Slashdot Mirror
Identity Thief Apprehended By Victim
ewhac writes "Karen Lodrick was entering her sixth month of hell dealing with the repercussions of having her identity stolen and used to loot her accounts. But while she was waiting for a beverage, there standing in line was the woman who appeared on Wells Fargo security video emptying her accounts. What followed was a 45 minute chase through San Francisco streets that ended with the thief being taken into custody by police."
Did you RTFA? She didn't get her comeuppance. She got more probation and is probably out there right now stealing your identity and buying ice cream on your dime while you sit there and write you're glad "she got her comeuppance."
CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
The story is a great read! If you don't normally RTFA, I can really recommend this one.
Paid Q&A/Research
Habeas Corpus prevents them from doing so (you can't stand trial if you're dead), but they theoretically could. Suicide is a crime, filed under Homicide.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
The problem is that prosecuting these cases would cost the credit companies more than letting them drop. The reason for this is that the credit companies don't take the hit for CC fraud, the retailers and the victim do. Essentially when a credit company gets notified that some charges are fraudulent they just cancel the payments to the retailer, and the retailer is stuck with the losses. Now, if credit card fraud was less common, and checking fraud or maybe some other form of fraud was more common in identity theft cases, then you'd see the banks sitting up and taking notice.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Too bad this legal system, and these laws don't actually work worth a damn.
But thanks for playing.
Ross
Incorrect. If a merchant accepts a transaction without signature, then the merchant is responsible for the charge if the charge is disputed and the merchant can't prove validity. On the other hand, when the merchant accepts a transaction with a signature, unless the bank can prove the signature on the slip did not match the signature on the card (which is pretty hard when it's someone using a stolen card), then the bank is liable for the transaction if disputed. In fact, I'm not sure, but it is possible if the transaction is signed at all that the merchant is not liable. Now, in the older days before 100% validation, a merchant had a "floor limit", say $25 or $50, and the merchant could approve a transaction for that amount without calling it in; over that limit, they had to call for verification. Now, on a transaction below floor limit, if the amount was below that and disputed, I believe the merchant would be liable. Since the floor limit is now essentially zero (all transactions obtain approval), the merchant is not liable as long as they get a signature. The customer can still dispute the charge which means the bank is liable for fraudulent signature (and probably pin-based) transactions as well. But the merchant is only liable for transactions without a signature. Now, if anyone reading this has specific evidence of a policy change to the contrary from Visa or Mastercard (or Amex, Discover or Carte Blanche), please inform me.
-- Paul Robinson - My BlogThe lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
UGH! WHY DOES THE SIGNATURE THING MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SAFER!?!?
I could write "mickey Mouse" in cursive and they wouldn't notice. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? The only secure thing is a card with a REQUIRED pin, which basically don't exist since debit cards can be run as credit cards these days. I really wish they'd make cards that require the pin for the transaction, that would curb 95% of the cc theft out there.
I write "ASK FOR ID" on the back of all my credit cards. 9 out of 10 shops do not ask for id. Credit cards are the epitome of insecure financial transactions.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
The real issue is that the people claiming the victim should have pulled a gun on the thief don't understand what a gun is for. Unless you're trained for it and have an official capacity to (such as a police officer) you don't point a gun at someone you don't intend to kill.
In almost every state it's illegal to point a gun at someone who is not physically threatening you or another person with immediate and potentially lethal force (such as rushing you with a knife or pointing a gun at you) and in many states if you're not in a situation where you must pull the trigger to stop them you're not legally allowed to point the gun at them in the first place.
Remember: If you want to own a potentially dangerous item such as a handgun know all the relevant laws and how to use it without accidentally hurting anyone.
If a merchant accepts a transaction without signature, then the merchant is responsible for the charge if the charge is disputed and the merchant can't prove validity. On the other hand, when the merchant accepts a transaction with a signature, unless the bank can prove the signature on the slip did not match the signature on the card (which is pretty hard when it's someone using a stolen card), then the bank is liable for the transaction if disputed.
I googled for "merchant agreement" and didn't see terms like this in a couple of agreements that showed up. Are you basing this on something else?
I did see in one (here, section 10.2.1) that the merchant is responsible for chargebacks when a cardholder disputes the validity of a transaction. (In the case of fraudulent use, the cardholder has a valid dispute of the validity of the transaction, even if the merchant had no hope of detecting the fraud.) Is this clause unusual?
And that's a TERRIBLE idea, because now you are risking YOUR money instead of someone else's money. Debit cards are a distant 2nd to credit cards in terms of benefits and LEGAL protections (not corporate policies that can be ignored by a flunky who doesn't like the tone of your voice or the color of your shoes).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'm not saying we should go around killing people for petty crimes, or even murder, but there are a lot of sociopaths and absolute shitbags that only leech off society. You can, maybe, rehabilitate the shitbags, but the sociopaths I'm not so sure about. We don't use BB code here, try <quote> instead. For other formatting uses, you can reference this table to learn some equivalents.
On topic, I must disagree with you. The shitbags may be able to be rehabilitated, but not by locking them in a box with X number of others just as bad or worse than they are. Who are we kidding that we're actually rehab'ing anyone there? As for the sociopaths, I've researched both for and against Cap. Punishment on-and-off for a couple years and have yet to see any hard evidence that execution reduces murder rate. I'm actually starting to see more evidence that states (and not just "American States") which reserve the right of execution have a higher rate of crime in and around them.
But enough of my ideas and readings that I can't source at the moment. A couple websites showing both sides of the argument are:
It's especially interesting to note that while locking people in the slammer doesn't rehab, it's about US$2 billion cheaper than executing them.
It's a far cry from admitting your fallibility (refraining from ever thinking you are absolutely right) to denying objectivity (asserting that there is no absolute truth or absolute good to strive to understand or attain). The latter is relativism; the former is simply not absolutism. And those two -isms are not even on the same spectrum; relativism isn't just non-absolutism or vice versa. Relativism is a metaphysical doctrine (talking about what actually is, or in this case, is not) denying objectivity, i.e. denying that there is something which really is true independent of anyone's opinions; absolutism is an epistemological doctrine (talking about knowledge, understanding of belief) denying subjectivity, i.e. denying that one's access to that independent truth is incomplete and colored by one's perspective. Thus, one can be both objective and subjective, as scientists strive to be. The conflation of objectivity with absolutism is the error at the root of all the relativist bull going around these days, which itself is really just a conflation of "truth" with "belief". A purely descriptive relativism is obviously true: duh, people believe different things. But it doesn't follow from that that they're all equally right. Likewise, it doesn't follow from the denial of that *that* any of them are absolutely right.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."