Slashdot Mirror
To Pay With Your Credit Card, Please Speak Up
prostoalex writes "It's reasonable easy for a thief to steal the social security number and bank account information (which is printed on a check) as well as an address. The next generation of financial tools are fighting this problem. Business Week talks about voice verification in future debit and credit cards. "Here's how it works: A special sensor on the credit card stores its owner's previously recorded voiceprint in digital form. When the owner receives a new card, he or she speaks a password into the sensor on the card. If the voiceprint matches, the card is activated.""
So you speak to activate it.. and if you get a cold or have an accident and can't talk?
I like muppets.
I somehow get the feeling that wives, girlfriends, and daughters the world over will not like this one bit.
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
where did I put that tape recorder again?
RandomAndInteresting.comdefending the world from stupidity since 1979
Step 1:
Build card reader for voice print
Step 2:
Download voice print to your MP3 player
Step 3:
PROFIT!
Zug.com has a funny prank, that was listed on /. the other month, about someone signing his credit card receipts with phony names or pictures.
I tried it, it's no problem, just sign all of your bills "It's Me", no one cares.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
...where you type your PIN into a small box attached to the cash register.
Because, as we all know, typing your PIN into someone elses computer system is by far the best way to keep it confidential.
ATMs are at least owned by the bank and significantly harder to tamper with in a non-obvious way.
Beep beep.
No really, I'm am really curious. I admit, I wear a tin-foiled hat with pride, but I've recieved some pretty BS responses from banks when asked this question.
The worst response? "You need it on your account for your protection". Oh really? Until, I don't know, 1 of the 100 forms my SSN is one gets scanned and posted somewhere on the internet.
And for those that think it can't happen, some dipshit made a family tree of all of my family across the country and posted it on the internet... 1 out of 10 (out of ~600 people... this tree goes back pretty far) has a SSN posted and it's now in google's cache.
So I ask again... why is a SSN required for a bank account? What about those people withouth SSNs?
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Step 1: steal identity and get credit card mailed to oneself, shameless thief.
Step 2: record your voice onto some shmoe's card.
Step 3: PROFIT!
"My voice is my credit card. Pay for me"
Considering that voice recognization is still rather unreliable (particularly when people get excited and such) I would think it's a bad idea until reliablity improves.
It would be rather sad trying to pay for caugh drops with ATM/CC but unable to do so because the sore throat is causing your voice print to shift.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
There was a /. article a few years ago about a biometric password scheme that remembered how you laughed. It became a running joke at work, where we have someone with a very distinctive laugh. We figured a scheme like that would become annoying really fast.
Coworker A: huh huh huh... huh huh huh... it's not letting me in... huh huh huh... oh wait I think I changed it... huhhuhuhhuhuh huhhuhhuhuh... huhhuhuhhhuh... no, that doesn't work either huh huh huh...
Coworker B: Here, I'll log in for you. hahahahah!
Coworker A: Huh huh huh thanks!
Rather than working to make it harder to use a stolen credit card, companies should work at making it easier to find somebody using a stolen credit card. Maybe start requesting that stores associate a purchase with a time and a checkout lane, which could lead to accessing security camera archives once a purchase is claimed fraudulent by the account holder. I am sure there are more possibilities.
I would prefer that the Visa or Mastercard system sends me a SMS that I reply to in order to authorize the payment.
OMG, what do blind people do with having to sign their name?
They have a problem with their eyes, not their hands. They sign their name.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I hate to admit it - because, you know, all the fraudulent things that have happened to people with PayPal and eBay - but I have to say that PayPal is starting to do things well.
Require you to put in your work phone number and then an automated system phones it and asks you to authenticate what is onscreen by touchpad. Atleast with this method of authentication the hackers have to spoof more than one method of communication and would leave a rather sizeable paper trail of changing account data.
Not like reading the extra 3 digits off your card into a computer system so that someone else can steal those digits and reuse 'em.
This post started out with better ambitions. Stupid boob tube, oh how you distract me!
They're going to be pretty pissed once they find out Stephen Hawking charged $5000 on their card for some new spinners on his wheelchair.
Should any of the credit card companies that want to use this type of technology hope to have the cards used by the federal government, they'll need to make sure that the card is 508 compliant http://www.section508.gov/ and that would take into account someone who could not speak.
Bark less. Wag more.
It's been proven over and again that biometrics are a poor form of authentication that can easily be beaten. Not only are you unable to protect it (try not leaving your fingerprints everywhere, or not speaking to someone so they can't get your voice recording, or maybe even not shedding your hair so you don't leave any DNA traces), you're also unable to change it, and it's made doubly dangerous because of the way people seem to think it's effective. So maybe they should stop beating that dead horse around...
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Start with a picture of the cardholder on the card. Some banks already do that. So unless you have a serious change in how you look, a person can SEE if you are the person on the photo or not.
Unfortunatly that means that the wife will have to have her [SHOCKING] own card. Yes this would mean going to the bank to have your picture taken. It also means it costs money and as long as the cost of theft are below the cost of security, they will gladly pay up to whomever is stealing from them.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
- Identifying people who phone a bank (ie. for phone services or ordering a credit card)
- When people first receive a credit card, they speak to it to activate it
But, here's what this type of biometrics fails to address:From TFA, "Over-the-phone fraud already affects 12% of all banks offering e-payment services." 12%? That's it? Of all the banks offering electronic/phone services, only 12% have ever been affected by over-the-phone fraud, which this new technology is supposed to help prevent? That makes me think that most credit card frauds are being conducted another way.
Point two: This type of biometrics does nothing to protect consumers if their card or card number are stolen after their card is activated. Continuing from my above comment about how most frauds actually happen, I'd wager good money that most credit card frauds do not occur from cards being stolen from the mail before they're activated; rather, I'm guessing that most frauds happen because the little numbers on someone's card are stolen.
They need to rethink their manner of usage if they want this new biometric scheme to be anything more than a headache (I mean, how many different things could go wrong with a voice-recognition chip embedded in a little card?). I mean, a voice-authentication system is definately a better scheme than asking someone what their birthday is, but there has to be a more effective way of using it than this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This was good technology applied in a bad way. As one of more than one way of activating a card this would be a good thing. Thieves are a skittish lot, even if they could sign for card use or use a stolen PIN, the fact they would be expected to voice activate the card first would deter them, not wishing to draw undue attention to themselves.
Even 14 years ago this technology had a extremely low false positive rate misidentifying someone as someone else. Even 25 years ago I seem to remember this technology being not being prone to misidentification, though more finicky and with a much smaller vocabulary (like 10 words).
Letter To Iran
... you insensitive clod.
Really, I don't.
How is this inconvenient? I had to go into the branch to open the account anyway, going back a week later to pick up my card wasn't that bad.
Before thinking of expensive new ideas like this people should really sit back and think do people really need this technology?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
I'd say a vast majority of credit fraud is committed without actually stealing the card, just the information on the magstrip. So I guess instead of the shady waiter just swiping your card through his personal magstrip reader before charging your order, it becomes standard for people to have to talk to their cards before the shady waiter swipes your card through his personal magstrip reader before charging your order. Advancement+!!!