Slashdot Mirror


Zero Day Threat

Ben Rothke writes "Zero Day Threat: the Shocking Truth of How Banks and Credit Bureaus Help Cyber Crooks Steal Your Money and Identity is an interesting and eye-opening look at how banks and credit card companies make ID theft and fraud rather elementary. But with all that, this book must be read in the larger context of how today's society deals with, and is often oblivious to, risk. When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. With all that, it is doubtful that the myriad horror stories Zero Day Threat details will persuade Congress or the other players to do anything to curtail the problem with identity theft and internet fraud." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review. Zero Day Threat: the Shocking Truth of How Banks and Credit Bureaus Help Cyber Crooks Steal Your Money and Identity author Byron Acohido & Jon Swartz pages 304 publisher Union Square Press rating 9 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-1402756955 summary Excellent overview on the epidemic of indent theft The internet and web have indeed revolutionized society, and there is hardly an industry that has not been positively affected by the net. On the down side, the net is the new conduit for criminals. For example, in the few years before the web became ubiquitous, U.S. and international law enforcement nearly had a noose around the child pornography industry and brought it to a near standstill. After the web, authorities have given up hope that child pornography can ever be contained.

Similarly, white-collar crime and fraud has been exacerbated by the net. Zero Day Threat details the various loopholes that criminals use to carry out their attacks and crimes. Each of the book's 18 chapters is divided into 3 section, exploiters — which details how the crime lords and their teams carry out the crimes, enablers — which details the history and current practices of credit card companies, banks, credit bureaus, and data brokers, and expediters — which recounts how technology and technologies enable these crimes. I found that the breaking up of the chapters into such triplets is occasionally confusing, and you are left wondering what story you are in.

The book is based on the premise that the payment industry, namely the credit card companies, banks, credit bureaus and data brokers have created an infrastructure that is pliable, nearly endlessly extendable, but paper-thin when it comes to security. The system is built for ease of access, ease of granting credit, but without a robust security infrastructure or privacy controls.

Consider that the PCI Security Standards Council was not created until late 2004, and that will give you an idea how security is anathema to the industry. The outgrowth of PCI is the PCI Data Security Standard which is the first uniformly created set of comprehensive security requirements for enhancing payment account data security. While the industry debates the efficacy of PCI, attackers are busy at work running innumerable fraudulent schemes.

The authors paint an honest appraisal of the lack of security in the industry and have their facts in order, although an occasional hyperbole does creep in, for instance when the authors repeatedly state that the hackers in question went weeks without sleep. But a huge error is where they state in chapter 11 that PCI is controversial, with some merchants complaining that it is too costly to implement. There is nothing controversial about PCI, and the security controls it requires are sorely needed. While merchants express their discontent about security and its associated costs, attackers steal from underneath them. The quicker the merchants get that they needed security, the quicker the attacks will stop. But as the book shows, that will not happen anytime soon.

Part of the reason why identity theft will not go away anytime soon is similar to the problem in the air traffic control industry, as detailed in Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel Is Broken and How to Fix It. There are too many players in the game, all of which focus on their own interests, and no one wants to take responsibility for the problem. The fact that the Social Security number (SSN) is still used as a key personal identifier, combined with the ease at which an individual 's SSN can be obtained and misused should be enough to give anyone pause.

The primary purpose of a SSN has been to track individuals for taxation purposes. But in the last decade, the SSN has become a de facto national identification number. When established in the 1930s, the Social Security Administration meant for the SSN to be used as a way to track a person's earnings for Social Security benefits. Despite its narrowly intended purpose, the SSN is now used more for non-Social Security purposes, than for the reason it was created. Today, SSNs are used for identity verification, and are the de facto identifier for the credit and financial services industry. With SSNs being aggregated by the millions, they are the fodder for the stories in the book.

Book such as Silent Spring, which helped launch the environmental movement, and The Jungle, which exposed the corruption of the American meatpacking industry, were watershed books that changed America. While Zero Day Threat is not in the same category as either of these books, it is highly unlikely that the level of outrage it will create will be much, nor the indignation significant. Because as bad as identity theft is, and as much grief as it causes, there are far too many politicians, powerful companies, lobbyists and more that are in the way of any change.

Nonetheless, Zero Day is a most interesting look at the many players that work together to facilitate the countless identity theft rings. The book is an absorbing look at the many international players and their enablers involved. While identity theft is not going away anytime soon, Zero Day Threat details the problem, and shows what you can do to ensure that you are not a victim.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase Zero Day Threat: the Shocking Truth of How Banks and Credit Bureaus Help Cyber Crooks Steal Your Money and Identity from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

264 comments

  1. Review ? by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. With all that, it is doubtful that the myriad horror stories Zero Day Threat details will persuade Congress or the other players to do anything to curtail the problem with identity theft and internet fraud.

    Is this a book review or a political tract ?

    --
    \u262D = \u5350
    1. Re:Review ? by neapolitan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More than that, it's essentially meaningless. Americans are not "oblivious" to obesity, and do not "tolerate" drunk-driving deaths. Cursory references to large problems like that weaken your opinion and make the reviewer sound flippant rather than bolstering a real or arguable opinion.

      American society tolerates 200,000 deaths per month! Most of these are due to heart disease! Why should we care at all about economic systems or fraud?

      The answer is we care about both, and heart disease receives a great deal of attention from the best and brightest students and gets a large amount of public and private financing. That need doesn't obviate the need to avoid fraud, or remember your wife's birthday, or all of the other small stuff in the world. Now, let's discuss the book.

      --
      Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
    2. Re:Review ? by spun · · Score: 1

      Why ask that question? Do you disagree with the assessment of American risk management practices? Since when is criticizing those practices political? I think it's really more sociological than political.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      well.... i thought it was an introdcution that segued into the book review.

    4. Re:Review ? by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      Is this a book review or a political tract ?

      It appears to be an ad for a book called "Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know. "

      muellerr1 is the author of the blog post The art of self-promotion", now on sale at an internet near you.

    5. Re:Review ? by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Since when is criticizing those practices political? I think it's really more sociological than political.

      Jut because its not a politically divisive issue, doesn't mean its not political.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    6. Re:Review ? by computational+super · · Score: 1

      I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this book review.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    7. Re:Review ? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More than that, it's essentially meaningless. Americans are not "oblivious" to obesity, and do not "tolerate" drunk-driving deaths.

      Perhaps not individually, but as a mass, they are. Surely obsese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition. They keep eating the same quantities of junk / high-carb food, do from little to no exercise, and even ask not to be "discriminated" for their "condition". See, it's not a problem, it's a disease, and since it's a disease, there's nothing they can do about it. They feel better with themselves, and problem solved.... right? RIGHT?

    8. Re:Review ? by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Is this a book review or a political tract ?

      It's a review. One that beats the hell out of the usual "Table of Contents" reviews that get posted here.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    9. Re:Review ? by Moryath · · Score: 0, Troll

      Stepping back a second from some of these - Credit Card companies and/or Banks do definitely have incentive to allow fraudulent transactions to occur - if they're getting money from them.

      Both time my CC information was let loose, I'm 99% sure it was from inside the CC company. Both times, the fraud started small: $4-5 charges here and there with very innocuous looking names on them, that would have been easily overlooked if the card in question wasn't my "emergency" card that sits in a sealed envelope in the bottom of my filing cabinet and never gets used.

      There was never a transaction in which the details could have been let loose.

      I was wondering how this happened until I looked at the numbers and realized the simple math - for every one person who does catch the fraudulent activity, if there are 10 who don't, then the CC company just made a pretty penny on the finance/transaction fees they charged to process the fraudulent transactions. The fraudulent "merchant" gets money, the CC company gets money when the unsuspecting rubes pay their bill... and both of them laugh to whichever bank account they dump the stolen money in.

      I keep daily watch on my statements these days - I have to. The credit card companies and banks and merchants have a financial incentive to defraud the public, as long as they can do it and make more money than they think they'll be fined if it's caught.

    10. Re:Review ? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      in the end they do nothing to improve their condition.

      And why is this a problem? Some people choose to smoke even though they know the risks of doing so. If people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles than I'm not going to get real worked up about it. I don't know about you but I'm growing weary of the war on vice.

      Provide people with the information but at the end of the day it's up to them to make smart choices.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with the risk assessment. It has to do with one sides inflamed rhetoric being spewed as if it was fact. That is a political rant, not a book or a book review unless the book and review is politically oriented.

      Here are a few examples with the truth behind it.

      "American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths" This is false, the truth is that all areas in America assign high/strict penalties to people who get caught drinking and driving as well as those who cause drunk driving deaths. Nobody tolerates drunk driving deaths at all. But just like a kitchen knife that can be used to kill a person, not everyone who gets drunk drives let alone kills someone. The author is insinuating that because we havn't banned anything the could indirectly lead to a death, we tolerate the death.

      "gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies" This has nothing to do with risk. Tobacco is used for more the cigarettes and doesn't always cause harm to everyone.

      "and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes" again this has nothing to do with risk. It is nothing but a political rant about fat unhealthy Americans.

      "With all that, it is doubtful that the myriad horror stories Zero Day Threat details will persuade Congress or the other players to do anything to curtail the problem with identity theft and internet fraud." Notice how this political rant mentions a body of politics directly? I mean it specifically says CONGRESS and suggest they should be doing something.. perhaps if he said "think of the children" it would have been more obvious.

      None of the things mentioned have to do with banks or threats. None of them are related. And before you or someone else jumps in with "but..but. but Tobacco causes cancer", look at how many people have used tobacco who has gotten cancer. Before you or someone else chimes in with "but alcohol is legal", realize that so are guns, knives, baseball bats, and millions of other things that can be just as lethal if used improperly. In order for there to be a drunk driving death, a person must violate not one, but at least two separate laws if not more. "but. but , but Heart attack and diabetes" shut the hell up. How many people eat a twinky and get diabetes? How many people eat a greasy cheeseburger and have a heart attack. How many people who don't exercise every day or don't stick to some annoying persons latest health fad diet, have diabetes or heart attack? How many people who are over wight according to come damn chart have heart disease or diabetes? And after you figure all that out, compare it to how many people never have one lick of problems.

      The comments in the submission were made by a moron too stupid to see he is being manipulated and your too distracted to see when he is getting political.

    12. Re:Review ? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      There was never a transaction in which the details could have been let loose.

      Care to explain that? Every transaction presents a potential breach of the information.

      On the web... sure the site uses SSL, but how is it handled after the webserver gets the POST? Is it stored by the company? If so how, where? If not, how do they pass it to the merchant account. Are the employees of those companies (and the developers of the software) all trustworthy?

      In a restaurant, typically some person you've never met, disappears with your CC for several minutes or longer.

      In a retail outlet, you or the merchant swipes your card through a machine. Is that machine trustworthy? There have been multiple cases where those machines have been tampered with.

      Just using your card, in any circumstance I can fathom, opens you to the risk of compromising that information.

    13. Re:Review ? by Maudib · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think what disturbs me about the submitter is the implication that lack of government or large organization action implies we don't "care" as a country about these problems.

      Thats a flawed argument. Yes we care, its just we care more about the individuals right to make their or decisions. Talk about a loaded political submission. I thought this was "news for nerds" not "manifestos for the nanny state".

    14. Re:Review ? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I generally agree with you, there is something that needs to be added:

      Have you ever looked at the food at the disposal of the average american? Let's eliminate junk food from this discussion. First, let's focus on... Apple Juice. Looking at my 16oz bottle (two servings by the way), it has 44g of SUGARS per serving. That is 88g of SUGARS for the whole bottle. That is 1/3 of my days sugar that I am supposed to be having. Also, how much fluid do you think I am going to drink today? Now lets take a look at the Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich I brought in today. Assuming that I can actually spread one service of Jelly onto my bread without needing special engineering tools, that is another 37g of sugars.

      So for my snack (a sandwich and a bottle of apple juice is nowhere near a whole meal), I have consumed 125g of sugars, or almost HALF of what I should have for the day. This doesn't even address the fat content I have consumed.

      It isn't JUST overeating anymore. It has gotten to the point where even the good things for you are bad for you. Your only recourse is to eat polystyrene and drink water, or join Walmart America.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    15. Re:Review ? by taliesinangelus · · Score: 1

      What about those who are obese because of medications they take for Lupus or other more clearly defined medical conditions? A minority, yes, but I think these sorts of generalizations are very hurtful to them just the same.

    16. Re:Review ? by moderatorrater · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And what should society as a whole do about that? It's like drunk driving or any of hundreds of society's problems - the underlying cause cannot be addressed. To eliminate drunk driving we just need to eliminate the freedom to drive. To eliminate obesity, we just need to dictate to people what they can or can't eat and then mandate some exercise. Let's eliminate peoples' freedom of choice, shall we?

      Surely obsese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition

      I'm sure there are things about yourself that you don't like, don't want pointed out, and don't do anything to improve. Should everyone else be asshats and start mocking you for them?

    17. Re:Review ? by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if I'm jaded and think I'm superior to everyone else, how can I express that adequately without veering off topic?

    18. Re:Review ? by Cu · · Score: 1

      You effectively say, "obese people don't do anything to remedy to their condition." This is not only incorrect, but hateful.

      In addition, you oversimplify the problem.

      Certain viruses may trigger a famine response in infected persons, leading to weight gain. (http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n3/abs/0802830a.html) Genetic predisposition to obesity is well-documented. (http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/training/perspectives/obesity.htm) City-planning can encourage or discourage people from self-powered locomotion and thus have a significant effect on obesity. (http://www.biketexas.org/content/view/917/442/)

      While it is true at an absolute level that if people reduce their caloric intake below caloric expenditures, they will lose weight, this is not always a healthy option.

      As a side note, I eat massive amounts of carbs (which you seem to correlate with "junk" food) yet remain somewhat underweight. I tend to attribute this to metabolic predisposition.

      --
      I'm Abram Bender. You're not.
    19. Re:Review ? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to suggest it wasn't someone at the bank, but there's always lots of possibilities. Someone could have been watching your mail (including the mailman/post office), found the envelope with the card, and "borrowed" it for a while to gather the details before returning it. An envelope isn't exactly a secure device (in most cases).

    20. Re:Review ? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So carry water and learn to enjoy a peanut butter sandwich.

      Conflating the food that you brought to work today with 'the food at the disposal of the average American" is borderline offensive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *** AUTOMATED SLASHDOT RESPONSE SYSTEM ***

      The fingers you have used to type your inflammatory response to criticism of your weight problem are too fat.

      To obtain a special typing wand, please mash the keyboard with your palm, now.

    22. Re:Review ? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are things about yourself that you don't like, don't want pointed out, and don't do anything to improve. Should everyone else be asshats and start mocking you for them?

      They already do. It's human nature to rag on anything "different" from the "norm"...

      If I was really concerned with how others view my smoking, then I might quit. I'm not quitting in the near future, however, and so EXPECT the dirty looks and comments I get from the pink-lungers.

      Look at the posts here, f'r example. If someone's acting the idiot, we have no shortage of posters that will tell 'em that in NO uncertain terms.

      In short, if you don't like being called an idiot, don't ACT like an idiot. Don't expect the rest of us to keep your self-esteem afloat.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    23. Re:Review ? by jgarra23 · · Score: 1

      You should be an advocate for the fatties-disease :)

      They're not oblivious. They're just irresponsible. But I don't really care. As cold-hearted as it may sound I can't wait until their dead (the ones who really don't have some sort of glandular problem) and not sucking my hard-earned dollars.

      Better yet, I sincerely hope that they get it together, slim down and find happiness, fulfillment and success in their lives.

      But we all know that won't happen. It's not their fault. They have a disease (read:sarcasm). And it will kill them much sooner than my genetic predisposition to high blood pressure ever will kill me.

    24. Re:Review ? by belligerent0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, I have had a great deal of success with a primative diet (high fat, high protein, very low carbs) but the real problem can be traced to High Fructose Corn Syrup. In the US nearly EVERYTHING has this poison in it because it is cheaper. In Europe and South America it cane sugar is cheaper. The problem with HFCS is that the liver stops processing other items until all of the HFCS is processed, if you eat lots of it it never lets the other stuff in to be processed.
      The question is "why is HFCS so cheap here?" and the answer is federal subsidies. I think that this is also why we still have an embargo against Cuba too. If cheap sugar was available HFCS might not be so cheap. Most evidence indicates that diabetes, heart disease, etc, seem to have increased with the use of HFCS. Even though there are studies (paid for by the HFCS industry) to indicate that there is no real link. this sounds familiar...where have I heard something like this before?...Where was it?...oh yeah the tobacco industry.

      I know, off topic, mod me down my Karma is already low anyway.

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    25. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no fat people in Ethiopia.

    26. Re:Review ? by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 1

      Surely obsese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition. They keep eating the same quantities of junk / high-carb food, do from little to no exercise, and even ask not to be "discriminated" for their "condition".

      That does not make them "oblivious" to it. That makes them people who are simply not wanting to change their current condition. being oblivious to it would mean that they are totally unaware of the problem and/or are ignoring it totally. Not wanting to change and not knowing about are two totally separate things.

    27. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This author assumes that because we don't have a big nanny state government we don't care about others in our society. Quality of life is as important as quantity, and life has never been without risks, particularly when someone has the freedom to make their own choices. Insurance companies and government try to reduce their costs by running our lives. This is why one should have smaller government and only have insurance for catastrophic events (something that exceeds your yearly salary or so).

    28. Re:Review ? by tist · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not individually, but as a mass, they are. Surely obsese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition. ...

      Score:5 Insightful? You must be kidding. Clearly this posting is flamebait (and I'm taking it). "In the end they do nothing..." Not one single obese person does anything about being obese? You are telling us that, as a class, obese people simply just go on eating and just want to feel better about themselves? You are clearly making yourself look like an ignorant bigot.
      JW

    29. Re:Review ? by saintsfan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not individually, but as a mass, they are. Surely obese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition.

      bit of a generalization don't you think? besides, not everyone is big for the same reason. I don't think many would argue obesity isn't an epidemic in the US, but then again, we (at least I) don't like being told what to do "by the masses" whether they are more aware or not.

      as for your comments about discrimination, what form of discrimination protection are you referring to that is inappropriate? labor law? handicapped access requirements? social curtosy to mind your own business and not call them slobs? can't believe you got modded insightful for that rhetoric.

    30. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      to the 5% of obese people who are fat due to disease or drugs that are no fault of their own, that is sad, very sad. but... from a public policy perspective, we need to focus on the 95% that stuff themselves with happy meals and big gulps.

    31. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      see what happens when people how too much freedom? they get fat and drink and drive!

    32. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that obesity causes 1) my health insurance to go up to pay for obesity-related health problems, and 2) huge losses in productivity due to obesity-related health problems, which results in a weaker economy. Read this.

      I agree with you that if people want to engage in risky or unhealthy lifestyles they should be able to, but not when it costs everyone else.

      BTW, smoking is worse, as it is no longer just about money. After Scotland banned smoking in public places heart attacks in NONSMOKERS decreased by 21%.

    33. Re:Review ? by AP31R0N · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's a problem because like smoking and other addictions, such people can become a burden on society. One's right to pollute one's body should end when it becomes a problem for someone else. Helmets protect the rider, but more importantly perhaps it protect family members from a closed casket funeral and cops from having to use a squeegee to clean up brain. It also protects society in the sense that if Bob smears his brain on the highway, he takes his other values to society with him.

      The last sentence of your post is a republican mantra, which would be great if people made smart choices, but they don't. If we were Vulcan you'd have a point. By the time it done it's too late to undo it. Humans are not thinking machines that happen to feel. We're feeling machines that think from time to time. But we're clever monkeys and we often make bad choices. Many of these choices happen subconsciously. Many people's brains don't work in the way paragons of self control such as yourself. A second slice of cake triggers the same part of the brain triggered by heroine. A moody teenage girl can tell you about the Rhythm Method of birth control from what she learned in health class. But her boyfriend swears that he loves her and all her friends are doing it. i had friend who was a card carrying member of MENSA who chose a guy who lived on the other side of the country who treated her terribly, over a guy who lived near her and treated her well. Knowing the consequences half the battle, it takes something else entirely to make a wise choice. The wise choice is all too obvious for outsiders. We know all too well that the Hail Mary Pass would have been better than going for the field goal. Chances are the quarter back realized this too as the ball headed toward an opponents arms.

      If we were all as awesome as you we could live in Ayn Rand's utopia. Alas, it is not so.

      Enter paternalism. When you were a child you were too stupid to understand that the pot on the stove was full of Scarring 2nd Degree Burns. So your mother, who is a bit smarter, smacked your hand and yelled "NO! HOT!" when you reached for the handle. That oppressive bitch!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    34. Re:Review ? by EvolutionsPeak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then after that she found out that there were kidnappers and murderers outside so she was smarter and kept you in the house all day. Such paternalism can be taken too far, and it is. Enter video game bans, smoking bans, gun bans, etc...

      The analogy is flawed anyway. A child needs such parental protection because they can't know any better. Adults can and should know better, and if they are coddled they will never learn how to make good decisions. Then that becomes justification for ever more laws to protect them from their own stupidity. Quite the cycle.

      Also, the idea that "Provide people with the information but at the end of the day it's up to them to make smart choices." is a Republican mantra is laughable when they are the party that has been against contraception education in schools and want to outlaw abortion. It should be everyone's mantra anyway, at least anyone interested in maximizing freedom.

    35. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a problem because it does nothing to improve the human condition. Its a problem because it taxes the health-care system (and don't give the private healthcare excuse either, since the money spent to solve 'fatness' or 'smoking' could have been used elsewhere in a more constructive manner).

    36. Re:Review ? by hjrnunes · · Score: 1
      The problem, my fellow smoker, isn't when you act like an idiot... The problem is when you act differently from what the majority thinks is not idiotic at any given point...

      Take us, for example. 40 years ago, no one would call us idiots for smoking. Non-smokers would get that adjective faster than us... But now, from nowhere the anti-smoke paranoia has taken over the world! You can't smoke anywhere. And the argument given is not that it is for your own good! It's because others shouldn't breathe your smoke... This is flat hypocrisy...

      When I leave home every day, why do I have to breathe an air polluted by all those anti-smokers? Huh? I don't I have the right to see dodo's anymore? Why do I even have to listen and put up with them shouting and making trouble when they're all drunk?

      I think common sense is what should be cultivated. Because when you make laws to replace it, then it disappears. And now, wherever is legal for me to smoke, I'll smoke no matter who's around me... babies, old people, whatever...

      One last thing. Some time ago, I read in the paper what the head man of Social Security here said about why wouldn't tobacco simply be forbidden. Apparently if everyone here stopped smoking, the SS system would collapse because there isn't enough money to pay retirement pensions for everyone...

      Here in Portugal, it is the state that pays retirement pensions through social security. So basically, since they can't support us all, they're letting us die! But still we have to pay higher and higher taxes on tobacco. On our death. This is all BS. If the thing kills you then forbid it once and for all...

    37. Re:Review ? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      While it is true at an absolute level that if people reduce their caloric intake below caloric expenditures, they will lose weight, this is not always a healthy option.

      I've always likened this to saying, "Only fill your gas tank up half way and you'll get better gas millage."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    38. Re:Review ? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't want to absolve anybody, what I do want to do is point out that there are alternatives. Your intial card could have been compromised in transit. How about statements? Were monthly statements sent? Were they sent via email (very easy to compromise) or by regular mail (already discussed). How much information is available from those? Do you have online banking? If so, there have been issues with numerous online banking sites, not to mention the possibility of a local piece of malware capturing your credentials.

      My point is that there are often LOTS of overlooked places where information can be leaked, intentionally or not. The bank may have been the source, but I can pretty much guarantee its not the only possible source.

    39. Re:Review ? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I think he qualified the statement when he didn't have to. He posted that it was in an envelope at the bottom of a filing cabinet. I think the sentence could have ended at, "There was never a transaction."

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    40. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      the comments are 100% accurate and relevant to the book review.

      so whats the big deal?

      do we need to go to 6th grade book reviews such as:

      in the introduction...
      chapter 1 says...
      chapter 2 says...
      chapter x says...

      I think x is a good book because......

      that what ya want?

    41. Re:Review ? by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with everything you said except "the truth is that all areas in America assign high/strict penalties to people who get caught drinking and driving"... When I was in court (not drunk driving related) a few weeks ago there was a video played for all those who where there for that. The tape stated that the first offense within a 7 year period was a $500 fine. The second was a $1000 fine. The third was up to $5000, jail, and either a license suspension or an interlock device. This was for people who got lucky and did not kill anybody, those who do get felonies and include prison time for manslaughter and up to $10000 fine. The later is strict enforcement, the former I do not think is. Even so it's really up to the judge, whom from what I have seen will hand a lesser punishment to get a quick guilty plea and get them out of the court. I know a guy who got to his fifth DUI before getting his license taken away... thats just crazy!

      If you drive drunk you should probably do some time, maybe six months tops with work release or something. Its really not that hard to call a cab or have a friend drive you home... the bar I go to will even pay the cab fees for the first 5 miles.

    42. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      thank you!!!! some /. folks think that the ToC Book review is the way to go. not me,

    43. Re:Review ? by Nos. · · Score: 1

      What he said was:

      There was never a transaction in which the details could have been let loose.

      He then (in another post) admits he has used it once. Besides which, there are other ways for the details to be leaked than just through a transaction.

    44. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      what makes you think that?

    45. Re:Review ? by afabbro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a problem because like smoking and other addictions, such people can become a burden on society.

      As a taxpayer, I wish more people smoked. It's cheaper when they die of lung cancer in their 60s than when they collect Social Security and Medicare until they're 90.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    46. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monthly statements don't have the *whole* CC number on it so that wouldn't do it.

      It is a deliberate defense against exactly what you described.

    47. Re:Review ? by afabbro · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US nearly EVERYTHING has this poison in it because it is cheaper.

      Oh stop it. 90% of food at the grocery store does not have high-fructose corn syrup in it.

      The problem with HFCS is that the liver stops processing other items until all of the HFCS is processed, if you eat lots of it it never lets the other stuff in to be processed.

      That is so non-sensical it's hard to know where to start. You make it sound like the liver is the primary digestive organ. Also, according to you, if I eat some HFCS, I can then eat 20,000 calories and it'll never be processed. Hurray! HFCS is the cure for obesity.

      The question is "why is HFCS so cheap here?" and the answer is federal subsidies.

      Sorry, wrong. The reason is the high import tariff on sugar in the USA. That's not the same thing as a subsidy.

      I think that this is also why we still have an embargo against Cuba too.

      It's been fun, but you should run along and finish your homework before posting on Slashdot again.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    48. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is this a problem?

      The reason this is a problem is because while they make the dumb choices, those of use that are not making those same decisions still have to pay (at least a portion of) the consequences for those decisions.

      Because there are so many people making unhealthy decisions, my insurance premiums are through the roof.

      Provide people with the information but at the end of the day it's up to them to make smart choices

      This would work if they were also required to live with the consequences of those decisions, but instead we (Americans at least) are taught that someone else _must_ be at fault and that lawsuits are the new (and easier to win) lottery.

      I'm not suggesting that the government legislate everything. I'm all for educating people and letting them make the smart choices, but that just won't work until people are held responsible for the results of those decisions, which just doesn't happen here in America.

    49. Re:Review ? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      If we were all as awesome as you we could live in Ayn Rand's utopia.

      Well, then, step one would be agreeing with him and doing as he says. You seem to be a big fan of being told what to do. What's that? Oh, you don't want to be told what you can and can't do, you just think everybody else should be.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    50. Re:Review ? by computational+super · · Score: 1
      Let's eliminate peoples' freedom of choice, shall we?

      You're not thinking like a proper socialist. You don't eliminate people's freedom of choice, you just eliminate other people's freedom of choice.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    51. Re:Review ? by computational+super · · Score: 1

      Well, (obviously) the ones who do something about it did something about it and are no longer obese. Ironic that somebody with such a tenuous grasp on (fundamental) logic is calling somebody else "ignorant". Since "bigot" in 21st century English just means "somebody I disagree with", I'll give you that one.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    52. Re:Review ? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not individually, but as a mass, they are. Surely obsese people don't like being called "fat tub of lard" but in the end they do nothing to improve their condition. ...

      Score:5 Insightful? You must be kidding. Clearly this posting is flamebait (and I'm taking it). "In the end they do nothing..." Not one single obese person does anything about being obese?

      In my statement I'm obviously overlooking the exceptions. That's why I said "as a mass". Actually, I was paraphrasing Kay from MiB when he said "A person is smart, but the masses are stupid". After all, obesity isn't called an epidemic "just because". What I'm talking about, is that people fail to realize that it's their eating and sedentary habits that make them fat. And that the bad way of eating is inherited from their parents. Right from eating all those extra bread slices at the restaurant, to consuming lots of high fructose sodas, to eating everything on the plate, to eating twice the quantity of snacks because they're "lite".

      And don't get me started on the "lose weight fast!" infomercials. I'm still amazed that people fall for that "no diets, no exercise" garbage. But well, if people STILL believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, I shouldn't be surprised about that. But I still am.

    53. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a problem because like smoking and other addictions, such people can become a burden on society.

      The problem with that kind of thinking is that it reinforces the idea that, if I can assert an economic interest in changing your behavior, I am then entitled to change it by making your undesirable behavior illegal.

      We already have this bullshit about cellphones in cars, because it causes accidents and raises my insurance rates. The logical conclusion is that any distraction to a driver should be legislated out of existence. The driver's job is solely to drive. Therefore both hands will be handcuffed to the wheel (no eating, shaving, jerking off, etc.) Earplugs must be worn at all times. They will filter out all sounds except for the mandated new frequencies used by all authorized official siren users. Head restraints will allow only sufficient head and eye motion to allow monitoring of rear and side view mirrors. passengers will be restricted to only those parts of the vehicle not viewable by the driver.

      I had friend who was a card carrying member of MENSA who chose a guy who lived on the other side of the country who treated her terribly, over a guy who lived near her and treated her well.

      Plato notwithstanding, a person fully informed of the good will not necessarily do the good. Age, wisdom, experience, intelligence and honor are not mutually interchangeable -- not even two at a time. The list of good attributes is likely much longer than five. Need a living example of the truth of this -- John McCain.

    54. Re:Review ? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      As for your comments about discrimination, what form of discrimination protection are you referring to that is inappropriate?

      My memory is a bit blurry, but I saw a newsflash on TV about obese people protesting against being called "fat" and threatening to sue various people for psychological damages (go figure), because they couldn't change their fat condition. What shocked me was that a woman in the group kept saying that fat people should be comfortable with their fatness because it was part of who they were, or some bull**** like that.

    55. Re:Review ? by belligerent0001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Oh stop it. 90% of food at the grocery store does not have high-fructose corn syrup in it."

      If it is a processed item it most probably contains either Corn Syrup or HFCS. Granted the produce section is fairly safe as is most of the meat section, however vitamin D fortified milk has small amounts of HFCS added (at least at the stores around me). Even if an item has 'sugar' it will most often have additional HFCS added. Even some 'diet' beverages have HFCS added to them. READ LABELS.

          "That is so non-sensical it's hard to know where to start. You make it sound like the liver is the primary digestive organ. Also, according to you, if I eat some HFCS, I can then eat 20,000 calories and it'll never be processed. Hurray! HFCS is the cure for obesity."

      High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a recent invention of the food industry, made by an enzyme-mediated process. Old-fashioned corn syrup is less sweet and contains mostly glucose....

      "HFCS contains 14 percent fructose. Never before in history have so many people been consuming so much fructose, and I am concerned about its possible disruptive effects on metabolism. I'd advise you not to buy products made with HFCS...."

      From http://www.metnews.com/articles/reminiscing110603.htm
      A Los Angeles Times article on March 24 said: "Unlike glucose, fructose is almost entirely metabolized in the liver. When fructose reaches the liver, says Dr. William J. Whelan, a biochemist at the University of Miami School of Medicine, 'the liver goes bananas and stops everything else to metabolize the fructose.' "

          "Sorry, wrong. The reason is the high import tariff on sugar in the USA. That's not the same thing as a subsidy."

      While I admit that you are partially correct here. In ADDITION to high tariffs on sugar there are also substantial subsidies provided to the growers and refiners of corn.

      Additionally, If one was to chart the occurrences of obesity and diabetes, heart disease, etc. in the US and compare that to the overall production/consumption of HFCS the lines mirror themselves even closer than that of carbon and global warming. Believe the propaganda that you choose. I know of 7 people who all removed HFCS from their diet and low and behold their blood glucose levels returned to normal, their serum cholesterol dropped to normal levels and the lost a substantial amount of weight. All but 2 had these results without additional exercise or other caloric modifications. The other 2 actually increased the amount of calories and the amount of dietary fat and still lost weight although they did increase their activity.

      So get bent ass clown

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    56. Re:Review ? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      "gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies" This has nothing to do with risk. Tobacco is used for more the cigarettes and doesn't always cause harm to everyone.

      Actually yes it does.

    57. Re:Review ? by taliesinangelus · · Score: 1

      I agree from a public policy perspective. I disagree from a social commentary perspective.

    58. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A second slice of cake triggers the same part of the brain triggered by heroine." UGH!! It's HEROIN, you fucksticks!! Why does everyone insist on spelling this shit like it's Wonder Woman?!?!?! And yes, I'm an addict. So fuck yourself.

    59. Re:Review ? by Dripdry · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, here goes:

      1) Try going to the grocrey store and looking at the ingredients. No, really. Bread, cereal, almost all drinks including juices and soda. jams/jellies, snacks, many processed foods including the ones made by the grocer. Go look at the labels and I think you'll be surprised how much food has HFCS in it.

      2) Non-sensical? I think you're just being difficult. Here is where I'm encouraging others to mod you troll, as I've just used up my mod points. Your comments are neither ACTUALLY informative or very helpful. They're just meant to rebuff someone's opinion by calling it non-sensical, rather than bring a truth to light. HFCS DOES stop the body from processing fats, so rather than get burned up by the body the fats get stored immediately. OF COURSE HFCS doesn't stop the body from processing calories, but your getting your panties in a bunch rather than simply pointing out the potential misunderstandings the parent post could cause is not helpful.

      3) You're right (to my knowledge). However, the general idea that government intervention keeps prices low is what I believe the parent was getting at.

      4) Wow. Just, wow. Could you be any less helpful? Do you need to be so condescending to someone who seems to want to add constructively to the discussion? I know I shouldn't feed this type of behavior, but I think you are the one who should seriously consider how and why you post on Slashdot. Maybe you just had a bad day, though. Maybe your undies really are just bunched up tightly. I don't know, but I AM trying to give you some benefit of the doubt without being a troll myself.

      In conclusion, if I had any mod points left you would not be receiving benefits from them, though I hope you come back and add to future Slashdot discussions as you obviously have strong opinions that could merit being heard.
       

      --
      -
    60. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      what is the option then to deal with that 5%?

    61. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, wrong. The reason is the high import tariff on sugar in the USA. That's not the same thing as a subsidy.

      Push your sophistry back up your ass.

      Lessee -- I can give you money to make your product more competitive. Or, I can charge someone else the same amount extra, again to make your product more competitive. Gee, can I really find a meaningful difference there?

      Same scam as in the early days of cards. Merchants (ofetn gas stations0 did not want the hassle of setting up accounts or the hassle of submitting the receipts. They aklso didn't like paying the merchant fees. So they charged extra for CC purchases. The CC companies folded language into their contracts making that a violation of the TOS. So the merchants simply listed prices, then provided a "discount" for cash purchases.

      I'm not sure where it stands nowadays, but I know Exxon pumps add on a "surcharge" for card transactions. The really stupid thing is that it makes the final price per gallon higher than a CC at the station on the other corner.

    62. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a sandwich and a bottle of apple juice is nowhere near a whole meal"

      And maybe that is the source of your problem: you're a pig. A sandwich and a drink used to be the standard lunch, maybe with a very small snack after.

    63. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who has gotten a DUI, the penalties are much steeper than that. My fine was $1,000, 150 hours of community service, 30 hours of alcohol classes, a 3 month license suspension, plus lawyers fees and costs. I did not hit anyone, I did not kill anyone, I was barely over the limit, yet it cost me about $7,000 and loads of embarrassment. I was lucky enough to have the sentence suspended and therefore not have my license revoked. You shouldn't be punished for what might of happened.

    64. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warning: goin' off topic.

      I'd say Americans are stuck with drunk driving deaths whether they like it or not. Most drinking establishments require car travel for access since few places still have mixed zoning.

      Instead of making real changes to offer better options to people, our laws penalize you for your expected behavior within the system. In other words, create a car-centric infrastructure and you will have problems with drunk drivers.

    65. Re:Review ? by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill. there is so little accountability, it makes me want to cry. you and i are suddenly *more* responsible for the effects of someone's carelessness, irresponsibility, laziness, or what have you.

      it's all about accountability. i say hold everyone accountable, whether they are a corporation, government, or individual. NO MORE PRETENDING! no more slaps on the wrist, or busy-work committees. it will suck for everyone at first, but only because everyone gets away with things they shouldn't. i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.

      thoughts?

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
    66. Re:Review ? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Americans are not "oblivious" to obesity, and do not "tolerate" drunk-driving deaths.

      What's to tolerate? there are about 1000 in a given year, which isn't much - more kids drown than that.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    67. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, Dr. Pangloss tells me capitalism is the best of all possible economic systems.

    68. Re:Review ? by cromar · · Score: 1

      Need a living example of the truth of this -- John McCain.

      I was with you up to there. I'm not flamebaiting: I'm not particularly fond of Obama either.

    69. Re:Review ? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Take us, for example. 40 years ago, no one would call us idiots for smoking. Non-smokers would get that adjective faster than us... But now, from nowhere the anti-smoke paranoia has taken over the world!

      ...and around 200 years ago, leeches were considered the "hot" medical necessity. Just ask George Washington about how that worked out. Nowadays, it's considered a pretty good bet that inhaling ANY kind of foreign particle can be harmful. A lot depends on genetic predisposition.

      You can't smoke anywhere. And the argument given is not that it is for your own good! It's because others shouldn't breathe your smoke... This is flat hypocrisy...

      Agreed there. I can't count how many yuppies have turned up their nose walking by me smoking...right before they get into their H3.... Living in San Antonio, Texas, we've almost lost our federal Clean Air funding because of increasing particulate matter. Looking at their plan to combat such, you might notice that cigarettes/cigars aren't mentioned at all. Of course, anti-smokers don't want to hear that.

      When I leave home every day, why do I have to breathe an air polluted by all those anti-smokers?

      That one's easy.... 'cause the government makes a lot of money from vehicle registration, taxes, and gas tax. That, and were the government to try to ban gas-based cars outright, QUITE a few industries would collapse almost instantly.

      I think common sense is what should be cultivated. Because when you make laws to replace it, then it disappears.

      Been to America recently, have you? ;)

      MANY people here have NO desire to think, and have even said as much in as many words. They don't WANT personal responsibility. They'd rather lose all their various rights for the illusion of protection. Fraggin' tragic.

      Thanks for your reply, and if I may say so, your English is a LOT better than my Portuguese.

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    70. Re:Review ? by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's a problem because people like you and me end up footing the bill

      I'll take higher health insurance premiums over the nanny state any day of the week. Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.

      i, for one, think things would be much better if people were actually held accountable for the things they say and do.

      I don't have a problem with holding people accountable. I do have a problem with the Government trying to legislate good behavior and morality. If I want to smoke tobacco (or marijuana, but that's another debate) or eat fatty foods why the hell should Washington or Albany try to punish me for doing so?

      Holding people accountable would be allowing the insurance companies to charge smokers more and/or offer incentives to those that quit smoking/lose weight. Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    71. Re:Review ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Its a problem because it does nothing to improve the human condition

      Please point out the part of the US Constitution that says American citizens and the United States Government are mandated to work towards "improving the human condition"

      Its a problem because it taxes the health-care system

      Lots of things tax the health care system. Are we going to legislate against them too? I bet a one-child policy like China has would save us a fortune in health care costs......

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    72. Re:Review ? by triathlon4life · · Score: 1

      AMEN.

      That and have congress pass a law requiring all tobacco companies to only sell 'Death Sticks' & 'Lip of Death'

    73. Re:Review ? by deanoaz · · Score: 1

      >>> Is this a book review or a political tract ? Parent is right. The reviewer lost me right there.

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
    74. Re:Review ? by FreakWent · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Oh stop it. 90% of food at the grocery store does not have high-fructose corn syrup in it."

      Assuming a grocery store is a supermarket and not a greegrocer's, then you are wrong.

      I apologise for the payment gate, but there's an hour long lecture on corn in the US food system available here:
      http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/POLM001.shtml

      Amongst other things, the speaker details the scientific testing done trying to find processed food with no corn in it. USians should listen to this talk.

      If you're referring to a real greengrocer, then you need to check the availability and price of these stores and goods compared with processed foods. I don't think most people can afford a fresh fruit-and-veg diet in the US, or so I've been told.

      As for the liver, apparently every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of rats on high fructose diet look like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. (from http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html)

      This is probably what the previous poster was referring to.

      A tarrif is not the same as a subsidy. However, they have roughly the same effect. Ignoring tarrifs, it remains true that the corn industry, and the oil industry upon which it depends so heavily, are both subsidised by the US taxpayer.

      Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion. Ethanol makes this even worse.

      http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/

      There are very big problems with corn in the USA and you should do your own homework; it took me 5 mins to glue some links together.

      Oh, and read "fast food nation".

    75. Re:Review ? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      You know what is funny. You assume because I am aware of the gross amount of unnatural additives to my meal that I am of the obese category. Sorry pal. I'm not speaking up because I am part of that team. I am speaking up because it is ridiculous, regardless who you are or how big you are.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    76. Re:Review ? by grumbel · · Score: 1

      If people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles than I'm not going to get real worked up about it.

      The problem is that they don't chose that lifestyle. They don't go out and consciously decide that they want to become fat and addicted to smokes, instead it happens as a combination of genes and their social surroundings. Evolution simply hasn't build humans to live in the conditions we currently live in and thats why people end up getting fat when there is more food around then they can eat. And well, the result of that are then higher tax and insurance costs and those become a problem for society.

      The tricky part of course is to shape the whole environment in such a way that those problems no longer appear in the first place. Just blaming the fat people to do more exercise isn't going to do it on a large scale and just outlawing smokes and fat food isn't going to find many friends either, but on the other side just saying its personal choice isn't really helping either, since the problem of unhealthy lifestyle are what is causing problems for society as a whole.

      Just because we don't know how to fix the problem, doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying and just blame it on the individual.

    77. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! 7 whole people? How many others do you know so we can get a percentage ratio and apply it to the entire population of the USA!

      Ass clown bent so get!

    78. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not opinion - that's FACT. What are you - a forum Nazi or a typical noncommittal apathetic LAMER?

    79. Re:Review ? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And well, the result of that are then higher tax and insurance costs and those become a problem for society.

      Then allow the health insurance companies to price risk accordingly. Let them charge smokers more money. Let them offer incentives for people to lose weight. Don't try and give the Government control over yet one more aspect of our life.

      Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If my neighbor enjoys eating a big mac or smoking tobacco (or marijuana) that's no business of mine. He will have to be held accountable for those choices if he engages in those activities to such an excess that his health is threatened -- but the way to hold him accountable is through increased insurance costs. Not through Governmental mandates or taxes that try and shape behavior.

      I'm just sick of the nanny state and people who try to legislate morality and behavior. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Federal Government trying to regulate what people can put into their bodies. Do you really think that's an appropriate role for Government?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    80. Re:Review ? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If you drive drunk you should probably do some time

      I'd agree to that if they upped the limit to .10 or .12, where it started. Almost all the DUI deaths are from people doing .15 or more, so it would have almost no effect on people who aren't a threat.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    81. Re:Review ? by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Tobacco can be used for health related treatments, treatments that do not involve smoking or chewing it. It certainly does cause harm to the user in those two cases.

    82. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in Australia, this is not true. The costs of attempting to keep a sick lung cancer sufferer alive far outweigh the costs of keeping a healthy pensioner going for an extra 30 years.

    83. Re:Review ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      >>The problem is that they don't chose that lifestyle. sure it is. they choose to light up they choose to have a happy meal, and they choose to supersize it.

    84. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh stop it. 90% of food at the grocery store does not have high-fructose corn syrup in it.

      You're full of shit. Read Pollan's latest book (In Defense of Food) for some facts. As he points out, the mostly natural (as natural as you can get anyway) stuff is generally around the walls of a supermarket -- dairy, produce, meat, etc. Almost the entire center os the store, with the possible exception of a few canned vegetables, will show high fructose corn syrup as the first, second or third ingredient.

      Except for my local place, where an entire 70+ foot wall is entirely soft drinks, except for maybe ten feet of eggs. Pound for pound, there's more HFCS in that place than any other ingredient

    85. Re:Review ? by skoony · · Score: 1

      hmm,
      in order for hfcs to cause any medical problem you have
      to be eating too much stuff thats not good for you.
      sugar or fructose is not harmful in an of themselves.
      its way to much of either.

      and also back to biology class.
      the liver does not process one thing at a time.
      if it did we'ed all have stunted growth,or worse.

      cant crusify the evil fructose vendor regards
      mike

    86. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The big deal is that like the GP claimed, it is a political rant. And the politics in them were a lie to start with.

      We don't need sixth grade style book reviews but don't be surprised when someone calls a spade a spade. It is almost as if some thing the review is less once people know it is a political rant. Is there a problem with people knowing what something is?

    87. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You took the wrong impression away from that video. Most all states have minimum fines. A minimum fine is the bare minimum that a judge can order. It isn't like a speeding ticket were you know your going to pay $90-$120 or so depending on your speed. All states have a license suspension period too. All states that I know of also have jail time that can be asigned at the discretion of the judge too. You have to also realize that you can be prosecuted to DUI even if you aren't driving. Simply putting the keys in the ignition to listen to the radio is enough in almost every states to get a charge and most likely a conviction when the cop lies and attempts to say you were too drunk to start the car.

      That being said, I'm sure there are people who have slid through the cracks and didn't get punished strict enough. I know a guy who got his 15th DUI in 20 years before he lost his license permanently. But then again, he never had them when he got his 3rd DUI all the way up to his last. He also got in a lot of other trouble too like 2 years in jail total and a fine he won't be likely to be able to pay in the rest of his lifetime. But until they are paid, they hold jail over his head and tell him to report for a drug and alcohol screening randomly. BTW, 5-10 of those DUIs were on garden tractors while mowing his lawn, bicycles, and boats while fishing. He wasn't behind the wheel of a car on all of them which is probably why he didn't get long jail time before.

    88. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Removing the HCFS from your diet almost certainly ends up removing calories. You'll end up with the 'Atkins Effect' so to speak. You aren't eating HFCS laden processed foods, so you end up looking for something that has little in the way of carbs (as pretty much all non-cereal, non-pasta carbs = HFCS in the local supermarket).

      This is going end up with someone's snacks being celery & PB instead of corn muffins... and while the PB is pretty high in calories, it's nothing compared to the abomination that is the average corn muffin.

    89. Re:Review ? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "The costs of attempting to keep a sick lung cancer sufferer alive far outweigh the costs of keeping a healthy pensioner going for an extra 30 years."

      So in Australia you don't bother keeping the healthy pensioner alive a decade or two later if they also get cancer?

      --
    90. Re:Review ? by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1

      I agree, too much sugar in the form of fructose or sucrose is harmful. However the density of fructose in HIGH fructose corn syrup make it much worse that straight fructose. If you examine the ratios of obesity and diabetes (as well as other health problems) you will notice that the occurrences increase at the same rate of consumption of HFCS. Additionally, in countries that do not use HFCS (Europe, Brazil, etc) the rates of obesity and diabetes are drastically less in comparison. These people have lifestyle similar to those of US citizens. Fructose is processed differently by the liver and the density of the fructose in HFCS is much higher than the fructose found in fruits so the liver has to work overtime to keep up. My point to all of this is that the studies that *claim* HFCS is no different from any other sweetener are produced by the consortium that produce the product (HELLO TOBACCO????) so why would they find anything at all wrong with their product? I have spent the last 6 months learning about blood sugar as I was diagnosed as type 2. I had a BG of 224. In less than 2 months I brought it down to below 100 JUST by eliminating foods with HFCS and caramel ( which is corn syrup). I also have lost 25# and guess what? I didn't really increase my activity, unless reading food labels counts. HFCS is poison people. Just because the drug dealer tells you it is safe does not make it so.

      --
      "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
    91. Re:Review ? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "Holding people accountable would be allowing the insurance companies to charge smokers more "

      Y'know with gene tests and all those tests AND the more access the insurance companies have over all that data, maybe the insurance companies would just use it as an excuse to charge nearly _everyone_ more (except for a few people?), and rake in higher profits.

      After all, if you look at everyone closely enough, for most people there's probably something _detectably_ wrong that'll kill them decades later. Only a few will die when they are 100 of "old age" (aka we're not sure which was the smoking gun ).

      --
    92. Re:Review ? by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      Government mandates just take away more of our freedom of choice.

      i'm not talking about government mandates. in fact, i'm talking about not coddling those who hurt themselves, and who in turn make my life more difficult. i am, however, all for regulation. we don't allow drug companies to sell gasoline as a pain releiver because we know it'll kill people if they ingest it. we do allow what has to be hundreds of thousands of fast food restaurants to sell things that we know also kill people. we also allow companies to sell products that when burned and inhaled, are known to cause death. i have a problem coddling those companies as well. why are companies allowed to *profit* at the expense of the health and lives of their customers, while you and i pay the bill?

      if you're talking about government mandates, i'll take some there. otherwise, no, that's not what i'm talking about.

      Besides which, the whole point of insurance is pooled risk.... if you don't want to pay for other peoples bad health decisions then don't have health insurance.

      and i wasn't just talking about insurance. i was also talking about the money taken out of each of my paychecks. social security, medicare and medicaid. these things also go to people who have gone and fucked themselves up. not just your (not so-) average healthy retiree.

      and another thought. how much money is spent yearly on preventable disease research? i'm strictly talking about things that people know about, are warned about, and allow to happen or cause anyway. why should we spend money trying to save people that knew the risks and wanted to play the odds? why not devote that money and energy to finding cures for diseases we can't stop. genetic disorders, mental health, and so on.

      i see your point, and i don't want to cut off funding for medical research for anyone, but hopefully you see my point as well.

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
    93. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already do. It's human nature to rag on anything "different" from the "norm"...

      Good! People who do stupid shit that raises everyone's health insurance should me mocked! I would prefer a society where people who cannot smoke eat or drink in moderation are ridiculed!

      If everyone paid for ther own health insurance I wouldn't care but seeing as how we all pay into the gov't funded shite then people should be held to a standard.

      If I get busted for a DUI my car insurance premiums go up. If some piece of shit cannot learn basic nutrition the their premiums should go up also.

    94. Re:Review ? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      These are complicated issues. It might seem that it's "security hypocrisy" to demand better credit card security while ignoring automobile accidents. But... many things. Some problems are easier to fix than others. Some have too high a cost. Many problems are very subtle, only detectable by expert testing.

      As for regulation, much is in place to protect us from the sort of shoddy workmanship that is not immediately obvious. Most of us can't tell from a cursory examination whether a new gas furnace might develop leaks 10 years down the road and either suffocate the occupants or cause an explosion. Note that rules intended to prevent fatal problems with gas furnaces and all sorts of other products are NOT from the government, they are from UL, which was started by insurance companies who were interested in saving money in the form of claims paid out to victims of unsafe products.

      Nanny state, say you? I say I don't want to be sickened, maimed or killed because some business made an irresponsible reckless decision that would save them a little money up front. There are far too many subjects to be expert in to be aware of all the dangers; no one person or small group can watch for everything. There are many vendors that would save a few pennies now at the cost of exposing all their customers to some future danger that is often too optimistically assumed won't be a problem-- won't happen, or the product will no longer be used by the time it could happen, or isn't really that dangerous. And supposing they misjudged? Their engineers were pushed into approving something unsafe? Happens all the time. One of the most infamous such products was the Therac 25 medical x-ray machine. Look to the past for scads of examples-- Unsafe at Any Speed is only the tip. Early mechanized farming was horribly dangerous, early electric fans didn't bother with cages for the blades, electric outlets were 2 prong, no ground, dangerous chemicals were routinely used in household products-- many still are, actually-- the list goes on. How about those formaldehyde impregnated house trailers, for a recent example? Stupid manufacturers really trash the reputation of the whole industry with stunts like that. Not good for business, not good for the economy.

      Driving is the most risky activity done on a near daily basis, but what can we do? Airbags, speed limits, laws against drunk driving, safety inspections of vehicles, etc. all help but the only total safety is to stop driving. Can't stop driving just like that, would take a lot of adjusting, concentrating the population so bicycling, walking, or taking the bus would be viable, and attitudes must change too. Shopkeepers tend to look upon pedestrian access as opportunity for crime, never mind that roads provide much the same opportunity. It's a huge problem that perceptions of safety differ considerably from actual safety. There's a big skew favoring things just for being familiar, such as cars.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    95. Re:Review ? by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Good! People who do stupid shit that raises everyone's health insurance should me mocked! I would prefer a society where people who cannot smoke eat or drink in moderation are ridiculed!

      Tell ya what, I'll make you a deal. You let us imbibe our poison of choice legally, and you get to jeer to your heart's content... Sound fair?

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    96. Re:Review ? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Then allow the health insurance companies to price risk accordingly. Let them charge smokers more money. Let them offer incentives for people to lose weight.

      And with all this done, the chimneynoses and tubegirls are still dead and the economy, as a whole, is diminished, since it is denied the input they could had contributed had they stayed healthy.

      Individual choices affect other people. That means that other people have a say in them.

      Don't try and give the Government control over yet one more aspect of our life.

      From my point of view, there's little difference between a government and a huge corporation, with the exception that the government has nominal obligation to listen to me while the corporation doesn't.

      Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      Notice which got listed first ?

      I'm just sick of the nanny state and people who try to legislate morality and behavior.

      And I'm sick of people who promote a wicked stepmother state in it's stead. Why the hell would rule by corporations be better than rule by government ?

      The Founding Fathers never envisioned the Federal Government trying to regulate what people can put into their bodies. Do you really think that's an appropriate role for Government?

      Appeal to authority is a fine rhetorical tool, but somewhat ironic when used to argue against another authority. And yes, it is the role of government to try and keep its citizens alive and well. That's the very reason it exist.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    97. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      I had a neighbor who was killed by a drunk driver. It was a first offense. He got off with no jail time. The prosecutor told me that if they put every first-time drunk driver who killed in jail, there would not be enough space to house them. Alas, they go free.

    98. Re:Review ? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > Age, wisdom, experience, intelligence and honor are not mutually interchangeable -- not even two at a time. The list of good attributes is likely much longer than five. Need a living example of the truth of this -- John McCain.

      What does age have to do with anything? Any retard can get old. With age comes experience (not necessarily true, but we assume most old people didn't spend their lives doing nothing but eating and sleeping and have therefore acquired at least some experience), but that one is already in your list, so there is no reason to list age unless you thing there is some other benificial quality that can be derived therefrom. Could you explain what that quality is?

    99. Re:Review ? by Moryath · · Score: 1

      No, I said the only "transaction" was when I specifically called the CC company to activate the card. I've never used it for any purchase.

    100. Re:Review ? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Iv'e decided to quit smoking and lose weight so that I can spend the last ten years of my life in a nursing home with Alzheimers.

      Is it really living longer if you don't know it?

      Oh well, just think of all the nice people you'll meet every day, and later the same day... and the next day...

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    101. Re:Review ? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's cheaper when they die of lung cancer in their 60s than when they collect Social Security and Medicare until they're 90.

      I'm trying to find the study where they found out that on average, those with a healthy lifestyle tended to live about 4 years longer than those who smoked, and/or were obese.

      The "unhealthy lifestyle folks cost society less money because their demise was usually quicker. The "healthy" people tended to die of illnesses that were drawn out over time, and much of that 4 extra years were spent in hospital, racking up astronomical bills. YMMV of course.

      I've been googling, but if anyone knows a link to it, I'd be internally grateful.

      I think that the health bigots have missed one very important thing - no one gets out of here alive.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    102. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Every time I hear a story like that it always turns out to be that the neighbor who was killed was either drunk too or the one who caused the accident. Now, not to take away from the loss of your neighbor but being drunk had little to nothing to do with the death in the second scenario and outside of being drunk, you don't know if it had any influence on the accident.

      I know a girl who used to claim her dad was murdered by a drunken driver. The truth is that he worked late and ran a red light. It was only coincidence that the guy who had the right of way and hit him tested over the legal limit. Her entire family claimed he was killed by a drunk driver and while that may be technically true, the drunk driver was not at fault for the accident and only got into trouble for DUI. And NO, that doesn't mean we tolerate drunk driving deaths. It means we are rational towards not blaming people for something that wasn't his fault.

    103. Re:Review ? by M1rth · · Score: 1

      Quoting from their response:

      Ok: there was ONE transaction, three years prior, in which the card was activated

      An activation transaction still shows up on a statement as a "transaction", but it's a direct one (done by phone call to the credit card company) and not a retail/merchant transaction. Unless the credit card company itself has a leak, the activation doesn't count for your claim that it was "used once."

      It looks like we have a smart user here - someone who keeps an emergency card available. It's a smart move, because it increases your credit score by showing more available credit as well as functioning much like a "rainy day" fund when you really need it for some emergency. Plus, reading the comments, they used it as a good opportunity to pay things down with a balance transfer incentive program.

      All companies have security flaws, banks and credit card companies are no different. Small transactions are frequently used to sort out "working" cards from dead after a leak; it's hardly surprising that the person started seeing $4-5 transactions when the thieves were "testing the waters" on his card. You get a lot of stuff out there like this too.

      I think that the OP was right - banks and CC companies have a financial incentive (banks especially) to not look too hard for this. If they have to refund $10 when it's caught, but only 1 in 20 people catch it, then they just made $10 aggregate; multiply by a large number of fraudulent charges and you have a pretty big bonus for the CC company.

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    104. Re:Review ? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      You'd think so, but in practical terms it just doesn't work out. On average smokers cost more from cradle to grave than non-smokers, about $17,500 not accounting for health care price inflation.

      And that doesn't account for the effects of second hand smoke. In theory you'd have to calculate the difference between the bar and restaurant employee cancer rates and those of the average population and then divide that amongst the smokers and tack that on to each person's bill.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    105. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      >>>>Every time I hear a story like that it always turns out to be that the neighbor who was killed was either drunk too or the one who caused the accident. You live up to your name of sumdumass. I suggest you speak to both prosecutors and defense attorneys. They will both tell you how incorrect you are. You are in effect blaming the victim.

    106. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      I read your comment and am astounded by your lack of knowledge, logic, and understanding of criminal law. You are saying that there are no drunk drivers? Yes, there are often secondary factors. In your example of the girl who used to claim her dad was murdered by a drunken driver; the drunken driver was not primarily at fault. But the fact that he was drunk and driving is in itself a crime.

    107. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you disagree with the assessment of American risk management practices?

      Horseshit. I don't understand how you got old enough to type postings on the internet without hearing the phrase "security theater".

      Since when is criticizing those practices political?

      I think it's really more sociological than political.

      Go to your nearest airport and, when they instruct you to take off your shoes, yell, "This isn't security -- it's bullshit". Within seconds, the jackboot on your face will forcefully reveal to you in just how political it really is. Sociological, my ass.

    108. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming the victim. I'm blaming the person who caused the accident. The fact that someone had been drunk or drinking doesn't always mean the accident was their fault. So when witnesses or cameras at the streetlight capture a sober person running a red light, getting struck by a drunk and then dieing, blaming the drunk is not only stupid but anti American. We don't convict people because of what they could have done. We convict them for what they did do, if drinking and driving which isn't always illegal, is all they did, then they didn't kill anyone.

      It is like asking if you would like to be charged with something that wasn't your fault because you were there and had a tail light out. Of course you wouldn't like that and you definitely wouldn't like to be blamed for the death of someone who ran a red light or something because your tail light was out. It, just like the other scenario would have made no difference on the accident.

    109. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Wow.. Just Wow. Go ahead and ignore what I said and make something up. I am actually astounded by your reading comprehension skills.

      You are saying that there are no drunk drivers? Yes, there are often secondary factors. In your example of the girl who used to claim her dad was murdered by a drunken driver; the drunken driver was not primarily at fault. But the fact that he was drunk and driving is in itself a crime.

      Driving with a head light out is a crime too. But it doesn't cause you to be the reason for a death when someone else causes an accident. I said nothing to the point that there are no drunk drivers nor did I say they don't get punished. What I said was, and read this carefully, just because a person is driving while drunk does not mean they are responsable for actions of someone else which result in a death. I Also said that when I hear stories about a drunk driver not getting punished for a death resulting from an accident they were involved in always means that the drunk did not cause the accident. That is my experience in all the cases I have known of. Now, If you know of a situation where a drunk driver was the cause of an accident in which someone died because of the accident and they received no jail time, I am interested in hearing it.

      To my knowledge, in the past two decades, that has never happened. And no one replying to this have provided any anecdotal evidence yet countering my experiences and no one who has to date, was willing to offer enough information like names, cities and states, case numbers or any of that in which a public record search could verify it. I am left only to conclude that me experience is correct in that the only way a drunk driver doesn't get jail time for an accident in which someone died is when they didn't cause the accident. And no, being drunk alone isn't enough to make a person guilty of someone else's actions. If the person would have been sober with all other circumstances being the same, you would still have ended up with a dead person that wasn't their fault.

    110. Re:Review ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the health bigots have missed one very important thing - no one gets out of here alive.

      Amen. Pass the joint and the chicken wings.

    111. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      For the 2% of the cases your logic applies to, thank you. For the other 98%, it is irrelevent.

    112. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Please point me to any official statistics for these 98% of drunk driver not getting jail time when they are at fault. I am speaking directly at drunk driver not getting jail time when a death was involved with an accident. And all I am saying is that in every case I have ever heard of or seen when the drunk wasn't punished for the death, it was because it wasn't his fault. So I would like to see were they 98% of drunks getting off after killing someone when the accident is their fault. Show me something- anything, but your word alone doesn't make it true. I happen to have the way the law works behind my statement in which someone doesn't get punished for something that wasn't their fault.

    113. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      >> And all I am saying is that in every case I have ever heard of or seen when the drunk wasn't punished for the death, it was because it wasn't his fault. You need to review more case law youngster,

    114. Re:Review ? by binarylarry · · Score: 1

      LOL, how did this get modded flamebait?

      I think a certain moderator doesn't know how insurance works...

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    115. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Dude- See this http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/29/drunken.driving.decline.ap/index.html Please comment. Are you defending the drunkards? Drunken-driving fatalities drop in 32 states * Story Highlights * Overall, alcohol deaths were down nearly 4 percent compared with 2006 * Alcohol-related fatalities increased among motorcycle riders in half the states * North Carolina had 66 more deaths, the most among states WASHINGTON (AP) -- Drunken-driving deaths fell in 32 states in 2007, the government reported Thursday, but alcohol-related fatalities increased among motorcycle riders in half the states. Nearly 13,000 people were killed in crashes in which the driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08, the legal limit in the United States, or at higher levels. Overall, alcohol deaths were down nearly 4 percent compared with 2006, when nearly 13,500 people died on the highway. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said she was disappointed by the increase in deaths involving drunk motorcycle riders. A total of 1,621 motorcyclists were killed in alcohol-impaired crashes in 2007, an increase of 7.5 percent. Motorcycle riders have been featured in the government's $13 million advertising campaign surrounding the Labor Day holiday. Law enforcement agencies are increasing their enforcement against drunken driving during the end of the summer. Dean Thompson, a spokesman for the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, said riders who conduct training courses always stress the dangers involved in drinking alcohol before riding. "The skill set you need in terms of the coordination and balance and things like that, you cannot choose to drink and ride. It's just the wrong choice to make," he said. Among the states, California had 117 fewer alcohol-impaired driving deaths last year, the largest decrease in the nation. Texas had 108 fewer deaths and Arizona's fatalities dropped by 63 deaths. California conducted more than 1,000 sobriety checkpoints during the year and encouraged motorists to dial 911 on their cell phones if they spot a potentially drunken driver, said Christopher Murphy, who leads the state's traffic safety office. "Our vision is really toward zero deaths -- everyone counts, so we're not exactly celebrating these numbers," said Murphy, who leads the Governors Highway Safety Association. North Carolina had 66 more deaths, the most among states, followed by South Carolina with 44 fatalities. In addition to North Carolina and South Carolina, alcohol-impaired deaths increased in Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. The latest data followed calls from dozens of college presidents to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, arguing that the laws lead to binge drinking on campus. Mark Rosenker, acting chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said Thursday he opposed the administrators' effort. "Age 21 drinking laws have been proven time and again effective in preventing deaths and injuries," Rosenker said. "Repealing them is a terrible idea." Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    116. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      I ask you to focus on pure crime statistics, not on anecdotal evidence. ok?

    117. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your getting at. I never said people aren't driving drunk, I said that when they aren't punished for a fatality when in a fatal accident, it is because they weren't at fault for the accident. The other obvious answer is that they (the drunk)died in the accident. We don't prosecute dead people. But no one get drunk, causes an accident that kills someone, gets caught, and somehow gets off with no jail time. It just doesn't happen in this day and age.

      So back to me point, just because a person had been drinking or is above the states legal limit, it doesn't mean they were the cause of the accident nor does it mean they were at faul for the death that occured because of the accident. If you have something stating otherwise, then show me. But under the US legal system, you don't get charged and convicted for someone else's mistakes no matter how many unrelated mistakes you have made in your life.

    118. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Ok, give me some statistics. Remember, I'm only saying that drunk drivers who are in fatal accidents but not punished for the fatalities aren't the ones who caused the accidents. Now show me some statistics based around that. Other wise, take this anecdotal evidence and factor in the "innocent until proven guilty" and the US legal system that is designed to get people out of trouble when they didn't do whatever it is claimed of them.

      I'm betting that you didn't understand the argument I made. It only deals with drunks involved in fatal accidents who weren't charges with the fatality.

    119. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you don't get it with your conspiracy theory of blaming the victim. I had enough with you. Take a course in: criminal law tort law statistics then we can chat.

    120. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal? what's next... 9/11 was really an inside job?

    121. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why don't you post some facts instead innuendo insinuations. There is nothing wrong with blaming the victim if the victim is at fault. I mean if some idiot takes the shields and guards off of their table saw and ends up cutting their fingers off afterwards, it is the victims fault, not the manufacturers, not the neighbors, not some dude walking down the street, and certainly not any of those other people just because they are above the legal limit and considered legally drunk.

      The same is true with a motor vehicle accident when the person who caused it died. You don't blame the other drive who followed the rules of the road and had the right of way when someone runs a red light and gets killed. It doesn't matter if that otherwise legal person was legally drunk or not. If it wasn't his fault, it simply wasn't his fault.

      Now, post some facts if you actually are as smart and you want to claim, counter the argument instead of insinuating someone else is less intelligent, and BTW, I have have classes in criminal law and know I am right. So either put up or shut up and go troll somewhere else.

    122. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I can see that you have nothing to work with. So go troll somewhere else.

      You have had plenty of time to show something substantive about the accuracy of my claim and even when asked, you still beat around the bush refusing to address the points. Now your attempting to insinuate things never said. That is a sure sign that your failing the very simple task of backing your position up. ad hominem attacks don't prove your point. It simply allows you to ignore that you attempted to make one. The problem is that you leave a paper trail and it is easy to go back and discover what an idiot you truly are. Now find somewhere else to troll because your not making and headway here.

    123. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      So sorry to he who has audited classes in criminal law and knows he is right. Tens of thousands of drunk driving arrest per year in the US, and many deaths, and yet you want to know how the victims were not themselves at fault? Perhaps we should exhume the dead bodies? Is that what ya want?

    124. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      and you want to be taken seriously with a name like sumdumass?

    125. Re:Review ? by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      That's why I love living in Buffalo, NY -- a city that was designed before "urban planners", so it actually works. I can walk three minutes from my house to the corner bar, have a couple of beers and a sandwich, and not need a car.

      Old cities worked well for a reason. I don't know what the hell the people that lay out some of the new ones (Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta) are thinking.

      --saint

    126. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why don't you get a drip on reality and go back to elementary school and learn about reading comprehension. What are you attempting to do here, show the entire world what kind of idiot you are. You better just get off the computer before your damn dad finds out and spanks you.

      Tens of thousands of drunk driving arrests have nothing to do with anything I have said. I am talking of a very small minor part of the drunk drivers who are involved in fatality accidents but weren't charge with the death or served jail time because of it. It is because they weren't fucking at fault. What is so damn hard for you to understand about that? Hmm.. How much clearer can someone put something. It is the same reason your not in jail for robbing a bank, because you didn't rob a damn bank. My god, we have went through how many exchanges here and you still don't fucking get the concept that someone who doesn't do something wrong shouldn't and doesn't get punished for it even when they might have done something else wrong.

      I don't know who in the hell lied to you but not all accidents involving alcohol are the result of the alcohol. Not all fatal accidents are the survivors fault. Get some perspective man and tune you fucking comprehension skills.

    127. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Geeze, Sumdumass is putting the spanking on Karkconnors and the best you can come up with is an attack on a moniker.

      Go troll somewhere else you idiot. When you grow up you will realize that it is "what is said", not who said it. If you can't get past a name, you aren't qualified enough to be on this site. You should go back to the nick for kids pages where you belong.

    128. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      >>>I am talking of a very small minor part of the drunk Finally, you admit it, a very small percentage. As I said about 20 messages ago, yet only now you admit the 2%. While your language may be crude, at least you are honest enough to admit when wrong, and when the percentages are small.

    129. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I never denied it you imbecile. We are talking about drunk drivers involved in fatality accidents who didn't get jail time. That is what I made the statement about, that is the only context me statement was about, and any normal clueless idiot with a 3rd grade reading comprehension skill set would have understood that from the very beginning.

      Let me put this in perspective so hopefully you can follow. You said

      I had a neighbor who was killed by a drunk driver. It was a first offense. He got off with no jail time.

      I said,

      Every time I hear a story like that it always turns out to be that the neighbor who was killed was either drunk too or the one who caused the accident. Now, not to take away from the loss of your neighbor but being drunk had little to nothing to do with the death in the second scenario and outside of being drunk, you don't know if it had any influence on the accident.

      I know a girl who used to claim her dad was murdered by a drunken driver. The truth is that he worked late and ran a red light. It was only coincidence that the guy who had the right of way and hit him tested over the legal limit. Her entire family claimed he was killed by a drunk driver and while that may be technically true, the drunk driver was not at fault for the accident and only got into trouble for DUI. And NO, that doesn't mean we tolerate drunk driving deaths. It means we are rational towards not blaming people for something that wasn't his fault.

      You replied with some bullshit about drunk driving fatalities declining overall but increasing for motorcyclist. I responded with

      I'm not sure what your getting at. I never said people aren't driving drunk, I said that when they aren't punished for a fatality when in a fatal accident, it is because they weren't at fault for the accident. The other obvious answer is that they (the drunk)died in the accident. We don't prosecute dead people. But no one get drunk, causes an accident that kills someone, gets caught, and somehow gets off with no jail time. It just doesn't happen in this day and age.

      So back to me point, just because a person had been drinking or is above the states legal limit, it doesn't mean they were the cause of the accident nor does it mean they were at faul for the death that occured because of the accident. If you have something stating otherwise, then show me. But under the US legal system, you don't get charged and convicted for someone else's mistakes no matter how many unrelated mistakes you have made in your life.

      You then totally miss everything said and reply with some cockamany "conspiracy theory of blaming the victim" reply which couldn't be any farther from what I said. Instead, you decided to have some conversation in you mind or some shit like that and ignore what was written just to push what you think you read. Go ahead, hit the parent button, it is all there just like I said. There is nothing magical about it.

      I replied with an analogy describing how someone who isn't drunk could be at fault for the accident in hopes that your dense veil of ignorance would let some light through. I said

      Why don't you post some facts instead innuendo insinuations. There is nothing wrong with blaming the victim if the victim is at fault. I mean if some idiot takes the shields and guards off of their table saw and ends up cutting their fingers off afterwards, it is the victims fault, not the manufacturers, not the neighbors, not some dude walking down the street, and certainly not any of those other people just because they are above the legal limit and considered legally drunk.

      The same is true with a motor vehicle accident when the person who caused it died. You don't blame the other drive who followed the rules of the road and had the right of way when someone runs a red light and gets killed. It doesn't matter if tha

    130. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      you give new meaning to the term: Blah, blah, blah. when hubris, arrogance and a dirty mouth mix, it's you.

    131. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Don't fault me when it is your own shortcomings shining into the light.

      And yes, I had to use foul language to get your attention. I pity your parents and cam only wonder how they managed to raise you.

    132. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      >>>And yes, I had to use foul language to get your attention. Nest time, try facts. >>>I pity your parents and cam only wonder how they managed to raise you. wow, that hurts.

    133. Re:Review ? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It wasn't supposed to hurt, It was supposed to be a statement of sorrow for the people who failed to teach you the basics of communication. I was simply saying I can see why they failed. Now I think I am through with you before you fail to understand some other completely intelligible thought.

    134. Re:Review ? by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      I see you follow in the footsteps of your drunk driving friends. You do a hit and run.

    135. Re:Review ? by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      It's a problem because like smoking and other addictions, such people can become a burden on society.

      It's a problem because collectivist, misnamed "insurance" schemes entitle such people to become a burden on society.

      If we were all as awesome as you we could live in Ayn Rand's utopia. Alas, it is not so.

      Enter paternalism. When you were a child you were too stupid to understand that ...

      You are beneath me. Your argument is childish. If you want to opt into an arrangement in which you are treated like a child, knock yourself out. But your right to swing your stupidity around ends where an expense to me is incurred.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
    136. Re:Review ? by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

      If people choose to live unhealthy lifestyles than I'm not going to get real worked up about it.

      The problem is that they don't chose that lifestyle. They don't go out and consciously decide that they want to become fat and addicted to smokes, instead it happens as a combination of genes and their social surroundings.

      Wrong, people do choose our lifestyles, one choice at a time, and I can prove it to you. Don't ever post anything to /. or any other website, ever. You will choose not to be shaped by this part of your social surroundings [me], but to instead do as you please. Once you knew it was a risk, you became ethically responsible to accept the outcome of each action you chose. Legal responsibility doesn't even require knowledge, it simply comes with the status "adult." If you wish not to be held accountable for your choices and take responsibility for informing yourself, you don't deserve the rights of an adult. Prove to me that you're only the product of your surroundings; don't reply.

      --
      "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p
  2. Review? by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    This looks more like what's written on the back cover.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  3. So much lefty claptrap compressed into one place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This write-up emits socialist hawking radiation.

  4. Laziness by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    Not so much as people in general are oblivious to risk. As much as we are a lazy species, and capitalism pays full respect to that fact.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  5. It's all about profit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

    And some company is making money off of each and every one of those things.

  6. Ummm.... by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

    This whole sentence is moronic, but it's easiest to point to the fact that federal tobacco subsidies ended several years ago. If one has to criticize American society, too little hysteria over risk seems like an odd choice.

    1. Re:Ummm.... by z-thoughts · · Score: 2, Informative

      If one has to criticize American society, too little hysteria over risk seems like an odd choice.

      For a country that is busy becoming scared of every boogeyman that the political and special interest groups can come up with, too little hysteria over risks does seem like on odd choice of wording.

      As to society tolerating tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, you might want to research that some more. Try this place http://dammdrinkers.com/ MADD is becoming more of a problem than drunk drivers ever were.

    2. Re:Ummm.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I would rather talk about misplaced hysteria. I mean, if heart diseases and diabete got as much money as counter-terrorism...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Ummm.... by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. I tried to research that some more.

      Specifically where DAMM gets their magical .127% number. Via a query of FARS, the statistics portion of NHTSA, I found that apparently the NTHSA only looks at dead people, and doesn't take into account alive people, nor who was at fault, when trying to break apart alcohol-related accidents. You can break down alcohol-related fatalities by state and BAC, but not fault.

      Much as I'd like to believe it, it looks like hype to me.

    4. Re:Ummm.... by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Well heck, when that risk causes thousands of deaths, and costs billions, we certainly do need MORE hysteria for people to get it.

  7. Risk Vs Liability by Sleen · · Score: 1

    In the introduction of this article, the word risk is used where 'liability' may be more appropriate. Risk is something we engage in with intention. Liability is different, and out of our control. Banks with poor security measures don't expose us to risk, but liability.

  8. The real reason by 77Punker · · Score: 1

    The real reason that credit card fraud will continue is that there will always be people that want to steal from others. Security will slow it down, but just like wearing gloves while mixing chemicals, it really only reduces the damage to the things it protects.

  9. What is this crap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of ambulance-chasing reporters from USA Today, who've really had any eye on InfoSec since '04, write a disjointed book with no logical flow (read: 3-point chapter divisions)....

    And it finds its way on here? I'm glad I cancelled my subscription months ago when I saw this site sliding.

    I mean, seriously. These guys compare hackers to meth addicts. It's a sensationalist P.O.S. written by people with no background in the field.

    1. Re:What is this crap? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      >>>It's a sensationalist P.O.S. written by people with no background in the field. Isn't that what a bestseller is all about? and that is why books on project mgmt and structured programmers are lousy sellers. do ya get it?

  10. "oblivious..." by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    ...and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

    Some people would define that as "Liberty".

    Also:

    American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths

    No. The law is NOW that you're officially driving drunk when your blood alcohol level is .08. In some people that's LESS THAN ONE BEER.
    This has led to gestapo style checkpoints where drivers are randomly pulled aside for breathalyzer tests merely because they were at a rock concert.

    I do not, in any way shape or form, define that as "tolerate".

    1. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      tolerate = people who drive drunk and kill and get off with no jail sentance.

    2. Re:"oblivious..." by Millennium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what exactly do you believe they deserve?

      Honest question. I can see powerful arguments for pretty much any point on the spectrum, from a slap on the wrist and a month of therapy all the way up to the death penalty. Where do you place yourself?

      Accepting some amount of risk and "tolerating death" are not the same thing, despite what some risk-averse folk will tell you. Quite the contrary: a life with no risk is not worth living, and so sometimes risks need to be accepted in the name of simple, basic freedom.

    3. Re:"oblivious..." by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree. We've come down pretty hard on those who drink and drive, and rightfully so. When my mom was a kid, and someone would drink and drive and crash their car, people would just say, "Well, it's not his fault, he was drunk." That would be tolerating. We've come a long way since then. In fact, it's hard to think of what more we can do in the bounds of the law to stop people from drinking and driving. Obesity, OTOH, is something we as a nation tolerate.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:"oblivious..." by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of anyone who has driven drunk and killed someone who also got off with no jail time in the last 2 decades. Unless your confusing an accident resulting in death caused by the person other then the drunk driver and somehow attempting to blame the cause on the drunk, we don't tolerate drunk driver deaths at all in this country. Not be your definition or anyone else's. But when it isn't the drunks fault, then no jail time is perfectly acceptable. It is just like if a minivan runs a stop light and crashed into your car resulting in the death of the minivan driver, you shouldn't get jail time either.

    5. Re:"oblivious..." by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Obesity, OTOH, is something we as a nation tolerate.

      No, that's "Liberty".

      Drunk Driving and smoking you can easily argue as things needed to be legally restricted because of the possibility of killing other people (smoking through 2nd hand smoke).

      Obesity? Not so much. (You could make the argument about shared health care costs/insurance but I'd rather cut the insurance ties than force everyone to conform to the current socio-economic trend of what's considered "healthy")

      The basic, FUNDAMENTAL, American right is the right to choose to do things that might be harmful. Anything else is Harvey Mudd's utopian system where:

      NORMAN: We cannot allow any race as greedy and corruptible as yours to have free run of the galaxy.
      SPOCK: I'm curious, Norman. Just how do you intend to stop them?
      NORMAN: We shall serve them. Their kind will be eager to accept our service. Soon they will become completely dependent upon us.
      ALICE 99: Their aggressive and acquisitive instincts will be under our control.
      NORMAN: We shall take care of them.
      SPOCK: Eminently practical.
      KIRK: The whole galaxy controlled by your kind?
      NORMAN: Yes, Captain. And we shall serve them and you will be happy, and controlled.

    6. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      >>>I'm not aware of anyone who has driven drunk and killed someone who also got off with no jail time in the last 2 decades then you need to do your research. Jail time for a first time drunk driver who kills someone is rare.

    7. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      They deserver what a murderer would get. At least 10 yrs in prison. Do that, and watch drunk driving deaths plummet. They do it since there is bascially a get out of jail free card.

    8. Re:"oblivious..." by gnick · · Score: 1

      The law is NOW that you're officially driving drunk when your blood alcohol level is .08. In some people that's LESS THAN ONE BEER.

      Um. According to the online calculators, slamming down one average 12 oz beer will put you at .08 BAC. But only if you weigh less than 50 lbs. That's approximate of course, but most people old enough to drive have left the 50 lbs mark well behind them.

      Not that I disagree with your point, just checking your math.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:"oblivious..." by jguthrie · · Score: 1
      If you assert that a practice is widespread, then it should be possible, easy in fact, for you to come up with a single instance of that practice to support your assertion. Indeed, if you're taking the position that a practice is widespread, then you should be prepared to come up with a variety of examples of that practice, and be prepared to answer criticisms about those examples. Criticisms of the examples might include, but in no case must be limited to: The supporting evidence was faulty, the practice is not widespread but only happens in limited jurisdictions, the practice was common and has stopped being common, the example you gave is not really an example of the practice that you're talking about, and so forth.

      If you're making an argument, then it is up to you to support it. I'm not going to take seriously anyone who supports his argument with a "you need to do your research" rebuttal. That's just lazy. I understand that you're responding to someone who is using his own experience as evidence, and that's weak, but the response you give is even weaker.

    10. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      Here is one example: http://www.wftv.com/news/15215683/detail.html Man Pleads Guilty, Gets No Jail Time For Friend's Drunk Driving Death POSTED: 5:16 pm EST February 4, 2008 ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- A 22-year-old man pled guilty Monday for a drunk driving accident that left his friend dead, but the man walked out of the Orange County courthouse without serving one day in jail. Both the driver, Brent Lewis, who was 20 years old at the time, and his passenger, 20-year-old Nick Fisher, were drunk. The accident happened at University and Goldenrod in April 2006. "Brent is going to decide his fate. Either he is going to make a difference in life and he is going to do everything he is supposed to and, if he doesn't, he is going to end up in jail anyway. So, it's really up to him," said Teresa Fisher, the victim's mother. Lewis will lose his license for 12 years, serve two years house arrest and ten years probation and he will have to undergo alcohol abuse treatment. Copyright 2008 by wftv.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

    11. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      And here is a law firm that prides itself in getting drunk driver killers off: http://www.aggressivelegalservices.com/Law_Firm_Cases.html Drunk Driving, Death Resulting: No jail sentence. Drunk Driving, Death Resulting: Sentenced to Work Release; released after only one year.

    12. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      http://blogs.denverpost.com/westwatch/2006/11/13/colorado-soft-on-drunk-drivers/ Colorado soft on drunk drivers? Two families were destroyed this weekend by Colorado drivers who were apparently driving drunk. Two children and their mother were killed on Friday night in downtown Denver and five members of a Las Vegas family were killed by a drunk driver in Santa Fe who had been convicted three times for drunk driving in Colorado. Should Colorado have tougher laws or is there nothing to be done?

    13. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      I have many more cases of drunk driving deaths and no jail time I can send you if you like.

    14. Re:"oblivious..." by jguthrie · · Score: 1

      Send me? But I don't care one way or the other about the topic! Otherwise, I would do as I suggested and attempt to weaken the examples you've given by finding faults in them.

      If you think the subject might come up again, then you might put the various links you've found onto a Web page where it will be handy the next time you want to support that position.

    15. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      u asked for data that showed people drove drunk, killed people, and did not get any jail. I emailed you a few links. so what do you want?

    16. Re:"oblivious..." by afabbro · · Score: 1

      The law is NOW that you're officially driving drunk when your blood alcohol level is .08. In some people that's LESS THAN ONE BEER. This has led to gestapo style checkpoints where drivers are randomly pulled aside for breathalyzer tests merely because they were at a rock concert.

      Don't feel bad, kid - in about another 10 years, you'll be past your partying years and won't care any more.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    17. Re:"oblivious..." by the_skywise · · Score: 1

      Heh... or I'll be forgetful and have bladder control issues... which is about the same as being drunk...

    18. Re:"oblivious..." by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Wait, this story is about a guy riding with a drunk driver getting killed...

      "and his passenger"

      If you choose to ride with a drunk driver, you might die.

    19. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      What is your point? i quoted real events where real people died, this is no joke. and you make light of that?

    20. Re:"oblivious..." by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      well, come on, give me an instance. Telling someone to bury themselves in research to support your own counter claim isn't debunking anything, it is shifting the subject. If you think I'm limited, then give examples. I'm left only to assume that because you didn't, you don't know what your talking about.

    21. Re:"oblivious..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have no life.

    22. Re:"oblivious..." by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      i showed numerous instances, it is correct.

    23. Re:"oblivious..." by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You didn't show anything. You said to look and the claimed something.

    24. Re:"oblivious..." by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      I don't think we need to choose to between liberty and and an obese nation. Plenty of Americans want to lose weight, but find it hard. With high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils in so many foods, it's hard to avoid eating thigs that will make us fat. Add to that our high workload, and many people find it hard to exercise enough. I think we should be limiting the amount of high-fat junk foods being available in fast-food joints, schools, vending machines, etc, and teaching our kids better habits regarding diet and exercise. If adults wants to gulp down super-size grease sandwiches every day for lunch, fine. But that doesn't mean we have to let a whole generation of kids go down with them.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    25. Re:"oblivious..." by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      His point is that when you get into a car with a drunk driver, you share a portion of the responsibility. It is like skydiving, when you jump out of the plane, if you die, it is pretty much your fault more then it is the person flying the plane or who packed your chute.

  11. Boycotts and Electronic Cash by mcelrath · · Score: 1

    I've been seriously contemplating boycotting both Visa and MasterCard recently, for all the reasons mentioned above. They are entrenched, have no interest in security (because the consumer pays for insurance anyway). And they're unavoidable (making them essentially a duopoly). I've tried to buy things without Visa or MasterCard and it makes life very hard. This is perhaps the best indication that there's a problem...that I can't avoid sending money to these companies (a situation every monopolist loves). Furthermore, the system is based around authorization. That is, you don't give people money with these transaction systems, you give them authorization to withdraw money on demand, without confirmation from you! This is just stupid.

    Through all this, we're funding organized (and disorganized) crime at a level that makes me want to cry. Organized crime will come around, once they have enough financial influence, and make our lives hell. I hope we don't have to wait for that to happen before people/governments take action. These criminals have already made email unusable. What's next?

    It's long past time. You, with all those crypto skills. Invent electronic cash. Make it secure. Make me able to give money to anyone, with both parties verifying the transaction. Make it independent of identity. Make it open and publish the specs for a prototype device (or software). Market the hell out of it. Do it 20 years ago. If that's not possible, do it now.

    --
    1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    1. Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They are entrenched, have no interest in security (because the consumer pays for insurance anyway)

      Actually the merchant usually winds up paying in cases of fraud.

      I've tried to buy things without Visa or MasterCard and it makes life very hard

      With few exceptions (renting a car or hotel room) why is it "very hard" to avoid Visa and MasterCard? Greenbacks work just fine for 99% of your day to day activities.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      With few exceptions (renting a car or hotel room) why is it "very hard" to avoid Visa and MasterCard? Greenbacks work just fine for 99% of your day to day activities.

      I live in Switzerland, and travel a lot. You mentioned car rentals and hotel rooms, this is a monthly expense for me. Airplane tickets, mail order anything, DVD rental, etc. It's a lot.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    3. Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I live in Switzerland, and travel a lot. You mentioned car rentals and hotel rooms, this is a monthly expense for me. Airplane tickets, mail order anything, DVD rental, etc. It's a lot.

      Eh, that complicates it. Travel without credit cards is possible but it's a royal pain in the ass. Would American Express be a viable alternative? They have some issues of their own but they've generally tried to take steps to fight the Visa/MC cartel (with varying degrees of success) and if they'd work for you it might make more sense to do business with them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash by mcelrath · · Score: 1

      Swiss banks only offer Visa/MC (as far as I've found). But American Express isn't a solution because from a security and fraud perspective, they're identical to Visa/MC.

      --
      1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
    5. Re:Boycotts and Electronic Cash by Joker1980 · · Score: 1

      Offtopic but here in the uk ive started to see more and more signs in shops to the effect of "all major cards accepted.....We dont not accept American Express".

      Have no idea why but its definatly a trend.

      --
      Well, Bart, your uncle Arthur used to have a saying: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
  12. Fix? by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the fix is. I know nothing will happen any time soon, but how do I protect myself? I'm not talking Lifelock or some other scam, but a real solution that gives me protection.

  13. Possible by Corpuscavernosa · · Score: 1
    While I'm sure idiocy plays into some of the security practices, it's likely that the practices are calculated. The money they make via "unsecure" administration, extending credit, etc., might greatly outweigh the cost of having to cover fraudulent purchases/reimbursements/ID theft and things of that nature. Just an idea.

    Corporate greed has a way of coming out on top, even when practices look stupid. They are making their money, even if our IDs are at risk. Which, you know, is clearly bullshit.

    --
    We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
  14. congress? by convolvatron · · Score: 1

    why does congress have to act? i'm really not a libertarian in general, but its the consumers putting up with this crap from banks, credit reporting agencies, and credit card companies that perpetuates the problem

    if only there were more room underneath my tinfoil hat for 20s

    1. Re:congress? by maxume · · Score: 1

      You can get your identity stolen by someone using a bank you have never done business with, using a credit report that you never authorized or paid any money towards (explicitly...).

      As much as anything, Congress would need to act to remove current laws that are actively hostile to consumers (i.e., a bank can treat you as if you are responsible for an account that they opened in your name without your authorization).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. Risky Behaviour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But with all that, this book must be read in the larger context of how today's society deals with, and is often oblivious to risk. When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. "

    9/11

    1. Re:Risky Behaviour. by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      no idea what 9/11 has to do with this. what do u mean by your comment?

    2. Re:Risky Behaviour. by compro01 · · Score: 1

      A prime example of poor risk assessment.

      Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, a few thousand American soldiers killed, a few hundred thousand non-Americans killed, a region effectively destabilized, all over an event that killed barely 5000 people.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Risky Behaviour. by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      and who exactly says that is a prime example of poor risk assessment??

    4. Re:Risky Behaviour. by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Um, he just told you why.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    5. Re:Risky Behaviour. by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      yes. but is that HIS opinion, or someone more respected?

    6. Re:Risky Behaviour. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted, a few thousand American soldiers killed, a few hundred thousand non-Americans killed, a region effectively destabilized, all over an event that killed barely 5000 people.

      What event would that be? All saddam did was try and stay in power in Iraq.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    7. Re:Risky Behaviour. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      I think it's a critical look at cash outlay versus the risk. So looking at 9/11, in response to N deaths (where N is somewhere between 2800 and 5000) we spent some amount of money, started two wars, both of which continue, have made ourselves less secure, and lost some of our liberties. I think it's a fair assessment to call that a gross overreaction.

      but is that HIS opinion, or someone more respected?

      Are you just looking for an opinion that you can adopt? Why not perhaps think about the situation and form your own opinion?

    8. Re:Risky Behaviour. by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      but when it comes to national security, money does not make such a differece. I don't think the DoD makes a conclusions based on dollar savings vs. lives.

    9. Re:Risky Behaviour. by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      So spending more to decrease national security is acceptable to this administration?

  16. The really sucky thing is... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    if you do get your identity stolen, it's up to YOU, the victim, to keep the documentation forever regarding everything to do with the theft - even if it's the fault of some careless company or government agency.

    Know this site and this is the ONLY tuly free credit report direct or start here. The other "free" credit report websites are just trying to sell you stuff that you don't need.

    To be truly safe from someone opening credit in your name is to freeze your credit - monitoring services are NOT as good. Here's a great guide on how to do it.

    On another note and something positive about credit, check your credit card. They may offer to double or more the manufacturer's warranty. Meaning, if you're actually considering an extended warranty, your credit card may give you the same coverage to you for free.

    But other than that, the whole credit industry seems to be geared towards sucking us in. I mean, unless you're going to drive and stay with friends and relatives, is it possible to travel without one?

    Is it possible to get a job without a credit rating now? They background checks with Choicepoint who gets their data mostly from the credit bureaus.

    What about flying? If you don't have a credit rating, are you automatically flagged as suspect?

    And as far as SSN is concerned, we're stuck with that beast. I kind of hope it does go bankrupt then maybe we can burn the things!

    1. Re:The really sucky thing is... by karlconnors · · Score: 1

      Precisely! That is what the book is all about. We could have had strong laws to protect consumers, but the lobbyists watered down the regulation.

  17. Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those wacky leftists, pointing out that Americans don't assess or address risk well. What traitors!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes it "claptrap" is that the areas mentioned are all areas where there is government intervention all out of proportion with the risk, oftentimes applied in a manner where and examination of the risk factors involved indicate that the intervention does not significantly mitigate the risk.
      Take for example drunk driving deaths, studies indicate that most fatal accidents involving alcohol involve people who have repeatedly been convicted of DUI. What is the response? Lower the legal limit for blood alcohol content.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by spun · · Score: 1

      Really? That is the only response to drunk driving? I think not. In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted. And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are. It sounds like you are cherry picking examples to support a thesis that government always makes bad decisions.

      What you haven't even BEGUN to show is how any of this is LEFTY claptrap.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This failed attempt at clever irony has been brought to you by a complete idiot.

    4. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by gnick · · Score: 1

      In my state, for instance, there have been radically harsher penalties for repeat offenders enacted.

      Not even just for repeat offenders. A single DUI in NM will bar you from driving any car without an ignition interlock - no borrowing friends' cars, no company cars, rentals, nothing (at least that's my understanding). They've also blitzed the airwaves with announcements about that policy pointing out what a PITA & embarrassment it would be to deal with. That's pretty damned brutal and seems like it should be a pretty good deterrent. We'll see how well it works out, but NM's certainly starting to respond seriously to the problem (a pretty big problem in this state).

      And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer? I think there are.

      I don't know about any studies, but I'm unsafe well before 0.08. For me, that's the equivalent of putting down a 6-pack over the course of 2 hours. Some may argue about higher tolerances in some individuals than others, but unless you want the DUI criteria to be solely the officer's assessment based on your field sobriety test, you need to set a limit. A 0.08% BAC is pretty drunk for most people and it doesn't seem unreasonable to keep the limit either there or slightly lower. Unless you weigh less than ~50 lbs, it's not enough to prevent you from going out, having a drink, and driving yourself home immediately afterward.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Adocso · · Score: 1

      But but... think of the children!!! ;-)

    6. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by spun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thanks, but you really don't need to point out that your attempt at irony failed, or that you area complete idiot. We get it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mistaken. A six pack over the course of two hours will put any human being well above 0.08% (the actual legal limit).

      0.08% is basically equivalent to 2 beers in an hour, for most people.

    8. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by gnick · · Score: 1

      Here's the calculator I was using: http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm
      There may be better ones, but it seemed fine. I was 'drinking' 12oz Imported Beer. 6 in 2 hours hit the 0.08% for me (~180 lbs). 6 in 3 hours only landed me at 0.06%.

      I got the 50 lbs mark by 'drinking' 1 beer in 0 hours, noticing that the theoretical BAC scales linearly with weight (0.02% @ 200 lbs, 0.04% @ 100 lbs), and extrapolating.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      for repeat offenders? You mean you get to kill once with no penalty?

    10. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there aren't any studies showing the lower limit is safer?

      For drivers above the age of 25, there is an 'optimal' BAC and it is NOT zero. The optimal is in the 0.02-0.04 range. Oddly, the 0.08-0.10 range is about as safe as 0.10. This is based on actual fatalities of people who choose to drink or choose not to drink. It is not taking a normally sober driver (0.00BAC) and giving them booze or vice versa. Aside from people who are clearly too inebriated, (0.12++), I'm not aware of much evidence - outside of young drivers - that would suggest changing the number between 0.00 and 0.10 is going to have much effect. Most accidents that can truly be attributed to alcohol are single-vehicle suicides. Of the so-called alchol-related fatalities which remain, these are attributed to (aside from alcohol) drugs (not alcohol - could be prescription or illegal narcotics), a passenger or victim (e.g., pedestrian) that is inebriated, a GREAT MANY in the 0.01-0.07 range, and a scattering of real drunks that actually kill innocent victims (your hypothetical teen daughter who knowingly gets into the backseat of a drunk driver is not innocent).

    11. Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      D'oh. Meant to write that 0.08-0.10 is about as safe as 0.00. True story.

  18. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by mpapet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    American society tolerates...
    There is not enough time or resources to protect people from themselves.

    identity theft will not go away .... There are too many players in the game
    Clearly the author has no immediate experience in the banking industry. The process is designed to minimize business risk. It shifts the consequences to the customer. It's intentional and the industry is quite happy with it.

    Utter the words EMV in the U.S. banking industry and you are on the wrong end of a tirade on socialist schemes, government regulation and the kitchen sink's role in harming business interests.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    1. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Kattare · · Score: 1

      Much of the consequence actually shifts to the business accepting the card. Joe Hacker orders X Widget using Bob Jones credit card, the business ships X Widget, Joe Hacker gets X Widget, Bob Jones reports it and gets his money back. Who's left holding the bag? I'll give you a hint, it's not the credit card companies... That dough gets yanked back out of the business's account, along with a handy little service charge.

      The other thing that never ceases to amaze me is that most merchants pay the credit card fees as a percentage of each transaction. It's a percentage... and yet the costs still go up over time! I don't think a year has passed without a new notification from Visa/Mastercard that they're going to be taking a slightly bigger chunk.

  19. How the US deals with "threats" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have always found it perplexing how the US is now fixated on terrorism when it is probably one of the least likely things that will kill any US Citizen (even of those serving in the armed forces, a significant number of their deaths are actually accidental).

    Obviously, I don't wish to undermine the importance of their deaths. But if saving lives is truly your main concern, then there issues that put more lives at risk.

    Terrorism isn't killing nearly as many US Citizens as fast food (and it also isn't killing nearly as many US Citizens as the US is killing others around the world for that matter). Yet look at what the US goverment is doing and what US media is fixated on. It really amazes me sometimes.

  20. What about newspapers? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    The internet and web have indeed revolutionized society, and there is hardly an industry that has not been positively affected by the net

    Were they positively affected? ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  21. Identity theft and how banks look at it by sinner6 · · Score: 1
  22. Different kinds of risk by nasor · · Score: 1

    The talk about federal tobacco subsidies, obesity, etc. isn't really applicable. Those are risks that people voluntarily accept when they choose to engage in risky behavior. That's quite different from having my bank account pilfered by a crook.

  23. "Indent" Theft ? by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

    Excellent overview on the epidemic of indent theft

    I'm not sure what "indent theft" is. Some of the code I see in my company has too little indentation. Was it stolen? If they stole some of the indent from those lines of code, why does other code in the same files have way too much?

    1. Re:"Indent" Theft ? by Jansingal · · Score: 1

      someone musta been using MS Wurd :_

    2. Re:"Indent" Theft ? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what "indent theft" is.

      Try looking at some PERL code.

  24. Great more to care about.... by FooGoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Great something else I need to care about. Why is everyone telling me that I need to care about something. Global warming, global cooling, global climate change, Obama, McCain, Clinton, Pelosi, abortion, gay marriage, paying my taxes, paying my rent, RIAA, the most recent pop tart to get drunk and flashing her cooch, Colbert, Sterwart, child pornography, identity theft, and on and on. It's not that people don't care or are comfortable with risk it's just there are too many things to care about.

    Frankly if someone wants my identity they can have it but you gotta take the whole thing because I don't fucking care anymore.

    --
    People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
    1. Re:Great more to care about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm sure someone on ebay would pay you for your 5-digit user id... ;)

    2. Re:Great more to care about.... by anup_at_mac · · Score: 0

      ... the most recent pop tart to get drunk and flashing her cooch ...

      Links/references please ....

    3. Re:Great more to care about.... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      +2Sadly Insightfull, me too dude.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  25. Qui Bono? by overshoot · · Score: 1
    No, I don't mean that the hamster is good eating.

    Keep in mind that financial institutions have only a minor interest in preventing identity theft, since the victim is legally stuck with the consequences unless s/he acts quickly -- which is often impossible since someone financing a car in my name won't exactly be sending me a notice of the fact. In fact, it could be argued that they have an incentive to make some ID theft easy since it increases business.

    The last time this came up before Congress, with the bankruptcy "reforms" of a few years ago, the main effect was to make it harder for victims of identity theft to get out of being held responsible for the thief's actions.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  26. But why even ask that question? by spun · · Score: 1

    What do you think the purpose of the original poster was in asking whether this is a book review or a political tract? It seems to imply that the OP finds the criticism offensive or off topic. As the book is about threats, a brief discussion of American risk assessment and management practices is certainly not off topic. Therefore, I believe the OP finds these criticism offensive, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  27. Easy Fix by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Just make a federal law that says consumers are NOT responsible for fradulant transactions as a result of identity theft. Period.

    All the major players would then do what is necessary to protect thir bottom line.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Easy Fix by Tsunayoshi · · Score: 1

      Um, since the credit/banking industry lobbies like crazy for laws to go their way, a law like this would never get passed.

      Politicians are not stupid, they follow the money.

      --
      "Get a bicycle. You will not regret it, if you live." - Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"
  28. Install accountability, and this will get fixed by micron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Until it costs institutions less to secure this stuff than it does in losses, this will not change.

    How do you shift this balance?
    - Make the C level folks criminally and financially liable for theft of your data (they store it and sell it, they should be on the hook to protect it).
    - Make the credit agencies financially liable for inaccuracies in their data bases. (they should be held accountable for the accuracy of the information that they are selling).

    Today, there is no real recourse for you if institutions sell lies about you, or give your private data away to all takers.

    1. Re:Install accountability, and this will get fixed by Rastl · · Score: 1

      Technically any officer of a financial institution can be held personally liable for actions undertaken by that institution. It's part of being 'an officer of the company'.

      So if you can prove negligence you technically can sue the officers of that division for willful negligence or some other charge.

      Not something they want generally known, I guess. Nor do I know how to go about doing it. But there you go. Have at.

    2. Re:Install accountability, and this will get fixed by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      .

      Today, there is no real recourse for you if institutions sell lies about you, or give your private data away to all takers.

      If you suffer harm from lies that an institution "sells" about you, you can sue them for libel and/or slander depending on who you are and what they said.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  29. Poster Apparently Not American by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 0

    Judging by the highly slanted overview of the article the posted is apparently not American.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
  30. Mo Money! Mo Money! Mo Money! by tunapez · · Score: 1

    Enforcement is profitable!

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  31. Boo hoo by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    it is doubtful that the myriad horror stories Zero Day Threat details will persuade Congress or the other players to do anything to curtail the problem with identity theft and internet fraud.

    Congress already made it illegal. See: Fraud. That's pretty much all Congress can do. We don't call them the legislative branch for nothing.

    The problem is that it's more expensive for society to enforce than to tolerate, and it's not very high on the list of "things people get upset over when it happens to a neighbor." Burglary, murder, rape, vehicular manslaughter, sure... but nobody's going to lose sleep because their neighbor was "identity thefted." Once society progresses to some sort of near-utopia where ID theft is the worst of our problems, or once it actually becomes more economical to enforce than to tolerate, I'm sure you'll see it in stump speeches and party platforms. Until then, monitor your own credit and/or lock it down. Oh, and don't give out your information to talking giraffes.

  32. Re:So much lefty claptrap compressed into one plac by taliesinangelus · · Score: 1

    So "my country, right or wrong" is a better take on the situation? That seems to be what you are implying.

  33. The nanny state mindset in its purest form by Doghouse+Riley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In which "failure to pass bunches of laws and spend taxpayer's money" is equated with "being oblivious to"

  34. It seems so elementary to me... by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but working in the financial industry may have my blinders tighter than ever.

    I recall a very basic security seminar I was in many years ago - before Microsoft was in the server business. One of the core concepts presented was the three security factors we could rely on:

    - Something you ARE - fingerprint, iris, voice, etc.
    - Something you KNOW - password, phrase, challenge response.
    - Something you HAVE - token, card, whatever...

    Any two of the three could offer good security. Asking for all three could offer very good security. Of course, we are only talking about access security here, as being forced to use all three to sign into your already-compromised workstation does not offer much data security.

    But in most credit card transactions, we have to offer at least #2 & 3, not always in that order. Adding biometrics (something you ARE) is interesting.

    Faking #3 (something you HAVE) is not so hard. Cards get copied, and actually the account number may be as good as a card in the card-not-present environment that e-commerce lives in.

    Faking #2 is the most current target of many, and they add loggers to terminals. Only a matter of time before we see wireless loggers inserted into terminals or POS devices, making it very hard for a consumer to check for the wire to 'another' device, and removing the need to go and retrieve the logger. Sending those PINs wirelessly is just too easy, only requiring a modest investment in technology. I venture there are plenty of ways to get those made for ya.

    Ultimately, for financial security, I think we need to mitigate the technological 'expediter' by introducing either more accountability or more time into the settlement process, allowing fraudulent transactions time to be rolled back and deny the crooks the funds. That is probably impossible in an environment where merchants demand faster payment, especially when merchants live on the edge of cash flow and can fail if they are denied cash over the course of days. Imagine trying to slow down the cash flow for weeks...

    Another option is faster accountability. Perhaps your cell phone is your friend here, and you get an SMS for every transaction... Imagine the thrill of seeing your purchase of two minutes ago appearing on your phone with a big "dispute this" button available. Imagine the thrill of getting that message for a purchase you *didn't* make, and killing the transaction... Imagine the potential for abuse. Not perfect.

    One key point to remember, perhaps. Theft is not new. The methods have changed. The scale is larger, but everything is.

    Is it fixable? Not if we want convenience. But hey, it used to be that people got mugged for cash. Does that happen so much any more? In a cashless society, with stricter security, are we gonna see ATMs that can tell the difference between the eyebell you use to authenticate yourself, or the eyeball the mugger just popped out of your socket?

    Hope so. I want all my biometrics to stay with me.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:It seems so elementary to me... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Perhaps your cell phone is your friend here, and you get an SMS for every transaction...

      Along these lines, my bank recently introduced a new security measure. Anytime I want to login to online banking, I enter my username and their system sends me an email with a session-specific link. Only after receiving the email, clicking the link, then entering my password can I actually get into my bank account.

      Initially I thought this was a huge pain in the ass, but having used it a number of times now, I'm really quite pleased with it. The technique essentially renders cracking and phishing ineffective in one step. Since you can't enter your password until after you've authenticated via email, there's no way to brute-force an account, and a password is useless to a phisher unless he can also read your email. Plus, if anyone else inputs my username into the bank's website, I'm going to get an email notification about it.

      I like the system and I wish this sort of challenge/response session validation would catch on with more financial institutions.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:It seems so elementary to me... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      What bank is this?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:It seems so elementary to me... by dosboot · · Score: 1

      What is the name of your bank?

    4. Re:It seems so elementary to me... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Memphis Area Teachers Credit Union. Their online banking product uses FundsXpress, so similar security may be in place at other institutions using that vendor.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  35. wow by Sir_Real · · Score: 1

    If you need a book to tell you that a corporation that exists solely to increase shareholder wealth gives one flying fuck about you or your information, I have a Nigerian Prince who would LOVE to make your acquaintance.

  36. The epidemic of stolen punctuation by voltheir · · Score: 1

    Summary in the big ol' green box: "Excellent overview on the epidemic of indent theft" We cannot continue to allow these thieves to steal our indents! Let my punctuation go!

  37. SSNs by Hoplite3 · · Score: 1

    I think the hardest part of this problem to look at is the idea of national identification. National banking and credit institutions need a way to identify individuals. They've chosen the not-so-private SSN as the number of choice. It works in the sense that it is largely unique per person, but is fantastically easy to fake.

    Better identification would almost certainly translate into more government involvement. There's always been a healthy opposition to a national ID card, but just such a thing could stop identity "theft". The price would be stoopidly easy government monitoring of your movements. I'm envisioning a card that does some cryptography allowing you to cryptographically sign agreements for credit, etc. If fraud charges show up, you could show that the signature on the change is incorrect. Of course, such a card could be stolen, but its loss would be obvious and it could be dealt with. SSNs can simply be copied.

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    1. Re:SSNs by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Nobody says you have to use your SSN to authorize yourself. When I first came to the US and tried to open a bank account, I didn't have a SSN yet. They told me to use my phone number which magically has exactly the same number of digits. I've been using it ever since for transactions (phone and cable companies) that don't require my financial history to be verified, of course they won't give me a credit line larger than $300 but that's no problem for those transactions since the bill shouldn't amount to more than that.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  38. Think of the children.. And other reasons to worry by Cyner · · Score: 1

    People worry too much as it is. Some of us need to be more oblivious to the problems of the world. I'm not suggesting that nobody does anything about our problems, but every person does not need to worry about every single problem. Sometimes we're happier not knowing!

    Everyone wants to scare us into doing something, usually buying a product. Take some time to relax, you'll live longer.

    --
    FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
  39. Do they want us to all have bad credit? by swb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that the entire credit complex is designed to make sure that very few people have good credit and that it is trivially easy to lower a person's credit rating so that the cost of borrowing is increased. Even on the surface the system seems rigged -- credit bureaus get paid for access to their records by the very people who loan money out, thus they have a financial incentive to make sure that their ratings are as low as possible so as to maximize the profits of those loaning out the money.

    I say this because it seems like every time I turn around there is some new attempt to evaluate (and ultimately lower) the credit score of people. The first one that comes to mind is the slight reduction every time you *apply* for credit, even if you don't take it. The second (which I believe was rebuffed here in MN) was the attempt to use driving records to help set credit ratings.

    And now its identity theft, where the onus is on the consumer to use a complex and difficult system to "repair" their credit ratings which countless stories would indicate is nearly impossible to do, even a decade later.

    In some ways its like the grade on a curve vs. straight percentage debate -- the credit industry seems to want to grade us on a curve, regardless of how many of us score 95% on the test, thus minimizing the pool of people who are eligible for the best interest rates.

  40. Typical Idle by AlpineR · · Score: 1

    Man, this is the least funny Bottom of the Barrel book review yet.

  41. near-epidemic by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

    That's called Pandemic.

  42. your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    communism = Nazism? really?

  43. AT LAST!!!... by ljwest · · Score: 1

    An author who understands that the word "myriad" is in fact an adjective and not a noun.

    1. Re:AT LAST!!!... by mweather · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not according to Webster.

  44. Re:Review ? HFCS is EVIL! by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    I so agree with you. High fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats are devastatingly bad. Don't buy them. Vote with your wallet!!

  45. These guys are spot on.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the finance industry were to strongly authenticate users, instead of cheaping out with cards and net pictures or other ineffective schemes, but put hardware (tokens preferably in card form) in customer hands, and use them together with some human operation on all or part of the display, they could know that the person on the other end of the line had the card and knew a pattern or something. Using such things to authenticate customers (as opposed to identifying them) would make faking accounts nearly impossible and would make use of phished information basically infeasible because the authenticator would change every time. To do this you need to authenticate both ways and preferably check the authentication at the end of a transaction. Were this done, much of the money that funds malware development and comes of id theft would dry up. Users would need to be more involved than now in guarding their information, but with no more difficulty than they have in signing a check or document, and in fact with less difficulty. The electronics is basically what is in RFIDs today that do authentication, plus some flexible displays. That is cheap - few bucks worth - in quantity, if institutions insisted. There is no need for full blown CPUs or other fancy stuff and the costs of the parts drops daily. However, people don't demand these sorts of things much because they are not out there yet. Clamor for real strong authentication, not the half measure kludges sold today that don't use hardware, might change that. Eventually fraud losses might force it anyway. You note that CAPTCHAs are getting solved. Other "machine token" schemes are vulnerable to worms and a few more of those getting broken might just cause the whole class of these schemes to be junked. I suspect though that fear of change and of customers who don't want to do anything different has more to do with lack of change than any evil intent.

  46. Mod book -1 redundant? by T3Tech · · Score: 1

    Umm... the Shocking Truth of How Banks and Credit Bureaus Help Cyber Crooks Steal Your Money and Identity ? oooh ahhh

    I didn't even bother to read the summary which seems to be topic for the majority of posts so far. Sensationalist title might get the average Joe interested, but I tend to think most of the ./ crowd are already quite well aware of "how banks and credit bureaus help cyber crooks steal your money and identity" and it's not all that shocking.

    Hell, a book with that title could probably consist of nothing more than ./ comments which are related to the subject.

    --
    Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
  47. Typical Slashdot misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Typical Slashdot misinformation by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the report? From the linked report:

      There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 â" 39 percent of the total traffic fatalities for the year.

      According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

      Now, if you look at how the figures are computed (anyone present at the scene of the accident has some booze in them) and then note that the NHTSA adds a fudge factor because not everyone is tested, you will realize that we don't actually know the true number, but it's certainly less than 17000. 1000 is as well supported as any, and I don't believe it's all that far off. Since you haven't got anything to support your numbers, I'll keep mine.

      As a parting shot, I'll mention that the organization pushing for ever stiffer penalties and wider bans on DUI (MADD) are mainly interested in making it impossible to drink at all. DUI fatalities aren't a big part of traffic accidents, at least not according to any hard data (there is none), and the people that are actually dangerous tend to not have a license anymore and drive at .15 or more. Basically, DUI laws are way beyond the point where they actually improve safety.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  48. troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call troll on the entire article. There's no way this guy is that dumb... He's obviously fishing. how else do you go on a tirade about how we're ignoring all of the issues the government and even private institutions seem to spend all of their time dealing with.

    Don't feed the trolls.

    And fi on the moderators for letting the trolls live under the bridge.

  49. STAND UP AGAINST MOD ABUSE, MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday, this was labeled +4 Insightful, because it is.

    Today it's down to "0 Troll"??? The only reason I can possibly see is an anti-Obama sig, and there are PLENTY of pro-Obama sigs running around.

    Shame on the Slashdotters for allowing this rampant abuse of the mod system to go on.

    1. Re:STAND UP AGAINST MOD ABUSE, MOD PARENT UP by M1rth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that - every post from this one person in the discussion is being downmodded.

      I agree with the AC, it looks a hell of a lot like someone/someone(s) with a pro-Obama stance and mod points are abusing the system and downmodding because of their opponent's signature.

      The point being made, that the banks and credit card companies have a financial incentive to allow fraudulent transactions to occur (because they make money if the customer doesn't detect them), is insightful and not "trolling" at all.

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
  50. PCI not controversial? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The payment card industries standard 1.1 states that AV software has to be installed on every box (especially servers and personal computers), but also clears that UNIX boxes and mainframes don't need to fall under that rule and so don't need AV software.

    Currently, PCI 1.2 is in the works and there's already a brief overview on the changes.

    So far, the guys kicked that UNIX/mainframe excemption and extended that AV rule by "must address all known forms of malicious software".

    So, when I'm running a few Cisco ASA routers on my network (which basicly are Cisco appliances running linux), I am supposed to either get AV software for those boxes?
    And the AV software on my windows boxes doesn't scan for Linux rootkits - do I even have a chance to get the PCI 1.2 compliance?

    On the other hand, PCI 1.1 is currently perfectly fine with a WLAN running WEP "encryption" and PCI 1.2 is said to state that you should change any WLAN from the long-broken WEP-obfuscation to WPA-encryption by at least 2010.

    If you're running a web application, you're only to required to run reviews on this applications code or sanitzing input for SQL injections and the like when this web application is facing the internet. As long as that application sits on some internal network, you're perfectly PCI compliant.
    Well, galf a year ago, credit card details of 4.2 million Hannaford Bros customers were stolen - not by some employee sniffing at the right points, but from some malware exploiting a vulnerability in the Hannaford Bros-internal credit card application.

    The PCI standard also states "one primary function per server".
    Well, some virtualizations like OpenVZ/Virtuozzo may not seem "that" secure (you can attach to the guest OS from the host box, sniffing traffic or processed kernel code "for free"), but others (HVM solutions like VMware or Xen) quite clearly are "strong enough".
    But wether you'll be failing or getting PCI compliance by running a dozen virtualized servers on a physical box is merely a matter of the auditing company you've chosen.

    Which brings me to the last point: getting PCI standard compliance means that you're paying some PCI-approved auditing company, who you've chosen on your own and who do turn checks various boxes (either "in place" or "not in place") in some form, mail the form to the council and wait for the response.

    Excuse me, but such things are plain nuts.

  51. Re:Think of the children.. And other reasons to wo by ReedYoung · · Score: 1

    People worry too much as it is.

    Worst of all are the ones who are preoccupied with whether others are worrying about too many things.

    --
    "I can't imagine how things could get any worse!" (some guy) "That could just be failure of imaginatioÂn on your p