analogy would be: "..the store leaves $20, $50, and $100 dollar bills hanging from displays at the counter.."

    if you walk into a store with the intention of stealing, what's the best thing to steal? small, high-cost items. and these items, while never as good as cash, are virtually untraceable if you use the common sense method described in the article.

    also, i'm sure you'd be hassled by security if they noticed you jotting gift card numbers in your daytimer, but you don't technically have to shoplift to do this.

    the shrink numbers on these things must be fantastic!

    1. Re:the perfect crime? by tswinzig · · Score: 2, Informative

      one previous respondent had said something to the effect of, "..this is just like digging in a cash drawer.." this isn't just any kind of theft.. it's the ultimate kind! a better imperfect analogy would be: "..the store leaves $20, $50, and $100 dollar bills hanging from displays at the counter.."

      No, that's a terrible analogy, since you're stealing from the customer that paid for the card, not the store, as you would be if they left money hanging around.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    2. Re:the perfect crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so I can clear up a couple points on this (and maybe defunct the article as well to a certain degree) For starters those little pieces of plastic hanging all over most stores, despite the fact them saying they are "worth" $20, $50, $100 if you don't pay for them they are actually worth all of $0.00, that's because they must be swipped at the cash register and activated similar to a prepaid phone card. So the shrink numbers on these are nearly non-exsistant. Also the card itself doesn't hold the value of the card, that's stored off in a database in kilimenjaro, so the only thing you could really do to those cards is change the number that the card has, but then again your not neccisarily changing it to an account that has money and is really a big waste of time in the end.

    3. Re:the perfect crime? by bo0push3r · · Score: 1

      >a better imperfect analogy would be:

      again.. i realize this is different.

  21. Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the security expert here is named Tom Trusty?

  22. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yeah. i've been preaching this for a while. but some of the same problems go for credit cards. the credit card companies have yet to fix their system (to one using cards with little displays and public key encryption), for something like

    user's card has a secret. the user also has a secret. then the merchant gives the user a transaction time (or number, or something that changes periodically), the balance, and the merchant identifier. then these are hashed together to give an "authorization number" which the user then uses as a signature. you've got the same physical theft problem (if the user writes down their secret), but you always have that.

    why don't the companies implement this? too much of a pain in the ass to change all of their infrastructure. if my card is used fraudulently, i will never pay the first $50 or whatever because of these reasons. it is their negligence.

    this would be harder to do with gift cards, but would still be feasible using assymetric cryptography, and some sort of electronic 'gift card wallet'. or you just dont allow consumers to play with the cards until they actually buy one, instead of the stores thinking it's "cool" to just have them sitting there, because they're not activated until you buy them!

  23. What about re-programming the mag strip? by seigniory · · Score: 1

    You still need to reprogram the magnetic strip of a similar card for everything to work (assuming magnetic and not bar code cards).

    The stereotypical "pickpocket" they mention ain't likely to have tools like that.

    1. Re:What about re-programming the mag strip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check ebay for "Magnetic card" and you'll see many card reader/writers, some for cheap. Anyone could do this card hack easy. The stores are dumb!

      Free presents for all! :)

  24. What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Remember what we did before all these plastic cards and shit came out? That's right...we went to the bank and took out pieces of paper with numbers printed on them and the words: this note is legal tender printed across the bottom...and we got along just fine. Wanna give someone an impersonal gift because you can't think of what to give them or can't be bothered shopping...put a couple of these pieces of paper in an envelope and give it to them! Need to send it through the mail? Write cheque or get a money order! I don't even like using my ATM card for purchases...I prefer withdrawing the cash and paying with that and nothing pisses me off more than having some dingbat in line in fromt of me trying card after card and none of them seem to work (especially the express lane at the grocery store, which is supposed to be cash only!). I especially love it when once in a while I encounter a merchant that's flirting with the idea of no longer accepting cash payments..."Uh, what part of this note is legal tender don't you understand?
    No...those pre-loaded "gift cards" are a sucky idea that needs to go away. (I guess they're great if you're the merchant and it's your "policy" not to give out the balance left over on the card in cash...)

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you read this website, and still be so backwards? I'm sure when the switch from a barter economy to a cash economy was happening, there was a guy just like you, rambling on about how if he wants a cow, he'll just carry 15 bushels of wheat to the market and get one. I suppose you dont' use calculators either, since a pencil and paper works.

    2. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, I did a little study where in most cases a Debit card swiped by the customer (like a grocery store) is faster then any other payment method. My findings where that:

      1) The customer was able to swipe BEFORE clerk was finished.

      2) It was faster for most customers (esp. younger ones) to enter their PIN then it was to wait for a receipt to print, and then sign it.

      3) Checks take forever (and are quite rude), and cash is pretty fast but many times there's an issue with change (either the person was digging around for exact change or they insisted on counting the change they got back - which is smart, but timely).

      4) Debit cards became about the same speed as cash when the customer had to sign for it because there was no provision for entering their PIN.

      5) Debit/Credit cards CAN be slower if the card they try doesn't work (duh!). Note: Quite frankly it seems that you don't have much of a clue over your personal finances if you don't know how close you are to your CC limit.

      Cash is easier to steal, but I still welcome it over a check. Checks should be used for mailing payment to the phone company, not for your $35 groceries.

    3. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "3) Checks take forever (and are quite rude), and cash is pretty fast but many times there's an issue with change (either the person was digging around for exact change or they insisted on counting the change they got back - which is smart, but timely)."

      -- A lot of merchants will now print all the required information onto your check for you; all you've got to do is sign. That's a little faster then actually writing it out, but if you're behind the freak who has to write that information in their checkbook /before/ they leave the line, balance their account, etc., then you're screwed :)

      "Checks should be used for mailing payment to the phone company, not for your $35 groceries."

      -- When I was a kid, my older brother was into stamp collecting. We'd go to the post office with my mother, and she'd buy him a stamp or two with a check, so...that'd be like a .07 cent check, or something silly like that. Granted this was 20+ years ago when there was no TeleCheck, VeriCheck or whatever, but checks are still fine with me, regardless of when/where/how much.

      Personally, I don't have an ATM or CheckCard. Only a decent credit card with a nice Rewards program, and a checking account. I still write checks for sub $5.00 purchases sometimes, but mostly use them for paying mailed bills. As a teenager, I was awful with money, so I prefer not to have any cash on me (only small emergency denominations), and since I HATE writing checks and/or paying a finance charge, I've succeeded in curbing my spending habits.

      It's still mostly older folks I see writing checks in stores anyway, but I don't get angry at them if it takes awhile. I also don't feel any need to "hurry" just because there's a line of cash or card folks behind me (not that I would know, anyway.) If you don't like getting behind someone writing a check, go to a different line or shop elsewhere.

    4. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      How can you read this website, and still be so backwards?

      Call me backwards...on a site where UNIX is spoken of with religious fervour...where there are lurkers who speak PASCAL or FORTRAN...who remember green CRTs, punch cards, reminiscing about BBS's and the Internet pre WWW...

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

    5. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because using EFTPOS (relatively close to your debit cards I believe) is a lot safer than carrying cash around!

      As the only option for authorisation of EFTPOS transactions is by pin number, if someone steals it you have enough time (by virtue of statistics, and the 4 digit pin number having a large number of combinations.... 9,999) to report it missing.

      As for people trying card after card - they obviously are hopeless at managing money!

      In New Zealand, where EFTPOS is basically everywhere, and causing cheques to become obsolete about 99% of the time (except for mail-based purchases), you don't see many people using "card fater card".

    6. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by 1001+0000 · · Score: 1

      When lining up to buy books at the start of each semester, there are two lines: cash and card. The card line is 20 - 30 students long, while the cash line... does not exist.

      Cash is faster and safer (I am sure of this as my first job was working a till). Safer because a deviant cashier could easily spy one's pin and, with a reciept, make purchases on the account wihtout the card.

      Also, cash has a better privacy factor -- which might be an issue in days soon to come.

      That said, i use cards because, by my own arguments, I have plenty of time, little to lose, and nothing to hide. Cards are ...style! ;)

    7. Re:What the hell is wrong with legal tender? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checks are time-consuming, non-anonymous, prone to fraud and tampering (which we all pay for), and wasteful. At least if you mail money orders (if your creditors still don't take electronic payments) an attacker with a bit of solvent can't clean you out. If there were a single grocery store in north Seattle that didn't let these retards write checks in the express lanes, I'd always go there, but there's just no escaping them.

  25. Skimming by employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats to stop an employee from inputting half the money you give them into the card and pocketing the rest? There's no inventory the store could keep track off on these things, and no way for you to see what they are typing into the terminal. A barely supervised employee at a reatiler could easily pull this off. This is the much bigger risk than mass fraud by customers IMO.

    1. Re:Skimming by employees by ZPO · · Score: 2, Interesting

      most retailers are setup to deal with employee fraud. Next time you're in a big grocery store or department store look up above the register. you'll likely see camera pods/windows. If they are using a flat scan barcode reader there will also likely be a light that flashes each time an item is scanned.

      This is designed to prevent "sweethearting" by employees. This is where and item is waved across the scanner, but doesn't actually scan, and is then placed in the bag. Ever wonder why Best Buy (and others) check the contents of your bag against your receipt within 30ft of the register? It's not to stop independent shoplifters, it's to catch/prevent sweethearting.

      What you suggest is even more difficult. The gift card is only loaded by the POS system with the amount punched into the register. Now unless the store doesn't have a total display that can be seen by the customer (or the customer has the IQ of a brick) there is no way the customer will hand over $100 when $50 is shown on the display. If the clerk tries to pocket cash that is properly shown on the display then the drawer will be short.

    2. Re:Skimming by employees by AMuse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Best buy is not legally allowed to check your bag against your recipt if you refuse to allow them, by the way. Legally speaking, after you leave the register, everything in your bag is yours, and if they honestly want you searched, they must detain you and call the police to do the search.

      Seriously, how can you believe that the $7 an hour clerk at best buy has the authority to do "guilty until proven innocent" searches on everyone in the store, routinely?

    3. Re:Skimming by employees by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Best buy is not legally allowed to check your bag against your recipt if you refuse to allow them, by the way.

      That may be true in America but is definitely not true in Australia (conditions apply). The conditions are that a big obvious sign is posted at the entrance to the store stating that bag searches are a condition of entry - you enter, you give them permission to search. The other restriction is that the sales assistant is not allowed to touch any of your possessions, they can ask you to open your bag and show them and open any compartment etc, but they must not do it themselves.

      I would be exceptionally surprised if a similar set of laws were not in place in America and other countries around the world. I am guessing that most stores have a condition of entry, which would most likely hold up in court.

      In the age-old /. tradition, IANAL.

    4. Re:Skimming by employees by llzackll · · Score: 1

      It's called a reciept, genius. Whatever got loaded onto the card will show up on the reciept.

    5. Re:Skimming by employees by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about the bag searches here in Australia. All they get you to do is open up your bag so they can peer inside -- if your backpack happens to have three or four compartments, they're not going to check them all, coz it would take too much time if they had to do that with every Joe that came along. I suspect that a determined thief could easily hide something small and valuable in a backpack, and pass the usual cursory inspections.

      So I figure, the "please present your bag for inspection" thing is more of a token gesture than anything really.

    6. Re:Skimming by employees by Calamity+Jane · · Score: 1
      A condition of entry sign has about the same level of enforcability as a shrink-wrap license, namely none. This holds for AU, US, UK, et al.

      Simply allowing you access to the store does not amount to consideration for a contract, especially one you haven't signed.

    7. Re:Skimming by employees by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 1

      Considering the Australian Consumer Commission (the organisation that watches out for consumer rights) has stated that condition of entry signs do have merit, I would hope you have some form of evidence that your claim is correct. In lack of evidence to the contrary, I am very much inclined to believe the ACC as opposed to a random /. comment. Others should obviously seek proper legal advice on the matter.

    8. Re:Skimming by employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That may be true in America but is definitely
      > not true in Australia (conditions apply). The
      > conditions are that a big obvious sign is posted
      > at the entrance to the store stating that bag
      > searches are a condition of entry - you enter,
      > you give them permission to search.

      those signs exist, but they are bullshit. their purpose is to fool people into thinking that they have no choice but to allow the search. they are not a contract and they are not enforcable.

      these "conditions of entry" certainly would NOT hold up in court.

      just refuse and walk out. if they attempt to stop you then have them charged with assault and/or unlawful arrest (btw,this could be worth many thousands in compensation.)

      an alternative is to say "yes, you certainly can look in my bag. the price for that service is $50 per person per 30 seconds - cash in advance, no credit".

      another alternative is to ask nosy personal questions about the person who is invading your privacy - ask for their full name, address, phone number, bank account details, credit card number, sexual preferences, anything you can think of. ask them to strip naked so you can be sure they don't have a bomb or other concealed weapon - if they think it's OK for them to invade your privacy, then it's OK for you to invade theirs.

      the thing to remember is that by asking your permission to search you, they are accusing you of theft while avoiding liability for that accusation. i don't know about you, but i get offended when someone accuses me of theft - and i think they should be held responsible and liable for the accusation. sue them for defamation of character.

      i get particularly annoyed because i nearly always get asked to look in my bag (a leather shoulder bag i carry almost everywhere - roughly equivalent to a woman's handbag, but usually containing a novel, cigarettes & lighter, screwdriver and other useful tools, bits of paper, and anything else i happen to need at the time). i get asked nearly all the time, yet women ahead of me in the checkout lane who are also carrying handbags never get asked.

    9. Re:Skimming by employees by J.+Random+Software · · Score: 1

      Shrinkwrap licenses are invalid because you don't see them until after the purchase. If they showed you the license at the counter and told you "by purchasing this product you indicate that you accept the terms of this contract," it would almost certainly be valid.

  26. This kind of thing is trivial, unfortunately ... by JoeGee · · Score: 1

    I knew someone (who has now gone into hiding, imagine that) who used the equipment he had purchased for making "test" DSS cards to alter dollar values of BP gas cards. He could alter any "smart" card with a DSS-like interface, and in this case he wasn't hijacking money, he was actually creating it.

    These people are getting the ID numbers from gift cards and re-using them. That's really no different from the old dumpster-diving-for-credit-card-carbons scheme, it just uses a new medium. I suspect if you could figure out how these numbers are generated it would be easy to create a program that spared you the effort of opening up trash bags full of store receipts and old Starbucks coffee cups.

    You can't get ahead of the bad guys, you can only hope to keep up with them. The thing is, if you're not constantly working to keep up with them, you've already fallen behind.

    --

    Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
  27. solution is MSN shopping by stefaanh · · Score: 1

    As such a gift card is as vulnerable to theft as anything else in your wallet, this isn't even an subject to write about. Unless...
    Didn't you notice that MSNBC wants you to go to the safest shopping mall around: MSN shopping online! Pretty assimilated with the rest of the page is this clear message. Now we know the reason of the fud. I wonder how much of this poison goes unnoticed.

    --
    --------
    * Sigh *
  28. One reason stores like these by Fifth+of+Five · · Score: 1

    I generally get a gift card or two each year, usually to one of the major bookstore chains here in the US. One thing I notoce all the time is that if I have a $20 gift card and spend, say $17.45 I get the card back with $2.55 credit remaining. Care to speculate how many such cards are never fully redeemed? I buy alot of books, so I use them up, but I'd be willing to bet that a not-insignificant percentage of these cards are never fully spent. Back when I used to get Gift Certificates any small change was usually (though not always) returned as cash. Not any longer...

    --
    "Melt the ice; eat the moose; drill the oil; get it over with." -Max Boot
    1. Re:One reason stores like these by uspsguy · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for others but I don't think I've ever bought something less than the value of the card. I always end up forking over some extra. My cards tend to have a balance of $0.00 in a week or so.

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
    2. Re:One reason stores like these by Magius_AR · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, when I get gift cards such as this, I spend MORE than the amount (as not to waste money) and pay the difference. This of course is bringing in even more money for the store. Therefore, stores must love these things.

      Magius_AR

  29. I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by Grimmtooth · · Score: 4, Informative
    By way of boda fides, I work for a POS (point of sale) vendor that just happens to support the processing of said gift / stored value cards. As a result I have had to become very familiar with the mechanics of the whole thing.

    So, a few comments:

    • Despite what MSNBC would tell you, Debit cards are not protected from theft by a lack of visible account number. Rather they are protected by encrypted PIN.
    • Despite what MSNBC would tell you, you can buy card writing equipment without going to the black market. They are perfectly legal. They just cost BIG bucks, and that's why most people don't have one :-)
    • The theft method described to lift account numbers is no different than what is done with credit cards, except in the case of the latter you have to work harder to get a valid account number. Anyone with a card writer WOULD know how to do that, trust me.
    • Credit cards are a far greater risk because they are unrestricted in where they may be used, unlike gift cards.
    • Be aware that most gift card processors allow for the process of 'cashing out' the card. Provided the store allows, there's no reason that there would be unclaimed cash left on the card. Of course, those merchants that do NOT allow cash-out are the ones to be concerned with.


    Slow news day, plain and simple.
    --
    /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    1. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some corrections:

      Despite what MSNBC would tell you, you can buy card writing equipment without going to the black market. They are perfectly legal. They just cost BIG bucks, and that's why most people don't have one :-)

      They're not that expensive. You can get one on e-Bay for around $300. And if you think that's a lot of money, consider how widespread magstripes are and how convenient it would be to be able to copy them. I have some buddies who routinely "back up" the contents of their credit card magstripes. Over time the data on the stripes degrades, so they periodically rewrite it to keep it fresh. I work for a company that uses magstripe-based ID badges to get into the doors, and I have a bad habit of losing my badge... Gift cards are just the tip of the iceberg, and many of the potential uses of this equipment are very legitimate.

      The theft method described to lift account numbers is no different than what is done with credit cards, except in the case of the latter you have to work harder to get a valid account number. Anyone with a card writer WOULD know how to do that, trust me.

      There is a value encoded on the magnetic stripe of credit cards called the CVV (card verification value) that is generated cryptographically, plus additional cardholder information that is not printed on the face of the card. In order to encode a valid credit card magnetic stripe you either need to read the stripe off the card you're copying or you need access to the production systems used to create the cards.

      Credit cards are a far greater risk because they are unrestricted in where they may be used, unlike gift cards.

      Yes but no. It's true their use is less restricted, but for that reason there are many other security measures applied, such as back-end systems that check for uncharacteristic buying patterns. Also, the consumer is pretty safe from credit card fraud, since your liability is limited to $50. That isn't as much protection as it might seem, though, because gift cards don't often have more than $50 in them anyway.

      Be aware that most gift card processors allow for the process of 'cashing out' the card.

      Some do, most don't. The reason is that many stores that sell gift cards use exactly the same technology for provided card-based in-store credits. When you return some merchandise without a receipt, they don't want to give you your money back (otherwise you could do a tidy business buying from mail order and "returning" to the more expensive place) so instead they give you a card. Allowing you to cash out the card would defeat the purpose.

      Plus, merchants and other issuers of cash cards *do* make a nice profit off of unused value, which is called "breakage". This is actually important to the feasibility of card-based solutions. Remember that the retailer has to buy equipment, software, cards, train their employees, audit the systems, track the liability pool, etc., all of which costs money. They can probably make this money back in increased sales, but that's hard to verify, while it's easy to show that the breakage value for the last year has exceeded the system cost.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by Grimmtooth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Corrections to corrections: :-)

      [Card writers are] not that expensive. You can get one on e-Bay for around $300.

      Well, that's handy to know if the one we use in the lab conks out :-)

      There is a value encoded on the magnetic stripe of credit cards called the CVV (card verification value) that is generated cryptographically, plus additional cardholder information that is not printed on the face of the card. In order to encode a valid credit card magnetic stripe you either need to read the stripe off the card you're copying or you need access to the production systems used to create the cards.

      Track 1 of the card contains the carholder name, and the CVV2 information is not on the card but part of the back-end processing at the network side of the things. There is obscured information within the card account number that provides anti-counterfieting information, but aside from that the reset of the track info is largely ignored at the POS device and is problematic on the credit network side of things. There is one value that specifies the processor, for example, but most that I've seen have the same value. Furthermore, Track I information is often ignored and USUALLY not required to process a credit card. Most networks favor Track II over Track I and some just can't process Track I at all. In other words, they're not too secure and there is CERTAINLY very little in the way of protection outside of CVV2 -- which isn't even globally supported by all networks. Before you mention AVS, it is only valid for manually keyed accounts, or internet purchases.

      Yes but no. It's true their use is less restricted, but for that reason there are many other security measures applied, such as back-end systems that check for uncharacteristic buying patterns. Also, the consumer is pretty safe from credit card fraud, since your liability is limited to $50.

      The back-end processing protection is usually after the fact, and a clever thief would probably not be establishing a pattern, anyway. Of course, 'smart thief' is often an oxymoron :-)

      Some [allow cash out], most don't. The reason is that many stores that sell gift cards use exactly the same technology for provided card-based in-store credits. When you return some merchandise without a receipt, they don't want to give you your money back (otherwise you could do a tidy business buying from mail order and "returning" to the more expensive place) so instead they give you a card. Allowing you to cash out the card would defeat the purpose.

      Careful review will indicate that I was talking about the card processing networks themselves, not the individual merchant policies. Providing a gift card for a refund is a merchant policy (and a foolish one, whatever happened to 'no receipt, no return' anyway?). The capability is there, and it's perfectly reasonable to expect to get your money's worth out of it. We'll see how that court case goes, hopefully on the side of the consumer.

      --
      /* .sigs are irrelevant */
    3. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by mboedick · · Score: 1

      I used to intern at a company that made magnetic stripe card readers and writers, as well as all kinds of barcode readers. We used to run various cards through them just to see what the data on the stripe looked like. A guy I knew copied the data from his super market shopper's club card into a blank white card with no markings, and then went to the store and used it, assuring the cashier that it would work, and it did.

      The magnetic stripe that worries me the most is the one on my New York State driver's license, especially when they ID you for buying alcohol and they slide it through some kind of reader. Anyone know what data is on that stripe?

    4. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by BrownKid · · Score: 1

      Most of the driver's licenses I know of have your date of birth on the mag strip. The merchant scans the card and uses it as a double check to make sure your not using a fake ID. Of course.. making a mag strip encoder from Radio Shack parts is not really that hard... ;-)

    5. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all track 1 is usually used for atm information for debit cards, and track 2 is for the credit card info. This is true at least of Visa debit cards. Track 1 is not required with debit cards unless you are using them at a POS terminal which looks for tracks 1 and 2. Track 3 may exist for the visa cards but isn't usually necessary for most banks configurations. BTW, if you are lookin for good encoders, take a look at MagTek.

    6. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't teriibly interesting stuff. Mostly just name, dob, and license number.

    7. Re:I hate nationally syndicated stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm sure that whatever desk job you hold in the industry is a pretty junior one. One day you may discover the following about your own area of expertise.

      1. Said gift cards are not always insecure. However, if you go to the largest retailers you can think of, get a few of each of their cards, and read them, you will discover that (a) one large retailer uses a 'secret code' which is added to the 15-digit PAN (BTW - another tip - digit 16 is a check digit) that gives you the number on the front of the card. (Remove the BIN first - ask your boss what that word means.) This means that you can reverse the process: observe the numbers in full view next time you go to said retailer, then you can whip up a new card yourself by simply subracting the secret code from the number printed on the face of the card. This entire technique is called 'eye skimming', and if it isn't a problem, then why the hell did banks stop printing the PAN on ATM receipts?

      2. Phone cards have a scratch off PIN - bet you didn't notice, did you? Any idea why they are there? Right! To prevent eye skimming! In fact, the PIN is not even on the stripe - so you would need to, like, X-ray the card to get the PIN. Combine the difficulty of doing this with the fact that you'd have to sneak the cards out of the store and back in, plus the fact that they have limited value, and you see an emerging risk management model. Now, compare this with the other model: I can lift the value off a limitless amount of gift cards (and use some of that value to buy phone cards - if I want to), simply by eyeballing the cards on the shelf.

      3. Reader / writer availability

      I have an MSR206 (hi-co / lo-co [ask your boss]}, and AMC312 plus stacks of readers (including portable hand-helds - bet you didn't know those existed!). The most I've ever paid for an encoder is $400. There's a company in Dallas that sells MSR206 encoders for, I think, $700. The AMC312 requires Rencode (licensed - they want your real name etc.), but you can get it 'black market' from Canadian Bar Code with a fake name.

      4. Some credit cards are as insecure as gift cards - some banks don't check CVC. It's easy to find out which ones (you probably know this if you're in the industry) by nudging a digit out of the stripe to see what happens at the point of sale: if the merchant calls the auth centre and hands the phone to you, the bank checks CVC. If the auth goes through in 2 seconds - successfully - they probably don't check CVC. If the auth goes through in a hundredth of a second, the merchant is standing in for the merchant. But who am I to tell you this - YOU'RE the expert!

  30. Home Depot IT no longer cluefull... by george+bush · · Score: 1

    well some noteworthy news... Ron Griffiths, the CIO of Home Depot who despised Microsoft quit. a new CEO came in, and the CIO up and quit cuz he didnt wanna stick around under the new CEO. dont be surprised to see all the wonderful Linux POS and non Microsoft Home Depot stuff get chucked out in favor of Microsoft deals and software.

    Rumor is that there already was a deal with Microsoft to kill off those Linux POS registers.

    at which point, you could just hack the register and not need to bother hacking the gift cards...

  31. this isn't a huge deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to alter these cards you need a magstripe reader. These are VERY expensive. And you also need to decode the gift card format. So this isn't a hude deal, maybe one or two gift cards will be forged in the whole world. So what.

    1. Re:this isn't a huge deal by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      "In order to alter these cards you need a magstripe [writer]. These are VERY expensive."

      I'm confident that I could build one with $100 worth of parts.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  32. did I say reader?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I meant writer. You can get a reader that hooks up to a PS2 port for about $10.

  33. Coffee! by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny
    I got a Starbucks gift-card for Christmas. I'm tempted to run the card through a reader to see what's on it. Hell, my apartment laundry card has better security (it's a "smart" card).

    Starbucks never has Raktajino, so they'd deserve it! :^)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Coffee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first off smart cards are stupid and horrible. if your laundry company was smart they would have used ibuttons from www.ibutton.com they are cheaper, better, stronger, unbreakable, uncrackable and the reader is $15.00 for the expensive one and 1.50 for a OEM version. smartcard readers are $150.00 for the high end and $30.00 for the cheapest available as OEM.

      only idiots use smartcards in their products.

    2. Re:Coffee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is crackable asswipe. When dumb fucks say "cheaper, better, stronger, unbreakable, uncrackable" it is an invite for us to take a stab at it.

      So in the future think before you speak.

    3. Re:Coffee! by bn557 · · Score: 2

      You can make a smart card reader for about $10.00 in ratshack parts, much less if you don't demand an actual card socket. If you check into alt.dss.hack on *DREAD* usenet. And ask for plans and you're money. we MAY have accidentally read the contents of the UCF smart cards.....

      Pat

      --
      Humans are slow, innaccurate, and brilliant; computers are fast, acurrate, and dumb; together they are unbeatable
  34. MSNBC is describing another well-known company... by frleong · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Some retailers don't take basic security steps to protect against counterfeiting that would cheat consumers out of the money stored on the cards. Add to that surprising merchant "expiration" fees and leftover balances that revert to the retailers, and the cards may not really be such a good deal for consumers.
    Just search and replace "retailers" with "software companies" and "cards" with "OS", for example...

    --
    ¦ ©® ±
  35. Gift Cards are not escheatable by spike666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From Dictionary.com:
    escheat (s-cht)
    n.
    1. Reversion of land held under feudal tenure to the manor in the absence of legal heirs or claimants.
    2. Law.
    a. Reversion of property to the state in the absence of legal heirs or claimants.
    b. Property that has reverted to the state when no legal heirs or claimants exist.

    Gift Cards are not Gift Certificates, which are bound by escheating laws. (peruse if you want, a google search on "gift certificates escheating")
    which means that to a retailer, gift cards are cheaper cuz they are not regulated.

    Most retailers that do gift cards and gift certificates treat them both very similarly - aka have them electronically activated when purchased. The gift card allows the added bonus of havin them be stored value / re-chargable cards. the lack of escheating laws is also very good - less to report/ track to the government, less money lost to the government when the cards fail to be used.

  36. Who it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was intrigued and I did a little searching to try and find the discussion group quoted in the article. None of my searches gave valid hits in newsgroups or otherwise, though I used their direct quote as the search term. In fact, the only hit I did get was to the MSNBC article in question.

    Obviously, if this reporter is quoting it, it has to be a fairly open source. The author's reluctance for full disclosure leaves me concerned for my Christmas goodies but, despite providing good quotes that should have yielded links to complete information, I have no other options on obtaining the info I want. I don't want to hear conjecture about what store it might be, I want to hear what store is actually being targetted.

  37. They're not victims Re:Theft isn't new. by HiredMan · · Score: 2
    Why does every security lapse mentioned on /. blamed on the victims?

    The victims here are the consumers - not the stores. The stores get money for all goods sold and they're happy - the only people who get screwed are the people who's gifts get stolen.
    No one's baming the consumers - they're blaming the stores for implementing idiotic policies and practices that benefit themselves at the cost of the consumer.

    ... if people had some sense of ethics this wouldn't be a problem.
    And if my mother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

    That being said the has never been the case and (IMHO) will never be the case and people who deal and cash and goods need to be aware of this and deal appropriately.
    You can bet these stores watch THEIR money carefully once it gets in the cash register - but they don't seem to care at all about protecting their customer's money or interest once they get their's.
    It's like the store saying "it's our policy to leave your money on the counter while you shop - but if some one take's it before we ring it up it's your problem not ours."

    =tkk

  38. One card to rule them all ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lord of the cards ...

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:One card to rule them all ? by servasius_jr · · Score: 1

      Three for the elves, who like frilly lacey things.

      Seven for the dwarf lords to redecorate their halls of stone.

      Nine for mortal men doomed to bad credit.

      And one for the dark lord on his dark throne,

      Redeemable at Wal-mart for $19.95

  39. wouldnt happen here... by Tompie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I still wonder why the US still has such old-fasioned electronic payment system. e.g. Visa is problably one of the most insecure payment methods but is probably still the most popular in the US.
    Here in Belgium (Europe) banksys [www.banksys.be] creates very secure payment-cards (on cooperation with the guys who invented rijndael). But with the upcoming Euro, Proton is becoming more and more popular. On that card, one can store up to 4000BEF (+- 100 Euro's) pre-paid, and it is very secure.
    Why aren't doesn't the US adopt those systems?

    1. Re:wouldnt happen here... by reddeno · · Score: 1

      Because we have a fuckload more people and POS's than you do.

    2. Re:wouldnt happen here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is common is the USA to have "out-dated" systems because we get electronic systems before Europe and when it comes time for Europe to get with it you get the "next-gen" of it all. Soon after we get an even newer version.
      Remember, Europe is NEVER on the cutting edge of high tech. Japan and the USA are years ahead of you, you just happen to look further ahead because you got to the party late.

    3. Re:wouldnt happen here... by uspsguy · · Score: 1

      One reason it wouldn't fly here is that it is preloaded - We use lots of CREDIT cards. I can literally go out and charge a car in impulse. I don't need the money in advance. I could pick up a good deal on the spot and later, arrange financing.

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
    4. Re:wouldnt happen here... by Tompie · · Score: 1

      This is totally wrong. In the US (and Japan) most of those projects are extremely commercial so you hear more often about them. Here research and commerce do not always get mixed. I could give you tons of examples where the US (nor Japan) is the cutting edge.

  40. Not hard at all... by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work at a Circuit City, and I can attest to the fact that I doubt this could be too hard.

    I had a guy come in and pay for an LCD monitor and some other things with 20(!) $50 gift cards. It got me thinking:

    We have (like most stores) two types of gift cards. There are cards which are pre-printed with a given amount (in that case, $50). We then have cards which have any given amount attached to them, and that number is generated at the register. We THEN have what are called "Merchandise" cards, which are issued as store credit for returns (or those wretched AOL/Compuserve/MSN deals). All of these cards are treated exactly like any other type of plastic. They have a 12-digit number on the back of them (unlike the sixteen digit on most plastic). The "make your own quantity" cards are all tracked in our backend system (a centralized SCO-UNIX server in our back office, which routes to a big honking server via satellite). But the "given quantity" cards (like the aforementioned stack 'o' $50 cards) are not (I can tell because of the lack of processing time when they are sold, versus the "create your own").

    My guess is that the number scheme for those $50 cards is already embedded in our system. It's a simple case of using a scanner/programmer to see which digits differ between active and inactive units. The fun part comes from the fact that any purchase over $100 requires that we enter a telephone number and address for an individual. All returns and exhanges are handled from this address, and we can track everything any person has bought or returned since the beginning of our central-server implementation (~13 years ago). If a person purchases an inordinately large amount of things with gift cards, the system will tag it, and Loss Prevention at Corporate will be alerted. The further fun aspect comes from the fact that the digits on the gift cards are tied to a given store location when they are shipped out, so I don't think it would be too hard to figure out a) which store they're coming from and b) which employee is "hooking" people up.

    1. Re:Not hard at all... by Hallow · · Score: 1

      Using DPS blows chunks - I wonder if they'll ever modernize the system. However, it makes a lot of sense. You can't steal what's not on the shelves, and it's easier to track who's got what in stock. I'm surprised it took them this long to tie it into their website (which I founded by the way, back in the answer city pc days) so that you could purchase stuff online and pick it up at the store.

      If it wasn't for the fact that I totally abhor the corporate culture their at CC (which insiders know as Circuit Shitty), and the fact that I don't like high pressure commmission based sales, I might actually like CC (comes from being dicked over on the website creation and then being layed off).

      I'm now a Best Buy addict who avoids circuit city whenever possible, and advises my friends to do the same. 90 days to 1 year same as cash baby!

    2. Re:Not hard at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, too, am a former "Circuit Shitty" employee. Fortunately, I was able to bail out on my own terms, but I was around for a bunch of lay offs...not very pretty. CC Corp. Management blows a big one.

      The CC Gift Card was actually an answered prayer for most employees. Whenever you made an employee purchase with a Credit Card, they charged you a small fee for the card processing (since they pay for the card terminal, etc...bullshit in my opinion.) Anyway, all you had to do once Gift Cards came around was ask the store employee to tell you how much your purchase would be with tax, then use your credit card to buy a Gift Card for that exact amount, then use the Gift Card to buy your discounted stuff, and you got to avoid the bogus employee/card fee. Talk about a smart system! I think they figured it out eventually...took awhile though.

      DPS did blow chunks, didn't it? They must love monochrome madness in all the stores. We could never figure out, with CC being centered around the latest technology, why they never upgraded that system...if anything for a more aesthetically-pleasing frontend for the customer.

    3. Re:Not hard at all... by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      I cant remember when i actually gave CC my address/phone, so do they ask for ID ?

      How simple would it be just to give a bogus address? i know when store Z asks for my phone number i usually give them either my work number or the one for the local dominos.

    4. Re:Not hard at all... by donglekey · · Score: 1

      So if you did the website, then why when I direct ship through the DPS does it not tell me if something is out of stock until I tender it and I have already wasted a lot of time getting information. I found out the hard way the first time I tried and now I know who to blame.

      There are much easier ways to steal from Circuit City like shoulder surfing a 2 digit.

    5. Re:Not hard at all... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 2

      I know isn't that frickin annoying? I went to get a hair cut at a Great Clips the other day and they asked me for my phone number. I declined to give the information and they cut my hair anyway.

      --

      Gorkman

    6. Re:Not hard at all... by mbstone · · Score: 0

      Simply give the pimply-faced store clerk (who has been trained to ask for a name, address and phone number even if you are paying cash) the address and phone number of the White House. To this day, they probably get dozens of Radio Shack catalogs addressed to Ben Franklin 'cause of me. Try and keep a straight face as you are asked how to spell "Pennsylvania Avenue."

    7. Re:Not hard at all... by irksome · · Score: 1

      Radio Shack Clerk: "I need your address, please"
      Me: "It's 1060 W. Addison, Chicago IL, 60613"

      (this actually happened. RSC did not say anything, but gave me a slight grin)

      -

  41. best buy gift cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if the retailer in question is in fact Best Buy, then they outsource the gift cards to american express

  42. time to check ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to check ebay and see what a small card reader will cost me!!!!!!!

  43. Security Through Obscurity by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    "The company's name isn't being published to avoid giving criminals a too-easy target."

    Right. Sure. Of course. After all, there couldn't possibly be any other reason for not mentioning the name, now could there? Of course not.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  44. Two words... by MsGeek · · Score: 1
    ...smart cards.

    Mag stripes are notoriously easy to crax0r. Not so with chips. It would mean replacing a lot of infrastructure at retailers, and the gift cards would be a lot more expensive to produce, but ultimately it's a better and more secure system.

    Anyone know if anyone's working on an open-source Smart Card Authentication system?

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  45. this is also a problem with bank cards by markj02 · · Score: 2

    Some banks issue ATM and credit cards with sequential or nearly sequential numbers, and they may not require activation for some of the cards. Someone getting a card can make a guess at the next numbers in the sequence and start charging. This is apparently what happened to a card I got when I opened a new account: before I had even opened the envelope, several thousand dollars were gone. Sometimes, the stupidity of some of those supposedly security-conscious money institutions is just amazing.

    1. Re:this is also a problem with bank cards by laktar · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, one time I got the same credit card number as somebody else. I noticed the problem when I tried to activate the card and found that not only did it not accept my social security number to activate it, but it was also already activated it. The card was under the other guy's name as he activated it first. I wonder if they changed his. hmm..., maybe I should go do some Christmas shopping....

  46. Damn by /dev/trash · · Score: 1
    And All I got was cash, a mall 'cash' check, and a Coconuts coin. can't hack that shit.

  47. Doesn't Protect Retailers Either by orfeo · · Score: 1

    While going through college I also worked at a retailer using these cards. When they first came out, we had a problem with good ole social engineering being used to get store associates to add money to gift cards. Several schemes were used for example.

    1) Gift card is legitimately purchased for a small amount.

    2) Purchaser Calls the store

    Store Service Desk) How can I help You?

    Thief) This is So and so at the home office. We had an upset customer call because she bought a widget at your location which injured her (didn't work whatever) and we told her we would refund the value on her gift card. Please add $150 to card 6004 4300 1357 9246

    Spend dough, wash, rinse, repeat at another store

  48. Anyone wanna go halfsies? by heyitsme · · Score: 0

    Pff, and everyone said finding a card reader/writer would be expensive. If this is a magstripe reader/writer like it says it is, $200 and a few hours of programming some software and you are set.

    heyitsme

  49. Re:fist pr0st by grahagre · · Score: 0

    ha ha, that must be embarssing.

  50. What would they do if you bought.... by MoldyZero · · Score: 0

    What would the stores do if you bought a Mag strip reader/encoder with the Gift Card you got?

    I can just imagine.... Nothing.

  51. There was this hot coffee incident, you know by absurd_spork · · Score: 2
    Sheesh... Why, oh why, do we need a law to protect people from doing stupid things?

    What we need is a less paternalistic government to train people to be smarter and more responsible for themselves.
    Isn't this the same government that runs this funny country where you can sue the hell out of the maker of your microwave oven if they didn't include a strip of paper saying it's unsuitable for drying pets, or where people sue the hell out of McDonalds for not adding a notice on the cups for their steaming hot coffee saying that the coffee is hot?
    1. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, just so you know, the McDonalds-coffee cup thing wasn't quite so simple. McDonalds was leaving their pots of coffee on longer in order to cut costs - instead of brewing 4 pots every hour (arbitrary numbers), throwing out the leftovers, they'd brew 3, and save that much more coffee, and at the same time, letting the coffee heat up beyond ordinary temperature. Hot enough to severely burn someones legs if they accidentally spilled it. the government was protecting us from Heartless-Corporation just trying to save money. yay.

      so yeah, this is the funny country that lets you sue the hell out of people. however, most of the time, it's genuine. reading shock journalism headlines won't change that fact. please don't believe all the headlines you read. don't judge the whole country because of some silly case that gets thrown out of court, or from a misleading headline. of course, it's the same country that created the whole Heartless Corporation idea, and permits them to exist, but whatever.. it's not perfect, but it's definitely not as bad as the rest of the world wants to make it out to be

    2. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is lacking. There is no LAW that requires McDonalds to put "Caution Hot Contents' labels on their obviously hot coffee.

    3. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by hawk · · Score: 2
      The award was ratchetted way down in the coffee incident, but it was still excessive. And yes, McDonalds *should* put a warning label on the coffee:


      WARNING: Only a low grade moron would place this between her upper thighs and remove the lid in a moving vehicle!


      But then again, I favor a "darwinian" defense in product liability cases . . .


      hawk, esq., who doesn't see eye to eye with the tort lawyers

    4. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The jury originally ratcheted the reward way up, because this was merely the latest of several victims and all she originally asked for was her doctor bills. All because they stuck to their policy of selling "food" that can cause third-degree burns.

    5. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by M-G · · Score: 1

      Plus, McDonalds acted like the Heartless-Corporation when the woman contacted them. Rather than helping her, they basically told her 'too bad' and 'go away'. It was because of this treatment that she took them to court, and the jury decided on the award that they did.

      More details on the case:
      http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    6. Re:There was this hot coffee incident, you know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The article states that the car was not moving when this happened.


      It doesn't mention, however, some pretty relevant facts that unfortunately I haven't had a reference to in years (so believe at your own risk): apparently this particular McDonalds also served a relatively nearby construction site, which would order large batches of coffee each morning.

      Ordinary coffee ordered from McDonalds would have reached the site lukewarm before anyone had a chance to drink it. Because the construction workers were a major customer, McDonalds cooperated by setting one of their machines to produce coffee much hotter than usual, so it would still be relatively hot after a 10 minute drive back to the site.

      Of course this coffee couldn't be served to typical customers who were about to drink it in the car or the restaurant; they received the normal, cooler coffee from the other machine. (This isn't completely consistent with the linked version of the story, which doesn't mention these facts and also says McDonalds typically keeps its coffee around 190 degrees; I somehow don't think they were keeping it at 200 for the construction workers, so I have to doubt my original source.)


      As the story goes, an employee somehow gave this woman coffee from the wrong machine (still set to "almost boiling"), and given her age, being in a car, and bad luck, she managed to dump the entire thing in her lap at once. It would have been her fault had she dumped typical coffee in her lap and got a bit of a scald; it was McDonald's fault that she dumped fission-heated coffee in her lap and got burns severe enough to destroy the skin (3rd degree)and require skin grafts.


      It's really annoyed me, ever since, that people are so quick to assume that she must have been a senseless idiot and couldn't have had any justification for suing (which is also how I felt, prior to hearing the back story). Some people are so convinced of this "everyone's an idiot except me" attitude that this case has become _the_ prototypical trivial lawsuit example. If this account is accurate, I'd be suing faster than she did.

  52. Makes you wonder... by xbrownx · · Score: 0

    So, how much do black-strip encoders and decoders go for?

    How easy is this to start doing?

  53. gift cards suck anyways by emoon · · Score: 1
    Gift cards/certificates suck anyways.

    Here's what a gift card says:

    I didn't want to spend the time/effort to get you something you would actually want. So, I'm going to give you the equivilent of cash without any of benefits of cash (i.e accepted anywhere, no expiration, no fees, no unused balance)

    If you're going to give a gift card, why not just give cash?

    1. Re:gift cards suck anyways by Control-Z · · Score: 1
      This is sort of OT, but I'll give my thoughts anyway.

      Yes, a gift card/certificate is an admission of defeat in selecting a gift. But once you've decided to give them cash or a gift card, I think a gift card is better if you want them to buy something they want rather than something they need. If you give a person cash, they might use it to buy milk and bread or gas. Not that those aren't important, but what you really wanted is for them to buy some CDs at Best Buy.

  54. It *makes* criminals by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    Because you're not only trying to "protect people from doing stupid things", you're also attempting to combat the criminals who take advantage of people who do stupid things. You may like to think that this is a dumb idea, but things that make crime harder also make it less likely that someone might turn to crime.

    That's one way of looking at it. Another is that it creates a lot of "crime" by making stupid actions criminal. Now the criminals are not only the people trying to steal your stuff, but the stupid people leaving your info where it's not 100% safe. The police has to chase both groups. And pretty soon everyone is a criminal and at the mercy of the police.

    [Yeah,I get carried away. So what?]

  55. Re:fist pr0st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your sig doesnt make a whole lot of sense. If he pressed Alt-f4 it would give a quit IRC message not a left #slash method. now if you said Ctrl-F4 it might be the case.

  56. Much bigger problem... by Tomcow2000 · · Score: 1

    An idea just came to me. I'm sure many of the triple-digit-IQ Slashdot readers would have already come up with this, but I'm sure the s'kiddies hould have no idea. So, kids, here's how to steal video games, and oh so much more: A lot of the stores that offer these gift cards also accept them online, by just typing in the number. Do the same thing as noted in the article, but you need NO EQUIPMENT! Just type in the number and get the stuff shipped to a P.O. box! Brilliant! Wow, I've gotta try this (and immediately report the issue to the proper authorities, of course...)

    --

    Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.
  57. What the hell is wrong with legal tender?-$$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "1) The customer was able to swipe BEFORE clerk was finished.
    2) It was faster for most customers (esp. younger ones) to enter their PIN then it was to wait for a receipt to print, and then sign it."

    This is the way I do it. As fast as paying cash. It's a time managment issue really. Plus I also have an automatic record of all my expenditures without all the risk of carrying enough cash to satisfy my daily needs. Makes it easier to see were your money goes in a monthly as well as yearly basis. Lots of bookeeping when using cash.

  58. Re:One reason stores like these-scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the question remains. Who has the bigger scam? The retailer, or the thief.

  59. Mod this up. by Dan+Crash · · Score: 1

    Your answer is both good and simple. It's a shame Best Buy and others couldn't come up with it too.

    This begs the question: Is there any legitimate excuse for retailers who have several months of planning to not address the same basic security issues you did in 5 minutes?

    This lack of security is negligence, and I think corporations should be forced to pay damages when they issue products which ignore security so blatantly.

    Whether it's Microsoft or Best Buy, consumers should have a right to believe that their product is secure in the same way that they have a right to believe their product is safe.

    Personally, I think someone should file a class action suit against these companies. Corporations should be forced to pay punitive damages when they issue products that violate reasonable expectations of security.

    --
    He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
  60. A thing I learned about using plastic by AQuickDirtyHack · · Score: 1
    My friend, who used to work at Circuit City, learned that instead of just writing your sig on the back of a card like most ppl you should put "SEE ID PLEASE" instead. Most merchants never compare the sig on your card to the one on your receipt which is why I put see id on my cards now, just in case some thief wanted to screw me over. You should still be vigilant as to where your plastic is located, this can be a false sense of security. It won't help if you lose your card and the thief just goes to buy gas at the pump or purchases items online.

    When it comes to brick and mortar shops though, I think someone should teach the merchants to actually look at the back of the card because so many of them are too lazy to even bother taking a glance.

    Sorry if it isn't about gift cards, I thought this was a useful tip. My suggestion for gift cards though - give cold cash instead if you trust the recipient not to buy weed, unless your intent is otherwise. ;)

    1. Re:A thing I learned about using plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      alternatively, you can put "THIS CARD HAS BEEN STOLEN", they never fail to look then, and you usually get a laugh or a smile. they will sometimes blow off "See ID Please!", and they never look if you simply dont sign it.

      schmoko.

    2. Re:A thing I learned about using plastic by uspsguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you write See ID on the signature line of your card and try to use it at any Post Office, it will be rejected. Cards must technically be signed to be valid.

      --
      Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
    3. Re:A thing I learned about using plastic by AQuickDirtyHack · · Score: 1

      Laugh, that's an even better idea. =P

    4. Re:A thing I learned about using plastic by AQuickDirtyHack · · Score: 1

      The next time I ship an extra large package, I'll remember to use UPS hehe. ;) But thanks I didn't know that.

  61. Re:Barnes and Noble - even worse by 1001+0000 · · Score: 1

    At this video store i worked in last year we had a slightly dated interac machine that printed the account number AND exp date on a reciept.
    So having one of these reciepts was as good as a having the credit card. Also, with one of these reciepts one could determine the exp date on a bank card (the exp date is something arbitrary) and, with knowledge of the pin, make purchases from an account without having the card present.

    The funny thing is that people were always reluctant to let me see their credit card when creating an account. Yet these same people toss the receipts around or not even take them.

    If one was dishonest, it would be no trouble obtaining a customer pin as 90% of people make no attempt to hide it, thinking their account is secure as long as they have the card. With a reciept and some equipment, a fake card could be produced that would work on interac machines and possibly atm's.

    Many customers were amazed when i explained how insecure thier credit is.

  62. and if the store throws your receipt in the bin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it's been badly printed, or there is an error... is the customer responsible?

  63. Gift Card Burning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    burn all gift cards , they don't make sense they make good kindling