Slashdot Mirror
Using Your Privacy Against You
guttentag writes: "Christian Science Monitor Reporter Warren Richey suspects he may have stumbled onto a credit card fraud ring that uses Internet merchants to quietly funnel night-vision rifle scopes to Middle Eastern terrorists and privacy policies to cover their tracks. Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."
You can use it for your work or you can hit your self on your fingers with it, if you are not careful.
Yesterday: Open Source development might make it easier for terrorists to break into systems.
Today: Credit cards might make us pay for terrorist actions.
Tomorrow: Windows might actually be an act of terror. Umm.. Nah, that wouldn't be news. We knew that all along.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Can we please moderate the whole story?
If I had the points I'd be giving it Flamebait with all five points....
Jesus Christ. Yes, it's true that privacy helps criminals do crimes, but it's not like I'm going to install a camera in my bedroom so that the police know in case a crime happens to occur within the bounds of my room.
I know of a similar group that had the general mantra that Security compromises Freedom, and quite frankly The Party in 1984 scared me more than two liner jets flying into the World Trade Center ever did.
Point of the matter is the only way to ensure stuff doesn't get smuggled to the Enemies of State is to keep your eyes on the entire populous 24 hours a day. Unfortunately, then we forfeit our general human decency of free will.
Honestly, every person who is capable thereof has a right to commit a crime. They also have a right to face the consequences of that crime. And that is what a lot of these security-mongers don't seem to understand.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we SHOULD go out and kill people and break every law in the book. What I'm saying is that with our free will we should be perfectly well allowed to do it to our capabilities and face the consequences. Me, personally, I don't think I'd want to go to jail, so as a result I won't do any crimes that would get me there. But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.
Karma: Non-Heinous
Dude was in a foreign country. In Amman, Jordan to be exact. This is a sensationalist version of basically what amounts to standard fraud, except dude was in a middle-eastern country where a lot of people aren't friendly to the US and West in general. Granted, sucks that this occured, but is it news?
Synopsis: Journalist travels to Middle Eastern country. While there, orders stuff on his Amex. Amex receipt (I assume? Article not too clear on this) was used to purchase military equipment. Sucks, but such is life. This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see.
As a side note, when I was in the Middle East, (USMC--Oohrah!) we were instructed to make purchases only in their currency, so scams (which is all it really is) wouldn't happen.
Lastly, why the hell wasn't his card cancelled? Is he that stupid?
I seriously doubt this story is real at all, come to think of it.
Sent from your iPad.
Of course privacy is being used against us. It allways has and always will be. Every country has it's examples of this fact.
But would it be worth it to give up our privacy to maintain a false feeling of security? Terrorists will always be able to get their hands on weapons and other stuff to use against us. Whether it is through buying stuff with stolen creditcards or use of a malafide dealer or manufacturer. Weapons and other military stuff are being produced all over the world.
In the light of 9/11 would we have to give up our privacy? For what? The hijackers used frigging hobby knives and some of them weren't even known terrorists. The absense of privacy is not a threath to them. It is to us though...
What's more important is that our governments will not be a totalitarian one and our every move would not be under scrutiny by the government. I like my privacy although i know that my name and other information is going through hundreds of databases each day. I would never like the idea of a government knowing every little thing i say or do though. What's preventing a government of misuse of all that information?
They were probably Belgian waffles, named for a country known for its inability to defend itself in World War II. Belgium also produces a type of beer which is dark and cloudy, possibly containing coded messages for terrorists, and brewed by religious zealots sometimes called "monks." By contrast, honest American beer is transparent and produced by huge corporations you can Trust, because they put the "Born On" date on the bottle and use Pure Rocky Mountain Spring Water and Rice, which definitely belongs in beer no matter what those Communists in Europe say.
Clearly, if you want to fight Terrorism, you must never travel, never use your credit card, and whatever you do DON'T ORDER THE WAFFLES!!!
"All I wanted was a Pepsi!"
For years, european country implemented smartcards for credit card. You cannot use them to pay without a PIN. but it needs physical presence and special equipement.
For years, the US refused to implement them, cause they have no problem with no security in there system. Eh, it's easy to buy, so it's good for business.
Now, on person is victim of the classical use of somebody else card number (remember the movie Fletch, with Chavy Chase?). He has his money back, so there is no problem.
Now, if law enforcement agency come to see him about that purchase, it is a problem of data quality in government used systems. And now, we have one more illustration of the interest of laws protecting individual citizens about use of data about them. Look at french law "informatique et liberté", which state that people have a right to know what data are stored about them, and to have them corrected in case of error. Of course, there are always provision for exemption in case of national security, and we have a classical problem of all democracies: how can governement protect high values, without respecting them ?
The freedoms enjoyed by millions of people can be exploited by a few hundred, or even a few thousand malicious people. This is new to someone? Someone ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD? Wow. You must know very, very little about the histories of free countries, as well as very basic things like the wide availability of kitchen knives, which can be used to cut meat and also murder family members in their sleep.
Why do these stories suddenly become new or shocking when the word "terrorist" is connected to them? Are so many people really that ignorant about the basics of how freedoms work and the costs that come with them? This stuff is so simple that it could be taught to first graders and they would fully understand it in less than an hour.
Strangely enough, This reminds me of the war on drugs commercial where they have multitudes of teenage children proclaiming "I support terrorists" and "I killed those cops", and at the end gives a message something to the effect of "If you use drugs, Your supporting terrorism."
Now Id really like to see a new mastercard commerical along those same lines:
Hotel room in Jordan: $125 a night.
Crispy waffle breakfast: $5
Knowing your MasterCard helped Al Qaeda terrorists buy weapons: Priceless.
-Una
I am thinking in the first place about firearms. These are usually sold in specialised stores which can be easily identified in the credit card transaction databases. Most people do not buy firearms very often and certainly not with a credit card.
This could also apply to other goods.
The nice thing about Windows is: it does not just crash; it displays a nice little dialog box and let's you press 'OK'
Yah mon, your right, I don't value your life that much. You go out there and taste the blood. I'll be right behind you..real soon now.
That the ICA, NSA, FBI, President Bush and his son George W. are behind the greatest terrorist outrage of modern times in order to oust a hostile regime so's they can build an oil pipeline across that peoples' lands for their rich oil cronies?
Waiting for the truth. Still waiting. And still...yeah, right...
The privacy policy was never intended to protect us. From the article:
The privacy policy is a contract, and its purpose is to protect the merchant (which in this case, may also be the perpetrator).
With all due respect, it is rare that I ever see a privacy policy intended to protect me. Usually, privacy policies have so many loopholes, that they do not constitute a privacy policy at all. There general purpose is to protect the merchant from liability. Even if there were a privacy policy to protect the author, that policy would not have impeded the investigation.
Finally, the article wasn't even about privacy policies. The article was about credit card fraud. The privacy issues just happened to be mentioned in the third-to-last paragraph.
Kids have been stealing credit card numbers for years. Fraud investigations on stolen credit cards have ended when the CC company gets the money back. Story time.
Someone at my place of employment either stole a Visa debit card from my personal posessions or from my wife's purse, or I left it in an ATM machine, or something. They wiped my checking account clean of well over $3000 plus my overdraft protection, buying beer, shoes, gasoline, and in general living it up and having a good time.
When I discovered what was going on (because checks started coming back), I reported the card compromised, closed the account, did a police report, the whole bit.
If it had been stolen from the ATM machine, the security camera might have snapped a shot of the person who took it. In any case, the establishments that took the card might have had security cameras picking up someone committing fraud with my card to the tune of three grand.
The police took the report and filed it under "Theft Under $100" (because the cash value of the card is less than a dollar), and that's the end of it. My employer didn't care either, because it didn't cost them any money. My bank closed the account after charging back the merchants who took the money.
The only people who lost here were those merchants. Nobody cares. Write it off as a cost of business.
The only thing that makes this different is that it happened to two people in the same office. They could have bought rocket launchers, and it wouldn't matter.
As for the privacy policy ... well, that's CCBill's problem. Someday they'll get slapped with a subpoena they can't fulfill because they don't keep records for the length of time they should, and then they'll be a huge Congresscritter investigation about privacy on the Internet with people storming that there shouldn't be any, and then the EFF and CDT will have to get all worked up and lobby some more. Until then ... business as usual.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
someone used her account information to send a $1,800 US-made night-vision scope with infrared capability to an address in the United Arab Emirates
/. even repost such an article written by people as dumb as ox? I'm sure this guy has a collection of Dummy's books on his shelf.
/. even post this article, making people thought /. is standing in ths same line with such news sites.
Let me get this straight: this author use two unique instances to conclude that 1) piracy helps terrorists, and 2) Internet merchant helps terrorists.
This is incredibly idiotic, how could
To author:get a clue! The goods was NOT magically shipped to Middle East electronically, it's sending to a real address physically. The supplier must be well aware what goods is to be shipped to what destination. Just because the paymant is done on the Internet and he concluded that Internet merchant is to be blamed?
Also I'm not convinced that piracy helps terrorists in any way in this case. If the supplier shipped suspicious goods to problematic countries without question, then they should take full responsiblity.
We have enough news sites that crowded with editors who have subliminal intelligence and clue. I'm very annoyed that
Hahaha, this one sounds right out of The Matrix. Priceless.
Duh, who would ordes waffles over the internet. Just drive to the nearest waffles outlet and buy one. Or ask your wife/goflfriend to bake you some :-)
You paid for a waffle with a credit card?
Aren't night-vision rifle scopes used to violate people's privacy? The night-time privacy of possible targets, that is. Kinda funny that merchant 'privacy' results in the violation of target 'privacy'. Oh, and then there's the whole taking your CCN/exp date thing - It really seems like credit cards are not secure enough. It seems stupid that they aren't more secure. Why don't they just have a system that, say, requires voice authorization for purchases (stores have a phone, net purchases result in a quick 'did you buy this' phone call), or perhaps a unique Purchase Authorization Number (PAN) that is entered directly by the purchaser, so the merchants never see it. As it is now, the merchants have direct access to your CCN, name, and expiration date - everything they need to ring up charges - and all you can do is trust them.
Credit cards suck, and I don't plan on getting one unless I have to.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
He ordered waffles at a food place in Jordan. Read the effing article. How someone as silly as you got a +2 bonus to all posts is beyond me...
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Christian Science Monitor.. a bedrock of true journalistic integrity..
this is just weak..
i hate microsoft.
Instead of shouting back and forth 'it does', 'no it does not', could you please be so kind as to tell the rest of us who *DID* read the article, where it says anything in that direction.
I'm sorry but the string 'priv' doesn't even appear 1 time in the article.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
As i seem to remember from my school days, God gave us the freedome of choise to commit crimes, it is your right to be a criminal.
That dosn't mean you take up that right, laws should not be made to stop people commiting crimes, but to punish them when they do. The moral responsibilities of most people will stop them from commiting crimes
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Why should a company have to turn records over to you? If they were important a search warrant would simply override there little don't tell policy.
Additionally, night vision scopes aren't all that high tech anymore, this technology is widely available on video cameras.
If they can just destroy records after a few months, night vision scopes must not be a restricted/controlled item, or else they would hold onto the records longer, and they wouldn't ship them without a signature.
This article is just trolling.
From a data processing pov it would be incredible hard to implement, specifically based on current systems.
True story: MCI was not able to authorize a 10$ purchase via the phone on my non-us credit card. They wanted a zip code. No zip-code no authorization. Now, if the cc authorization systems really rely on 5 digit zip codes in order to authorize a 10 dollar purchase it's beyond my comprehension just how much those systems must suck.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I wish more people would realise this...
Any sufficiently self-referential snowcloned
Hmmm. $1 for a movie, extra for the night-scope to go?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Really, do you honestly think that there is any credence in that particular comment.
Sure there are a lot of conspiracies that have subverted many different people's and cultures I will admit, but to defend a regime who may possibly oppress it's people... and give it false pretenses in which to believe their lies... is like going with the Big Brother approach really... you look at it and you see everything that is said, is reversed, and everything that was, has been overtly removed, I am sorry but dictators who refuse to give their power back to the people deserve exactly what they get, subversion, not terrorism... if we were terrorists then we would deserve the bullets in our skulls... but we are not and the organizations that work to protect us, do the best they can given on the situation.
and if you want to reveal the "truth" I would suggest actually bringing some hard evidence to the table.
Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement reads in part:
There is more detail in their client agreement which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):
So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.
> The reason banks are in business is because they claim to be better than you at managing your money
Nah, that's not it. The reason banks are in business is that they (temporarily) invent money. It's kind of weird, but look up what fractional reserve banking means some time. When you write a check, you're really using a form of currency created by banks. Money needs to be invented constantly and in current system this is done by banks.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
> All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle. But I
> ended up sending a night-vision rifle scope to
> some unidentified criminal in Saudi Arabia.
Similarly, one could say: All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle, but I ended up paying for Turkey's attack helicopters used for human rights violation.
"it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."
Ya know, I find that comment a bit disturbing. And not just because of the obvious reason that it appears to support limiting privacy (further). I hope I don't sound like one a them trolls, but honestly, while the "Middle Eastern terrorists" that the White House likes to talk so much about are obviously engaging in activities that are immoral as a whole (death and destruction), I DO agree with them that the "us" you try to speak of, the "us" that isn't really inclusive of us at all, but of the rich and powerful that control this nation, and others, need a serious ass-whooping.
To put it another way, while I will agree with anybody who calls a terrorist bad (not "evil") no matter what his or her motives are, I will also say that I am in full support of the society that those "Middle Eastern terrorists" grew out of.
I think it's really just a matter of looking at who the real enemies are.
-Jeff
Property is theft.
Uh oh! Terrorists are now getting into carding! Next they'll start stealing our k0d3z!!@#!
If some scam artist ordered a rifle scope with a stolen credit card in the US, would you assume he was a terrorist? Obviously anyone who owns a gun in the middle east MUST be a terrorist.
The Information Revolution will be fought on the command line.
Not been american, but watching another of the X-files etc to think I know enought...
Given that the offence took place in Amman, isnt it in the scope of the CIA, rather then the FBI who the guy contacted while writing the article...
Or am I just nit picking?
I saw the light at the end of the tunnel... But it was just someone with a flashlight bringing more work.
The most dangerous thing you can do with a night vision scope is hit someone over the head with it.
With sensationalistic journalism like this, baby monitors become spy-killing machines and those X10 cameras are automatically associated with sexual predators. It's a slippery slope that I do not want us to go down!
Here we have an artice that's, basically, saying "Lack of data retention is bad. It helps terrorists."
Four articles further down the front page, we have an article critising EU data renention policies, on the grounds that it's a privacy breach to force companies to retain data. (From the summary - "[it's] so that law enforcement can go data-mining.")
Look, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either don't enforce data retention, and accept that data you would like to have access to will sometimes be lost, or you force data retention and accept that you might lose a bit of privacy as a result. (But hey, it's to stop terrorism, so it must be OK, right?)
hence why this entire article seems like a giant troll.
... )
.....
if I wanted to rip that guy off I easily could, as long as I worked at any major retail store that he entered.
While I worked for a major electronics retailer in Canada, on the receipt your CC number and expiration date was printed onto it. As well as full name, address, phone number which can lead to lots of other information. Hopefully I talked him into applying for our credit card - then I would obtain much more juicy information like social security numbers, the bank he deals with and his income.
The problem here is, the purchaser managed to place an order for a different shipping address. Many online companies force the purchase made through them to go to the billing address, or a credit card company approved shipping address. (You need to call your CC company up and ask them to add a special shipping address, and they request LOTS and LOTS of info from you
Again, this article is just a troll
Is it just me - or is the Author's experience not all that believable? Something seriously is wrong with that article.
Credit card fraud happens all the time. It's unavoidable. It's a tradeoff between less hassle and more security when paying. We chose less hassle, so we collectively pay the insurance and investigation. Nobody got hurt, the fraud didn't cost the guy any money. What's the outrage?
update your bookmarks, encription is legal for a few years
eagh!!!! if you advocate loosing your privacy you deserve all the terrorisim the gov will give you.. re:You don't say... agree wholeheartedly
Liberty, security. Liberty, security.
I think we know that freedom comes with a price: less security. Security comes with a price too: less freedom.
In the US, this idea was a commonplace before the Revolution. Anybody have any idea as to its earlier origins? (I'm sure it was bandied about during the English Civil War.)
Milo
Typical Slashdot readers will be the first to point out that you're not a criminal and shouldn't be labeled one until you commit the crime.
Aren't people allowed to buy a rifle scope without it being your business?
-... ---
1. Is it not the responsibility of the credit card company (which is apparently unknown in this instance), not the credit card processing entity (ccnow.com) to verify that the billing address is the same as the shipping address? I have, on a number of occasions, specifically had to call my credit card company and authorize shipment to locations other than my billing address. This has even been bothersome at points, but I understand the reasons that the CC companies require this. I'd like to think that MasterCard would raise some flag when Bob, from Alabama, wants to send anything to the United Arab Emirates.
2. It is the responsibilty of the vendor (also unknown, but there are plenty of examples out there) to make sure that certain types of merchandise (e.g. cryptographic hardware and software to Lybia, Anthrax Spores to North Korea, >10 round magazines to California) do not violate state and federal regulations. AFAICT, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not on the "technology proscribed list". Here is an excellent starting point for further investigation.
3. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an Al Qaeda terrorist wished to procure a night vision scope for his Druganov sniper rifle, he could order up a crate-full from his local ex-KGB contact and have it air-dropped from a AN-22 on the "Go Away" mat in front of his cave entrance. Funny, I'm sure, but not without a grain of truth.
4. It's also important to know that, fundamentally, this "night vision scope" is neither a weapon (unto itself), nor particularly effective, as it is both surplus, and Russian made. Not to slight the proven fantastic ability of the manufacturing capacity of the former Soviet state (they did make millions of highly usable and portable AK-47s and their variants), but as surplus "electronics" equipment, their shelf life is probably somewhat suspect. Plus, the batteries are a bitch to get from Radio Shack.
All in all, I'm sure that something untoward is going on here. Someone got their CC# pilfered, probably the same way teenagers in the US lift card numbers from transactions at Applebees. Whether or not something more sinister is afoot, remains to be seen. I would, however, take a closer look at who was working at the Amman, Jordan IHOP that morning, and see what they were up to.
I hope the parent gets modded up, it is the only clueful post on this story about old-fashioned credit card fraud.
BTW, all of you folks rambling on about what rights the government should have might want to look at the US Constitution. The feds have NO RIGHTS. The federal government has powers and authority. The People and the States have all of the rights.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
There's a multi-page article on Salon right now that maybe you should take a few minutes to read.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Privacy doesnt "WORK" against us. I suppose in some ways it can be "USED" against us, in the same way that someone could use the sailboat that gives me months of pleasure every year to run down a dolphin or something. Rules against privacy are *active* attempts to take something important away from us, in that way, it WORKS against us. Privacy-> Works FOR us, can be USED against us. Anti-Privacy-> WORKS AGAINST us, USED AGAINST US.
Why stick up for big business?
"Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."
Well, at least somebody's noting it and not just jumping on the privacy bandwagon blindly, chanting "Priavcy! Privacy! Privacy!" It should be obvious, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the privacy they so feverently wage holy wars for is a double edged sword. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Everybody loves privacy. Until you find out that your local chapter of Jihads R Us has been thriving under the same policy and cooking up plans to slaughter your peoples wholesale. Then, when those same privacy fanatics scream "FIND THOSE TERRORISTS!", ultimate irony will set in as they realize their government can't help them because it would be violating all the privacy acts these people wish existed. I'm not advocating total government oversight, but some people out there need to buy a bottle perspective. What protects you, protects them.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Life causes death
what goes up must come down
Open source software enables cacking security
Locks are for honesty people
What we make, we can break
etc..
It's not about this thing or that thing being bad, it's about people and how they use things to be bad.
Maybe automobiles and trucks should be added to the list of terrorist tools that should be ban, along with anything that can be use to make a bomb.
In fact, why don't we just make up a list of all things that can be used to kill.....Guess that would include water....
But it's really about people, what they do, and most important WHY?
Like what is terrorist reason to do bad things?
Or Like why was a trillion dollar bet allowed to happen? Hmmmm, isn't Indonesia like 80% or better muslin?
And Why is military spending not being used to address and remove reasons to be a terrorist or do bad things? Certainly it cost us all alot more backing up wrongful world financial manipulations with guns, then it would in being more productive with such military labeled finances.
So yeah, on the list of things that can be used for terrorist act, we really do have to add the world militaries, as common sence will tell anyone that the majority of people living on this planet don't want war but only to live a happy and healthy life.
It's just the few creating wars and bad things, spending huges amount of money that can be far better spent.
Let me get this straight:
- Customs is able to stop the delivery of tools that MIGHT be used to hack Nintendo games
- Customs is UNABLE to stop the shipment of night vision equipment to terrorist harboring nations where it WILL be used to commit violent crimes
Yeah, we've got our priorities straight.
Karma: Professionally Doomed (mostly affected by inability to keep opinions to self)
You can have freedom or security. Choosing freedom means that you accept a certain amount of risk in order to maintain that freedom. One of our founding fathers (Too my shame I can't remember which one) said that those who are willing to trade freedom for safety deserve neither one.
Since 9/11 we have allowed our government to reduce our personal freedoms in exchange for a promise of greater security.
Stories like this one are important, since they show that there is a cost for freedom, it shouldn't be taken for granted. The events of 9/11 were part of that cost as well.
By allowing legislation like the Patriot Act to pass without fighting it lots of Americans have given tacit approval to the destruction of the country that I love.
Osama bin Ladin says he wants to destroy this country. Ironically, we seem to be doing the job for him. More and more I see people saying that we have to accept these new restrictions on our privacy.
The real war is not one of terrorism and counter-terrorism, it's a war of ideals and information. The men who attacked our country did so because they had been taught that the U.S. is a great source of evil in the world. We need to find ways to teach people what our country is really about.
We also have to accept responsibility for our mistakes and policy failings.
So yes, there is always a risk that our freedoms can be used against us. Sometimes it's high, but do we really want to trade it away?
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Privacy laws are there to protect consumers, not vendors. Vendors are not entitled to have their identities obscured. The system doesn't work that way.
This isn't really a privacy issue so much. Every business keeps their records for a limited amount of time and then gets rid of them. 6 months is kinda short and if we want to take issue with that and force them to keep transaction records longer I'm OK with that. I still don't see any privacy issues.
Coding Blog
That story was weak. Credit card fraud happens. It's happened to me. Does it matter more since it is going to *gasp* Ter-ruh (as Bush would say)?
-and-
Christianity and Science are mutually exclusive. Please make the appropriate note in your records.
Mod on moderator man!
Maybe the government should stop selling its weapons to weird countries
Note that this recent slashdot story, Live From Iran, Film88 is about a company that wants you to send your credit card to a company in Iran to rent movies over the internet.
Why go to all the trouble of getting information off of credit card slips from a restaurant in Amman, when you can just get folks who are looking for cheap movies (or other items) to send you that information over the internet?
Identity theft is probably the major source of funding for terrorism now. Think about that the next time you order a pirated movie or some online porn.
Concealed Handgun License Courses in Plano, Texas
The posts modded at 3 and up just now make no mention of what for me is the central point here:
The purchase was made with the stolen identity of the reporter. Therefore the right to privacy to be protected is the reporter's own. Therefore he should have full rights to the details of the transaction. Period. Any party withholding those details is complicit in the theft of his identity, and aiding a criminal. They should go to jail, for a long time.
Ran into a similar situation with AOL a few months back. Someone stole a credit card number of a housemate to buy a bunch of porno and sign up for an AOL account. AOL absolutely refused to provide any information - it required redundant effort just to get them to cancel the account and stop trying to collect on it. Why should someone who has stolen your identity have any right to privacy in what they do with your identity? Is it your identity, or not? Why should any corporation have any right to withhold from you information on what's been done using your own identity? Shouldn't you have an absolute right to full disclosure of all information that can help you protect and defend your own good name?
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
They are not laundering money. To quote from the article: "Fraud investigators at my credit card company say that since they got their money back they are not interested in further investigation."
And they're not actively destroying evidence either, I'd assume, they just keep these records for a limited time.
But all this doesn't matter and here's why:
If the merchant can't provide a valid customer signature with the credit card info, the entire risk of the transaction is with the merchant. Anyone who ever worked in e-business knows this is standard credit card company policy. They get their money back and it's the merchant who ends up being frauded.
Which, by coincidence, has lead many online merchants to check the billing address listed with your credit card record, or even stricter only ship to that billing address. Because this info is harder for simple scamsters to obtain (though not impossible, stealing your wallet will do, but then the card is usually blocked completely).
So the conclusion of this whole lame story is that the merchant of these rifle scopes loses a lot of money because they are not careful enough about their shipping addresses. And they will likely go out of business if they keep this up.
Big deal. Personally I think they deserve it, for stupidity even more than for helping possible terrorists if you ask me.
Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.
This country's justice system was founded on the principle that "it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man." So let's do the math here. Some of us seem to want to punish literally millions of americans (by taking away their priviledge/right to privacy) in order to catch and punish a few hundred men. Good lord, these are sad times we live in.
Disagree with me, argue all you want, but those are the facts.
i did feel that his whole "i called the FBI and they did nothing" attittude was a little sketch - but on the 6 years record thing - we do that in the states - but "other" places - like the backass middle east dont have to keep shit if they dont want to - and for a credit card company to have a fraud for only 3grand isnt enough of a dent to make uncle sam take a second look.
Ave Molech Setting
This should've been from the 'no shit sherlock' category or the 'captain obvious' category. Any privacy policy can be used for felonious means. It's the same reasoning the US government uses to circumvent any form of personal privacy afforded it's citizens. "If we can't listen to everyone's phone calls, how will we find the terrorists?" type of mentality. Just ask yourself how many more rights you're willing to give up in the name of 'national security' and don't bitch when we have a full-on police state. 1984, here we come.
Getting a real merchant account isn't that hard if you're legitimate. I've done it, and I used Bank of America, not some off-brand "Internet bank". Anybody who's willing to pay 14% instead of 3% is probably doing something suspicious.
Ever hear of a joke :)
Guess I should have put <sarcasm> around the whole, so idiots like you would realize it was a joke.
The US has plans to invade the state of Iowa, the country of Japan, and the continent of Aisa.
I would be significantly disturbed if they *did not* as that is what I pay them taxes to do.
I live in a giant bucket.
The actual article does not say that privacy is being used against the "good" people. It just complains that his path was blocked in his attempt to uncover details about spending on HIS card.
It also states that the FBI doesn't seem interested in this.
And for you jackasses who keep saying, "he should have canceled the card after the first ($3100) attempt", well do you think he even knew about that attempt until the second charge came through, a month later?
I like some of the interesting links on
I personally found it very interesting to read this article, and I learned something (that may have been obvious to plenty of other people), but that is that "fraud" isn't treated as a serious crime, it's just an economic process.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
The problem isn't a privacy policy, the problem is CREDIT CARD FRAUD. DUH
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
One Man's Terrorist Is Another Man's Freedom Fighter. I find a few night vision scopes pale to the importance of continuing to seek effective Internet privacy.
Mine that FBI !!
Ya Sure! You Betcha!, The_THOMAS
A militaman in Wisconsin bought a night-scope. While he was at work, terrorists broke into his house and stole it. He is working with the terrorists!!!!!
This is a non-story. I can't see what it is ever here except to be sensational.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"