Slashdot Mirror
New Identity Theft Technology Fails to Protect
Nuclear Elephant writes "According to BBC News, identity thieves are quickly adapting to new technologies such as chip-and-pin credit cards using human nature tactics rather than cracking the technology. At least that's what Dr. Emily Finch (UEA), who interviews career criminals about their activities, claims. Finch swapped credit cards with a male coworker and performed a number of transactions without being challenged by cashiers. Finch also believes biometric identity cards will only exacerbate the problem. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?"
...there is no patch for human stupidity.
Online fraud: The return of cash payments?
I thought the space elevator was far-fetched, but THIS is ridiculous!
and earlier, by Schneier:
"If you think technology will solve your security problems, either you don't understand the technology, or you don't understand the problems."
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Zug.com and slashdot has shown this gag before.
It's very funny, until you realize the implications. I no longer make my signature on credit card reciepts anything like the one on my card. Why bother?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It is possible that one day the imbedded chip under the skin would become law it may even come with a gps and auto feature that disables the user installed in it as well. But taht makes me think about the Bible in the mark of the beast and son on.With all the things you can buy unchallenged with a credit card there will always be a way around any security feature period.
Why would anyone think that the credit card companies would ever care about identity theft? Sure, it does cost them some money. But by far the cost of identity theft is placed on merchants. If someone disputes a charge on the credit card bill, the credit card companies merely take the money back from the merchant.
As a glaring demonstration of how unconcerned credit card companies are about theft, on the same credit card I had someone fraudulently use it three times. Each time I asked for a new card with a new number on it. Each time the issuing bank (Citibank) said, "Let's just wait to see if it happens again". I had to insist on the third time because I was sick of dealing with it.
When they can just pass costs onto merchants and consumers, is it any wonder they're designing ineffective solutions?
I'm a big tall mofo.
"Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?"
I fail to understand how an embedded chip would make identity theft any less of a problem. While it may reduce social enginering which the article defines as a problem, how would it eliminate the technical (and in the case of securing identity information, most important) aspect.
For example, assuming that theives can get around biometric data. What is going to stop them from removing a "read-only" chip and installing a "read/write" chip?
Am I open minded towards open source, or closed minded towards closed source?
Pardon me, I left off the link to the Zug.com prank(s).
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
It's always a game of cat & mouse. Everytime they come out with a new technology to protect people's identities then the "bad guys" will come out with a way to break that technology.
Bradley Holt
If it does work outside of your body, it won't work inside your body. There is no absolute way to prove identity. It's a bummer, I know.
You can prove (within acceptable limits) that some biometric data (like a DNA sample) comes from you, but there is a gap between that information and identity. Identity is solely a "web of trust" issue. Trying to solve identity theft with some piece of information (like a password) or biometric data (like a fingerprint) will only raise the bar for identity theft.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
@ 1,16 human/brain.txt brain cell brain cell #2 -stupid cell +smart cell
j0b.org - A famous domain name for sale
Considering the level of violence some criminals (drug addicts etc) are willing to use on their victims, I'd rather keep my money/cards on my wallet and don't want to have any hard-to.remove RFID chips at my arms.
There is no substitute for hard Commonsense. Signatures are meaningless. Retailers are interested in making the sale and not annoying the customers with suspicion.
In my case, my signature cannot fit on that tiny space provided on the credit card, and so resembles nothing like it. Most clerks will make a perfunctory "check" of signatures, if they even bother.
Regard your credit card like you would cash, since there is little more security involved. Though, most institutions that issue Credit Cards and increasingly Debit Cards will give you a chance to dispute charges and have them removed.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
Dr Finch is particularly concerned about identity cards, as well she might be. If you live in the UK you may be interested in some closely related reading at http://www.no2id.net/ .
You're an immobile computer, remember?
@ 1,16 human/brain.txt
brain cell
brain cell #2
-stupid cell
+smart cell
j0b.org - A famous domain name for sale
Dr Finch says criminals have told her how they now look over people's shoulders to see a person's pin being entered on a keypad and then attempt to steal the card at a later date.
It's called shoulder surfing, hardly new.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Why are credit card companies taking so long to make each transaction covered by its own one-time password? Why do I give the same CC# to a recipient, without security? The card is almost always processed by a machine now, even with a (usually minimum-wage) human handling the transaction. Why should the recipient be trusted not to rerun the charge, or increase it, or share the access info with someone else?
I know that credit card companies cover fraud loss over $50, so they are paying some of these costs of fraud. But automation has made frauds <$50 much more profitable and common. And identity theft comes after one leak in the identity privacy chain, often without direct damage to the leaking organization. And usually in much greater amounts than the original transaction could have allowed - and usually with much further damage to future transactions than even the value of the theft.
One-time password tech is much cheaper than the losses we're suffering. And the necessary automation overhead could make the entire transaction system safer and more efficient for legitimate transactors. Where is it? Are banks just making so much money off all their transactions that new systems like one-time passwords are just to low on their priority list? With all the ID theft running rampant, what crisis could it require to force action to protect us?
--
make install -not war
No matter how hard you try. You can't steal my ID if I use cash. You might steal my cash. Not my ID. Do transactions indoors at the teller window. (Most banks will not ensure that any deposit made at the ATM will make it into your account.) Get to know your tellers. Facial recognition helps a lot. Saved my Grandfather (according to him) years ago when someone tried to cash a stolen payroll check. The tellers knew him. The cops where called.
Am I alone in noticing that the more protections they build in the easier theft becomes? It would seem that the more you tell people they are too dumb to protect themselves the more they act like idiots.
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
thieves are quickly adapting to new technologies such as chip-and-pin credit cards
Everyone here in the Netherlands has been using PIN cards since about 1970(?). These cards also include "Chip" chips since 1996.
These cards are much less a liability than credit cards of the American type. It's about time you get with the program people (;
When I was over in the States recently, quite a few cashiers would notice my chip'n'pin card, mention that the US would be moving over to them soon, and saying how nice it will be to have that extra security.
Sometimes I would try and explain the catch.
Since chip & pin supposedly makes fraud impossible, banks have shifted the liability for chip & pin fraud away from themselves and onto the consumer.
That is -- is someone clones your card and forges your signature with a traditional credit card, you can call the credit card company, tell them you didn't make that purchase, and (unless they can prove you were lying) they will refund you the money. They might write the money off, or they might pursue the criminals responsible; it's not your worry. Accepting this risk is all part of their business model. That's what banks are all about.
However, in the UK at least, this changes with chip & pin. If someone shoulder-surfs your PIN, pickpockets your card, and spends money on your card, the bank now says it's YOUR responsibility.
In one way: fair enough, there are precautions you can take to safeguard your PIN, but on the other hand, isn't taking on that liability one of the things we're (directly or indirectly) paying our card providers for?
Any chance you could provide a reference for that? If true, you've just made me a hell of a lot happier about chip and PIN - I'd assumed that the aim was to shift responsibility off the CCs' shoulders and onto someone else's.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Sure, it probably will. And that'll only lead to muggers blowing your brains out and hacking off whatever limb the chip is hidden in, or forcing you to authenticate yourself at an ATM by gunpoint.
Nothing is 100% secure.
You need to see Gattaca and here
They were taking DNA samples in real time from people for access control.
The guy went to extreme measures to defeat the real time DNA sampler.
No matter what they try, no matter what measures they try to take and enforce, there will always be people that will find ways around it.
Personally, I will tell them to stick their chips up their asses. When it gets to that point, I'm leaving civilization and heading for an island somewhere, I'll live off of coconuts and iguana stew.
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, could this take us closer to embedded chips under the skin?
John Spartan on Simon Phoenix being unable to buy anything because you need an implanted chip:
It would be a waste of time to mug somebody . . . unless he rips off someone's hand, and let's hope he doesn't figure that one out.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
The problem of this type of security is that it attempts to replace thought on the part of all involved. (see zug.com about credit card fun)
When I and my wife got a joint account, the bank swapped our pictures on our atm cards. We look nothing alike, each being easly taken for our respective genders. I used mine (with her picture) for six months without anyone even glancing at the picture. Eventually, when I got passport photos at a local picture processing shop: the clerk looked at the card and refused to process it.
Literally after hundreds of transactions including a good number in the $250/300 range. Unfortionatly "Security" (tm) is everyones job, but no one wants to do it.
A friend just came back from Japan, where his cousin was paying groceries et all with his cellphone, which had a "sweep-type" fingerprint scanner (and videophone, and fast internet, etc).
I also heard years ago that somewhere in Scandinavia you could pay some soda vending machines just by calling the phone number on its front with your cell phone.
It is interesting to see phone companies grabbing part of the credit card market.
Maybe it'll converge to using your phone/phone account as an ID, driver's license, bank account, credit card, and even to call people!
Instead of money, you'll be paid in talktime credits...
If we insert chips under our skin, that brings us one step closer to getting our [insert body part here] chopped off, as many people are willing to point out.
Insert Witty Remark Here ===>____________________________
It was said that security is process and not a product.
Ok, so you make a credit card transaction and before it is approved, you get a call on your cell phone, enter a PIN and only then the transaction is approved. Yes, you need to have a signal for this to work, but I think this gets around many problems inherent to other verification methods.
"You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
Most retailers now use a self-swipe card reader. They don't even look at the card.
Every once in a great while a clerk will ask to see my card at my local supermarket. But those occasions are few and far between.
They don't even cross match the store ID card with the card you swipe. I understand that there are flaws such as a spouse having a store card with the same number on it. But there has to be a better way of checking to be sure the credit/debit card holder is who they say they are.
This is why I'd be much more comforable with a card + thumb print + pin scenario.
Not only is the idea of having RFIDs embedded into people's skin scary to me, but it also promises to add a new, terrifying meaning to the term "hacking"...
I don't sign my credit cards. I write "See ID". Then I make it a point of thanking the cashier for asking for my license.
My professor recently had his identity stolen. Apparently the thieves stole some of his mail from his mailbox, and opened a new bank account in his name by his bank. Then they applied for internet banking on his `real' bank account. When they had that, they could easily steal his money. I find it amazing that it is so easy to steal someones identity with this bank.
-- Cheers!
I would much prefer to be able to carry on using my signature. Someone standing behind me wouldn't be able to knock me over the head, and go to a cashpoint to withdraw cash after seeing me sign my name. Sure you can forge them, but it's a bit harder than punching in 4 numbers.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I just hope there will be some islands left then. Maybe these "islands" will be some central europe countries, would be nice, but I doubt it. :(
...but maybe stupid people deserve to have their identities stolen. Better to have a smarter version of yourself out there if you're too fucking stupid to look after your money.
This is like saying "Login & Passwords schemes are insecure! If I give my login and password to my coworker, he can impersonate me! The sky is falling!"
Actually, the Chip&PIN scheme is better than Login/Password schemes since you need a physical device (the smart card) to perform the transaction.
If this new scheme forces thiefs to switch to "Social Engineering", well, it's a good thing, since people can be educated about them.
I love this quote:
The amount of "card-present" fraud in France (where this scheme is in use for about 20 years) is severals orders of magnitude lower than in other countries with similar caracteristics. Ok, the "Problem of fraud" has not been reduced, but the "Amount of fraud" has, and that's what matters.
Nobox: Only simple products.
Breath analyzers like in Aliens 4, and it'll get cracked, hacked, etc too like in minutes or something
If you mean the elves living in Lothlorien, then I/6.-8. are your numbers, elves living in Mirkwood are mentioned occasionaly but don't intervene directly (except of Mr. Bloom of curse [no it's not a typo]). Supplement B holds some info on the war on the edges of Mirkwood.
Fine... Took me 10 min.... Lemme check... Some taxes.. Yes.
It's 30$, tax included.Billing information follows.
and there always will be
Thanks.
I'm working on some wood elf model display peices and doing as much research as I can and since I have the book here I figure may as well research it.
I like muppets.
They were taking DNA samples in real time from people for access control.
:)
I suggest taking a 2 - 3 litre blood sample per transaction for DNA testing
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The absolute majority of RFID tags that could be embedded under your skin are passive devices with no power source. ie: they only respond when interogated by an external device and they really don't care whether they are alive, dead or even still attached to your body.
Active tags which have a power cell are around the size of a 10 penny piece are wholely unsuitable for placing under the skin and, of course, would require a minor operation every time the battery needed changing. (Oh, and just *pray* the cell never leaks).
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Even the most brain 2 dollar a day cashier chicks carefully verify credit card transaction, and, if there's a question, they'll gather another two or three cashier chicks to cluck at the card before summoning a manager, who will then have to summon another manager sometimes.
One thing about the Philippines ... it is hot and Americans sweat like pigs there. On one really bad day, my sweat washed away most of my signature and I couldn't use my credit card until I got back to the States and no-one cared anymore ...
There was one friend of mine who simply put an X through everything instead of his name. Honestly it was probably far more secure because it at least gave the cashiers a WTF moment.
But this all does bring me to a question I've had: what's the point of that number on the back of the card? I mean it's just one more piece of information, sure, but it's not any harder to obtain than the card number and expiration date.
So what practical benefit does it really offer?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The reason that newer technologies fail is the ability of the criminal to adapt to all the security flaws inherant in every new technology...
The only way to be secure is to use more than one security technology...
For instance, you have cards that are read by proximity detectors...all I have to do, as a bad guy, is get a reader and scan people as they walt past me...store the data, and copy it into new cards...bingo!
What we need is more security, not more technology...
For instance, a smart card credit card that has a thumb print scanner pad built in. When you process a transaction, it powers the card, scans your thumb, asks for a PIN, and you complete the transaction. The odds of someone else being able to crack the thumb scan AND the pin go down...
All of these systems can also use handwriting analysis, face recognition, etc...
RIFD is waiting for the right moment to be "scamed", because it is a "reader" technology...get a reader, get an identity...
--E--
...No, I mean what does "exacerbate" mean?
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
In the future, a sign of intimacy and trust could be to tell someone where your chip is. And the idea is to reduce fraud. Way fewer people would be willing to murder and dismember someone than are willing to just threaten someone with a weapon and take their money.
Me, I'm too poor to pay to use my money, so I just carry cash and rely on being a big hairy freak to keep me safe! :)
Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
While biometrics and/or embedded chips would ensure additional security for the average transaction, I'm not looking forward to purchasing additional dismemberment insurance for when some thug decides he wants to mug me. Biometrics might just make using my credit card harder to do without riping out my eyes or dismembering my fingers/hands/arms. No need to encourage that behavior. Its probably best to keep cash/cards easily accessible so you at least have a chance of surviving the encounter. After all, how safe is your identity if you're dead?
Blog: http://richardrandomrants.blogspot.com/
Oh please! Because the authentication of people's credit card applications is completely broken, the problem of cloned and stolen cards shouldn't be fixed? I'm the first to admit that technology alone isn't enough, but this absolute stupidity of authenticating people by "personal" "secret" information has got to stop. (And no, trying to fix that by safeguarding the info better will never work.)
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
Cash Payments: The return of at the door paying.
At the door paying: The return of lost money in shipping.
Lost Money in Shipping: The return of online credit card payments.
BTW, the point of credit cards is not to have to lug around tons of cash, and not having to have your account full. If you know how to manage your money, you can say goodbye to paying interest on a credit card bill.
Note: Credit Cards not reccommended for those who spend more than they make.
combined IQ of a single McDonalds worker
If you're so smart, explain how you combine a single item with itself?
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
It will only make ID theft more gruesome.
And as another poster has put it so clearly, why do we even NEED credit cards? At present our debit system works well enough. I have stopped using credit cards long ago. I still buy stuff (albeit less stuff I don't need since I have to think more about what I buy) and my bills are paid reliably.
In my view, only two things require credit -- houses and cars. For some people, cars don't require credit either... lucky them. But for anything else, there's cash.
The cashier didn't ask for the coworker's ID probably because he looked like a non-threatening white person.
My experience:
I was standing in line one time and two friendly-looking white women ahead of me used their credit card without the cashier asking for their ID. When it was my turn, the cashier asked for my drivers license to check my signature on the receipt. I guess the cashier assumed two white women are less likely to commit fraud compared to an asian guy. Acting casual and friendly is how con-artists get away with fraud.
I don't mean to turn this into a race issue, but it cannot be ignored.
Note: Credit Cards not reccommended for those who spend more than they make.
Truer words were never spoken.
Mattman
Bohemian Free Corps
I work in a bookies in Norwich and i can tell you the idiocy of the shop worker is nothing compared to the idiocy of the customer. I have a number of regular punters who have gotten sick of continually entering their pin to pay for their bets so now they have me enter it in for them, they also leave their cards with me. It makes using MY chip and pin very difficult as i can never remember which pin is mine!
Especially from the guy with talking hump syndrome - THS.
Je me souviens.
This article is nothing new. THat chip and pin does not increase security was shown by Ross Anderson (author of "Security Engineering") et al http://www.finextra.com/Finextra-downloads//featur edocs/spin.pdf.
That people do not correctly verify credit card signatures was shown by zug.copm http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/
not to enforce/validate who you are. I beleive that the seller is supposed to validate your identity with other documents. (not that it is done.)
I'd be happy if they'd develop a single customer loyalty card. My key ring / wallet can't take much more of this.
True. When I was 14, I also didn't need a credit card. Then I grew up and either had to begin carrying aroud hundreds of dollars cash in my wallet to pay for things such as hotels, rental cars, Blockbuster memberships, etc.
Uhm, I'd be a bit careful about that, there's always a small chance it could be a scam where the customer arranges for some "false charges" on his card and tries to set you up for the blame.
I know Doc Ruby, you stole his identity!!!
Moderator! Moderator! Moderator!
Take this imposter away!!!!
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
gah trollified and made a fool of in one post.
I'll finish this evening by writing 100 lines...
I must only lurk on slashdot
I must only lurk on slashdot
I must only lurk on slashdot
http://www.neobard.info - wacky world of me
The use of a credit card is the same as having "cash", it is the confidence in the idea that is important. If someone flooded the market with millions in couterfeit notes, noone will accept them, hence the notes themselves become worthless. The same applies for credit cards. The point is that the vast majority of transactions are not fraudulent, so we (and the whole system) is happy with the status quo.
They're working on it. It's called Smack-Me-Smart.
They take people who are stupid, like really stupid, can't get any dumber stupid.
Then they hit them, until the stupid comes right out.
This process is often implemented in 3rd World Countries and states like Texas and Florida, onto children and wives.
The process is not yet perfected, but it is a work in progress.
No one ever said that Chip and Pin would totally eliminate fraud. Of course, career criminals would find a way around the system. Perfect systems would be too costly in other ways, such as time taken to verify ID, and so on. What it will do is reduce the amount of casual fraud. Having spent fifteen years practicising criminal law in the UK, my experience is that a lot of credit card fraud is opportunistic. People steal your wallet or purse and then use your credit card. The record in my experience is the card being used within five minutes of being taken. This is now impossible. A large amount of credit card fraud of low value has been committed by drug addicts engaged in casual theft to fund their drug habits. Chip and Pin will reduce this kind of theft. It is not a cure-all and no one ever pretended it was.
It's called a DEBIT card. Takes money right from your bank account.
HTH. HAND.
Who benefits from the one-time passwords? The banks. Wait, what about the $50 fraud you brought up? That gets eaten by the banks, not the customer. Name one major MC or Visa issuer that does not waive the first $50. While I'm sure you could find a single one, most all issuers do waive that fee. So, the customers don't care. Personally, one-time passwords seem to be a hassle. Why carry around a fat keychain instead of a simple credit card? Why shop around for merchants who have equipment that can support one-time passwords? Pff, I'll just use my card and report any fraud I catch. Not my problem.
I prefer the current good old theft of identity. It seems physically less painless. I rather not have to lose a limb/digit/section of skin when a "career criminal" wants my credit.
If the credit companies wanted a signifigant change in the way things were done it would have been changed long ago. So called losses to fraud aside the net gain is on claiming losses against tax and dividends have enriched them beyond all measure. It's all funny accounting you will never read about in the WSJ.
Businesses use the cost of business to determine their profits. Losses from the year are deducted from the companies net profit and they would prefer that the net was as low as possible. In their yearly taxes they 'write off losses' and claim them as part of the cost of doing business.
Weither it's bad debts or some form of thieft. Their net gain is in THIS YEAR's writeoff. Should they collect a bad debt a year or 30 years from now is simply gravy. It won't be counted as part of that years income as it was a past debt and nobody will research it deep enough or even notice. NOBODY CARES ABOUT DELAYED INCOME. Income delayed will be added to the income of the year it was created not the current year. The bean counters will go back and adjust that years books to show a profit then. An audit won't pick it up because the books are in house and the IRS only has what they were given and all the info from that year will jive with the stated amounts. Receipts from different years will be ignored even though they are in context with the debt as a unit.
That's why the debts you may get calls about are marked as written off in your credit reports, but they still want the money.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
After clicking through into a few related sites and forums, I am having some trouble getting to sleep...
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
is why companies have started to roll out one-time-only credit card numbers but haven't pursued the projects.
American Express Private Payments, Discover's DeskShop, SecureClick from Cyota, MBNA ShopSafe are all hanging fire or dead. The Virtual Mastercard Program has almost vanished from Googlespace.
The problem is, Credit cards with high limits, and no real security. Why do we really need credit cards with such high limits on them in first place. Maybe it would be nice if they had to go through a couple hoops to pay $5000 for something. Something like the bank cards with a daily spending limit, so that you don't get screwed out of too much if something does go wrong. Also passwords would be nice to protect credit cards. Let me use a 20 digit password too. The human mind is capable of remembering 20 digit numbers. Why can't I use one? People remember thousands of digits of Pi, I think most people could memorize, a 20 digit number, especially with the frequency at which some people use credit cards. The real problem in the end is the amount of credit available to people, without enough real checks as to who you really are. Getting a $10,000 credit card/loan, or a mortgage should require about the same level of security as getting a passport. Most people don't spend that much money that fast. It wouldn't inconvenience too many people.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
From TFA:
Dr Finch's research leads her to doubt that any scheme for national ID cards will work, even if it is backed up by biometric data such as eye scans - because the criminals will simply adapt their strategies to try to get around the hurdle.
I wonder how that would be accomplished. Steal your eyeball? I think that might look a bit suspicious.
Sent from my computer.
Now GET OFF MY LAWN!
For those who 'claim' to be concerned about not taking the mark of the beast by means of a chip or tatoo, let me remind you of what the Bible says about prophecy.
And that is, NOONE knows about whether a prophet or prophecy is true, until it either comes to pass (or not).
Now this may seem simplistic, but by listening to the majority (of hypocrites) who claim they are 'affraid' to have chips for any reason, I say that God's instruction in the book of Revelation on this matter is vague for a reason. Which is, to make people like the Anti-Christian Church (aka as the 'Christian' churches of today) look like the liers that they are in such matters.
Anyone (as low as 3rd graders) can read the Bible for themselves and see that the people during the time of this 'Mark Of The Beast' will be 'deceived', which is not only NOT a sin, but clearly shows that anyone who claims to know exactly what the Mark acually is, is a deciever and false prophet themself.
As far as the chip implant being hoisted on everyone in the future by the owd (one world government types), there must be other motives lurking here since everyone knows that the cat & mouse game that the cops and so called 'bad guy' play is not going to be any different once the chips are perfected (and or implemented in mass).
To claim or think the chips will be a panacea to protect 'corporations' or consumers from fraud, or parents to protect their children by being able to have them 'tracked' continuelly 24/7, is a fraud in itself which needs to be prosecuted immediately under any applicable conspiracy laws as well.
These chips will still be subject to alteration by the people who 'get them', by the simple means of having new ones implemented and/or re-programming the firmware.
The government is trying to pull the wool over our eyes-- just like they did (and still do) concerning 'irrefutable' DNA evidence.
Most people STILL to this day believe that DNA evidence is a 100% accurate-- sure-fire-way to prove someones innocence or guilt.
Well anyone with enough fortitude to stop and think about how dna is collected will know that this is simply NOT the truth.
For instance, in the 'old daze' cops needed to find a strand of hair, blood or other items to try and 'connect' someone to a crime.
This was hard since these items are 'usually' not left at the scene.
It would be almost imposible for a 'bad' cop or anyone else for that matter to 'set-one-up' this 'old' way of using evidence, because it was so hard to find this things (blood, hair, etc) just laying around.
However with dna.. if a bad-cop wanted to 'frame' you...all he needed to do, is follow you around.. and wait for you to throw a cup away that you drank from, or a tissue you wiped your nose with, or even dirt from your nails (and i think finger print oil).
Sooo what we have INSTEAD of a 'fool proof' way to catch criminals-- we have just the oppposite-- a way for the cops (government) to set up 'malcontents' or any other citizen who a 'over zeolouse' cop may want to 'frame'.
Likewise these chips will therefore be used by governments to 'mess up' malcontents credit at will.
These chips will be used by this same evil government (as we have today) to monitor our children all-right.. but for the same reasons they currently monitor citizens en mass who have not nor will not commit any crimes.
Sadly we will ALL be guilty-- if we let these liers, homosexuals and vicioius killers who currently run our government, to so easily 'keep track' of our children by this so called 'legal' stalking.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Explain your refusal to 'fight' the chip.
Just because you 'believe' that you won't be here to suffer with everyone else (like Jesus did), then why would you be a conspirator to this evil chip system by way of walking away from any responsability in 'fighting' it with all-of-your-might.
I already know the answers.. I am just doing to this to shine the light on people 'like you'-- for those that my actaully consider what you say to be the truth.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
Not in saying that criminals won't adapt, and I won't comment on whether or not better identity cards will reduce identity theft, but the article says she claims that:
That is absolutely false. The criminals she talks to may describe ways they try to work around the technology, and there's no doubt that they're frequently successful, but the card issuers and acquirers do keep track of how much fraud they have to deal with, and the statistics show that it has dropped like a rock. Card-present fraud perpetrated by individuals other than the cardholder has dropped by over 95%. Fraud by cardholders (which includes identity theft fraud), both card-present and card-absent, has also declined significantly, which is really significant, since a certain amount of fraud that used to be attributed to non-cardholders is now classified as cardholder fraud.
The chip and PIN program in the UK has been an absolutely fantastic success from a fraud standpoint.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Social engineering will continue be effective until we can engineer some anti-social people.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think C&P represents pretty much exactly how much security we need for ordinary transactions. The next obvious step beyond, for extra security, would be biometrics, or implanted chips, and I see 2 big problems with that - 1.) a would-be thief has to escalate from mere theft to assault in order to be successful. That is, if your hand is being used for biometrics, then the probability that some day it's going to get cut off by a mugger goes up quite a bit. The same goes for any other body part. 2.) Obviously biometrics or implants will ring alarm bells in a lot of people's heads (mark of the beast, 1984, whatever). So there just isn't any point in trying that anytime soon. But durable, reliable, multi-purpose smart cards are exactly what we need.
I would like to see multiple cards get replaced with multi-purpose smart cards though. Mixing government, commercial and medical uses would be bad, but at least have a single smart card that can handle all the commercial uses - various credit and cash accounts, public transportation, loyalty tracking etc. There's no reason it couldn't be secure; there simply needs to be strict testing & enforcement of relevant standards to make sure that the information on the card stays partitioned by owner, and that partitioning is physically impossible to violate. E.g. Safeway can't get your Fry's loyalty ID nor your financial stuff nor personal info of any kind without your consent, and without revealing exactly which items they are reading. Every partition must be protected by a different private key, which is only ever stored on the card and never read out. But I think the smartcard standards for this behavior are already in place. Certainly with iButtons it's possible. And iButtons would be another very good alternative to smart cards, but in the end there should be just one good standard.
Another possible step forward from there would be the wireless smart cards, but people have privacy issues with those. But that scenario shown in that commercial where the guy pushes a shopping cart right out the front door and automatically gets charged for everything, is only possible if RFID is used both for tagging the goods and in the debit card.
I'm just sick and tired of carrying so many cards, and having them rub together and destroy each other's magnetic strips. About damn time they start using smart cards.
Of course we'll all have to start using smartcard readers at home, in order to buy anything on the net. I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner, outside of a couple of trials.
And a good consequence of computers generally having smartcard readers, is that they can be used to log in as well. No more usernames and passwords to remember, potentially! (Except for paranoid sysadmins who inevitably will worry about the cards getting stolen, and continue to require as much extra authentication baggage as they can get away with.) That's the other huge authentication pain-in-the-ass that needs to be eliminated once and for all. I can deal with one card and one PIN for everything, and even with being required to change the PIN every few months, but any more than this is just wrong.
Wrong dipshit. You've never had a merchant account. The merchant take the loss always. It's easier to file criminal charges then to win in a card holder dispute (true story). The banks act as intermediaries, that's it. Either the card member or merchant is taking the loss, unless you sue the issuer for negligence (which I've done).
Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
I have had zero issues using my boyfriend's debit card, occasionally as credit if debit is not supported. I guess if they always require photo id it's not so much of a possibility but all people really do is compare the name and not the pic. This theory has been tested on multiple occasions and only once did I get challenged (which I simply talked my way out of). It's terrifying.
Reading the British press you do sometimes feel the British must be living on an island somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic....
I'm in the slightly embarassing position of having been moderated up a number of times for what turns out to be misinformation.
See here for my correction
"Would you like me to fill it up, Mrs. Nussbaum?"