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?
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'
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 :-)
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();
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
Did it occur to you how I got the quotes in the first place ? ;)
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
Hmmm. $1 for a movie, extra for the night-scope to go?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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/
"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.
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!
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.
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?
-... ---
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
"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
Maybe the government should stop selling its weapons to weird countries
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 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.
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
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!"