Slashdot Mirror
Online Trust Failing Overall
twitter writes "The BBC and ZDNet are reporting on an RSA poll of 1,000 users about failing confidence in ecommerce. 43% of respondents were reluctant to give details to online sites and 70% said that firms were not doing enough to keep their data secure. The BBC goes on to quote experts who back up the perception, ZDNet claims that action is being taken and is well."
Most people who distrust internet commerce will gladly hand their credit card over to minimum-wage waiters, who disappear into the back room of the restaurant with it for ten minutes. It's all a matter of image and perception.
Have you read my blog lately?
From the article: "This survey demonstrates that awareness and action are replacing fear," Robert Holleyman, BSA's chief executive, said in a statement.
How is awareness and action replacing fear when people are afraid to shop/bank online but don't handle their passwords any differently?
Oh, wait... It was an executive who made the statement so all meanings should be reversed.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
If businesses want people's trust, they need to earn it.
Should online businesses be trusted ?
I myself give out accurate personal data only when I really, really have to, and even then am pretty picky about the companies I work with - both online and offline. If confidence has declined, maybe people are learning...
I lost my online trust when I fell victim to a particular .cx site.
Here in GA we have ChoicePoint, a company which recently allowed a criminal gang to make off with something like half-a-million IDs.
Only people in California were notified of the leak, because CA has a law requiring notification. Everyone else is going to have to wait 'til their identity gets stolen.
The GA legislature is taking up a bill to require notification of GA residents when their personal information is stolen or accidentally leaked.
Part of the problem, IMHO, is that companies won't tell you when they've shared your information with a non-trusted third party. So, a good first step would be voluntary disclosure.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
When knowing a number is sufficient to use it (credit cards, SSN), security is impossible.
It is a fact of life that your important numbers hang around indeffinitely in various databases. Unless more than a number is required to use them, it will become impossible to maintain your identity.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
The only problem with your whining is that credit card fraud is many times more likely to happen when you use your credit card in a brick-n-mortar store, face to face, than when you use it online. And if the number is stolen, the amount fraudulently charged to it will be several times as much.
This isn't news, or especially obscure. While online credit card fraud may be the "fastest growing category," it's still minor compared to disgruntled cashiers who copy down details on the sly.
This country must have gone down the drain if cynics like you are moderated "+4 Insightful".
If friendship or loyalty are not real to you in any tangible form, one day you may realize that you have nothing left to go on for, hence, you will not.
Get out into the world. Do a bit of community service, create LTSP installations out there, build stuff that people can use and along with the stuff you build, you will build bonds and friendships that will last you a lifetime.
You appear to be the epitome of capitalism's alienation. It doesn't have to be that way!
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
You miss the point. I trust the guy nextdoor, I trust the lady down the road, I trust my friends. I don't trust the world outside of this because it's clearly put "we want your money, heres a brainwashing so we get it".
Take it how you want it.
I like muppets.
Ya the LC thing is always enlightening. Where I used to work when we ran it it found 50% of the passwords instantly, as in not even trying a dictonary attack, just things like variations on usernames and so on that it always try. It was up to about 90% after the dictonary attack, and had all but three with the dictonary + varations.
Fortunately, the passwords didn't really get you in to much other than the computers, however it was still a sad situtation, and not one the management had any intrest in rectifying.
This is why we really need to get some kind of dual authentication system that uses like a smart card and a PIN. People will NOT use good passwords. A PIN + smartcard system would be pretty hard for people to get around. You'd have to find out the PIN and physically steal the smartcard, then use them before access was revoked. Certianly not impossible, but much easier than finding out a stupidly simple password and using it covertly.
I don't worry about online banking or shopping per se. I worry that someone can walk into a bank, say they're me, and buy a house with my credit rating. I worry that someone can order a plasma TV over the phone with my credit card to launder money. And yes, I worry that someone can apply for a new credit card in my name over the Internet -- but that's a subset of the problem. How can you make online commerce safe when commerce itself isn't safe?
We need to prevent compromises, but that won't solve the problem. We need to make it harder for people to steal money armed with only a name and an SSN. Except without instant credit, the American economy would collapse, then the world, and then where would we be?
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
I've actually made the heretical argument about password security that you should write your password down (though of course some place smarter than the monitor).
The longstanding pattern of providing easy credit predates the Internet. It has led to practices that are insecure by the most rudimentary standards. And yet, it has certainly been profitable for the providers.
Between the transaction fees charged to the merchants, and the interest collected on credit, revenues for the providers have been greater than losses due to fraud.
You would think that all parties would benefit from better security, but evidently the providers don't see it that way. As you probably know, their core operations are very secure, so it's not as if they haven't been willing to act on security risks which they perceive to be significant.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.