Slashdot Mirror


Target Hackers Have More Data Than They Can Sell

itwbennett writes "The hackers who stole millions of credit card numbers from Target customers are probably 'laying low knowing that everyone is looking for them,' says Alex Holden, who runs cybercrime consultancy Hold Security. But it's also likely that they can't sell them: 'You can imagine that having a lot of stolen credit cards will not net the hackers, say $35 per card for all 40 million,' said Holden. 'Even if the hackers are willing to sell cards for $1 a card, no one will buy the stolen goods in these amounts.'"

74 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Proposal for new *coin by relisher · · Score: 2, Funny

    The TargetCardCoin

    1. Re:Proposal for new *coin by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      Don't they already offer The Red Coin?

  2. Stupid People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can always reduce things. They can sell a smaller subsets.

    1. Re:Stupid People by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the buyers know (roughly) how many cards are available. The media has seen to that. So they know its a buyers' market.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Stupid People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is so fucking obvious that it is really really sad somebody had to point it out.

    3. Re:Stupid People by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can always reduce things. They can sell a smaller subsets.

      This. Thefuck is this article? The guy who broke the breach also pointed out where the cards were getting sold at too. This article is a muse on a blog by a supposed "pundit" (pundit, n.: one whose insistence of credibility is the only thing greater than their ignorance).

    4. Re:Stupid People by Fnord666 · · Score: 1
      What do you expect from a guy who says the following:

      Cybercriminals often advertise the kind of data they've captured from the card's magnetic stripe, which has three so-called "tracks," each containing data.

      News flash. They are called tracks because they are tracks on a magnetic recording tape. Nothing "so called" about it.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    5. Re:Stupid People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's also fucking obvious that the second set they sell will be worth about 10 cents since everyone will have canceled their cards by then.

    6. Re: Stupid People by Redmancometh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention this, but I think they single-handedly killed the market. Think about it...no one knows all of the CC numbers yet. Not only should no one buy off of those guys, but no one knows who those guys are. So if say 80% of the cards are cancelled there are now 32 million legitimate useless credit card numbers out there.

      No one is going to trust anyone. I have a feeling this is going to do the blackhat community quite a blow.

    7. Re:Stupid People by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      News flash. They are called tracks because they are tracks on a so called "magnetic recording tape". Nothing "so called" about

      FTFY

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    8. Re: Stupid People by BosstonesOwn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As some one who deals with security on a daily basis, I have seen tools to prevent this.

      What happens is someone advertises say 10 K cards for sale. They actually package 15 K cards in the pack, when the user gets the pack they have a robot ap that goes and makes purchases from shops that are on the internet and are known to be able to easycard fraud friendly. The robots order something quickly like a $20 cable or piece of merchandise. If its declined the card is dropped from the database.

      Once all the cards are checked if the buy has close to 10 K they don't care. If less then say 8 K they get another chunk of 4 K to go at again. Until they get close to the 10 K they were promised. This is how the good groups do it. The ones who don't care just sell in chunks of 5 K to 10 K with no guarantees.

      Now they also can use another system for cards to do quick transactions checks just like paypal would do to check if the card is valid. Small bump purchase then issue a refund if they want to hide from the owner of the card.

      I have to monitor these "groups" as I need to make sure that none of my servers are being used in their scams. A good security guy keeps his eye on everything ! And yes we monitor IRC and other methods of chatter to see if any of our servers have been compromised.

      --
      This package Does Not Contain a Winner
    9. Re: Stupid People by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      There is still the initial transaction. It's not hard to anonymize on the internet.

    10. Re: Stupid People by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Especially if they have a lot of smurfs selling for them.

  3. So what? by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

    Maybe they did it for the lulz.

    --
    - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
  4. Seeing that by Kardos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    next to everybody's card has been stolen, is it time for everybody to get a new card? It'll make the stolen database worthless, as well as all other databases of stolen credit cards...

    1. Re:Seeing that by An+dochasac · · Score: 2

      This is similar to what Northern Irish banks did after the Northern bank robbery got away with 26 million pounds sterling a few years ago. They recalled all of the northern Irish cash. Rumor is that a member of the political wing of the old IRA was spotted burning cash in his back garden. This becomes much easier with credit cards and digital currency but isn't too difficult in a small country where banks are able to issue individually identifiable notes (much as the US once did.)

  5. Probably not worth a dollar... by jddeluxe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My bank (Chase) has sent out new cards to anyone that had a transaction at Target during the time period they indicated of the breach, and many other banks/financial institutions have done likewise. The value of the purloined data is heading towards nil quickly.

    1. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is not true. Chase has not sent everyone a card. My wife had two transactions at target on two different debit cards and has not received a new card from either bank.

    2. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah but those are debit cards not credit cards. If stuff happens with your wife's debit cards it's her money that's gone and she has to try to get it back from the bank/merchant.

      Whereas if they were credit cards, if stuff happens it's the bank/merchant's money that's gone and they'd have to try to get the money from her or their insurer or eat the loss.

      See the difference in urgency? ;)

    3. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Because the bank still has to cover it if it's stolen. The only thing that makes debit cards more painful is that you can bounce checks not realizing someone has made charges against it.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    4. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by jddeluxe · · Score: 2

      Mine was a Chase debit card, everyone else I know that is with Chase got an unsolicited new card if they shopped at Target during the breach period. If you fall into the same category and haven't received one I'd recommend contacting them.

    5. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by grim4593 · · Score: 1

      I have a debit card from TCF bank and they sent out notices that their VISA debit cards were covered by the same VISA zero-liability-policy as their credit cards. Regardless, I didn't purchase anything at Target.

    6. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The value of the purloined data is heading towards nil quickly.

      I just got a robo call today that I'll be getting a new credit card (number) soon.
      My current number will still be good till the end of the month.

      So at least for my issuer, that's how long the criminals have to commit some fraud.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

      Thats what I was thinking. Many people I know had received new cards and the old ones deactivated. I guess even if 20% of these old cards are still valid, thats still a huge number. Some banks like Chase even have setup phones lines just to deal with target related calls. Myself, my card number was stolen from Harbor Freight Tools in October in a nation wide security breach.

    8. Re:Probably not worth a dollar... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      That depends on your bank. A lot of reasonable institutions don't have different policies regarding credit/debit regarding fraud. If your bank sucks like this, time for a new bank.

      A lot of banks CLAIM to have the same policy (zero liability for debits cards, etc.), the reality of the matter is that getting the money back into your account with debit card fraud can be a significant hassle (and can take awhile). With credit, the money has never officially left YOUR account yet.

      Absolutely no reason to use a debit card unless you're literally taking cash out of your account at an ATM. The protections just aren't as good as credit cards, plus if you always pay them off, it doesn't cost anything (in fact, it often pays you with rewards).

  6. De Beers and OPEC by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And now you understand the dilemma of De Beers and OPEC, which have more diamonds and oil than they know what to do with and trickle them to the market to keep the price up.

  7. What me worry? by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    So they dump a small portion of them for free all over the place. If some who use it get busted it's a smoke screen but they can claim they're freedom fighting Robyn Hoods or something. My bank can only dock me $50 except that I have a plan that is free which means I don't get docked squat the bank eats it.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    1. Re:What me worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So they dump a small portion of them for free all over the place. If some who use it get busted it's a smoke screen but they can claim they're freedom fighting Robyn Hoods or something.

      You took that right out of the Ed Snowden game plan, didn't you? ;)

    2. Re:What me worry? by TheloniousToady · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the merchant eats it - at least that's been my experience as a merchant. The ingestion process is called a chargeback. It's one reason why credit card issuers are so glad to make refunds to consumers. Merchants live in fear of chargebacks because not only do they lose the revenue, they also have to pay a penalty.

      As a merchant, you quickly figure out that it's best to accommodate any request for a refund, even if you think you're being treated unfairly. For example, I recently had a customer in another country who asked me to pay his local taxes on the sale I had just made to him. So I gave him a refund for the amount of the tax. Easy decision.

      (I shouldn't be telling you folks this, it's supposed to be a dirty little secret. Don't tell anybody else.)

    3. Re:What me worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chargebacks are definitely annoying for physical merchants, but are even worse if you're selling stuff online or have a presence in more than one state. I did some work for a company that sells specialized sports equipment and has stores in four or five states, as well as selling things at various events. The problem was that due to the way their payment system worked, they had to present their physical location - their main store in my state - on every transaction. So many people who bought things on the road would see that their card had been charged by a merchant in another state and immediately charge back thinking they'd been the victims of fraud, and most of the time their card companies would issue the chargeback even though there was no solid proof of fraud and all of the people who had purchased things had a receipt for the same amount that was charged to their card somewhere with the company's address on it.

      As for parent, I recall my boss telling me something about retail: It would be better to pay roughly 20% of the people who buy from you to walk away rather than deal with them, because the problems they'll have will ultimately cost you more.

    4. Re:What me worry? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BITCOINS for the WIN! :P

    5. Re:What me worry? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The onus is upon the merchant to prove the charge was legit. For an in-store transaction, this usually means a copy of the signature on the credit card receipt. You send that to the credit card clearinghouse, they compare it to the signature the credit card company provides, and decide if the cardholder really made the purchase or not.

      For online transactions, you're pretty much SOL. The credit card companies provide tools to let you try to confirm the cardholder is legit before completing the transaction. e.g. Compare billing address and phone number to that provided by the purchaser (this is why gas station pumps require you to type in a zip code - they're not trying to collect marketing data, it's cross-checking what you type with the zip code on file for the card). The better cards also keep a list of authorized shipping addresses on file, and the merchant can decline the sale if the shipping address for the order doesn't match that on file. But if the customer makes a chargeback, all you can do is show the clearinghouse that you used the tools they provided and hope they decline the chargeback. Usually the customer wins no questions asked, and the merchant just eats the loss as a cost of doing business (like shoplifting).

      The banks and credit card companies have done a pretty good job making sure they don't pay anything for fraud (except the customer support rep's wages), all while charging exorbitant interest and fees purportedly to combat fraud. (In their defense, the interest and fees do pay for a different type of fraud - non-payment from customers, though I still think it's excessive.)

    6. Re:What me worry? by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      From a merchant's point of view, a system like Bitcoin that puts the merchants back in control of refunds sure sounds appealing. However, I believe most customers appreciate the security of having a third party like a credit-card issuer to go to when there is a dispute. In starker terms, customers enjoy the power they currently hold. So, if the use of Bitcoin eliminates fraudulent chargebacks but reduces overall sales, it still may not be in the merchant's best interest.

      Also, from the merchant's point of view, the idea of a totally anonymous transaction isn't very appealing. If your customers know that you know who they are, maybe they'll be a little kinder to you in terms of post-sale behavior like spreading word of mouth and demanding refunds. Just a theory.

    7. Re:What me worry? by TheloniousToady · · Score: 2

      The onus is upon the merchant to prove the charge was legit. For an in-store transaction, this usually means a copy of the signature on the credit card receipt. You send that to the credit card clearinghouse, they compare it to the signature the credit card company provides, and decide if the cardholder really made the purchase or not.

      In light of that, it fascinates me that those electronic signature gizmos at stores work so badly. Half the time, I can't even recognize my own signature because half of it's missing. I guess signature comparisons to dispute chargebacks must not happen very often - I assume that merchants just roll over and die most of the time. The fact that we're all faithfully made to sign on those things probably is just psychology to make us feel like we can't commit friendly fraud by disputing our own purchases.

    8. Re:What me worry? by black6host · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As for parent, I recall my boss telling me something about retail: It would be better to pay roughly 20% of the people who buy from you to walk away rather than deal with them, because the problems they'll have will ultimately cost you more.

      Somehow, as a favor to someone, I ended up managing the operations of a service based company for a short period of time. We would have customers that constantly were saying: "Do you know who I am?" Usually the past, past, past president of some condo association. Or customers who thought we'd starve without their business and make all kinds of unreasonable demands that would result in a loss to us. We'd let that happen maybe two or three times and when it became apparent that the customer's behavior was chronic I would simply tell them that our goal was to satisfy our customers in every way and obviously we were unable to meet their needs. We valued their satisfaction and felt they would be better served by another company. I'd then suggest a competitor for them to call. The reactions were priceless! They couldn't believe they were being "fired". It helped us two ways. First, it freed up our resources to service the customers who appreciated being treated fairly (and we really were service oriented, money back guarantee on everything.) Second, by the time our competitor figured out what kind of customer they just took on they had suffered the loss.

      This was a service industry where there was more work to do than we had people to do it so there really was no loss to us in culling the bad ones. Offtopic I know but maybe someone will benefit from our experience.

  8. It has arrived! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Security through Ubiquity!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:It has arrived! by ebno-10db · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's the latter day corollary to hiding something in plain sight.

  9. Spoiler alert by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    The data was stolen by the company that prints the replacement cards.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  10. Uh, it's not 40 million... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's 110 million. Yes about 1/3 of the U.S. population has used a credit card at Target. I pray they don't hit Wal Mart.

    1. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well given how successful this was on a Windows based POS system, just imagine all the restaurants, and bars that might be compromised too. I'm in agreement with what others have said; we need to go to the Chip-and-PIN system. If we are going to be replacing CC for potentially hundreds of millions of people, now is the time to make the switch. If the bank wants to charge me a few extra bucks for a fancy new card, do it. I'd rather have the peace of mind after this fiasco.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by baker_tony · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait, American's aren't using chip and pin yet?

    3. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Fear of change is not applicable in this case. As with converting to the metric system, the holdback from Chip-and-PIN is pure momentum of an established system. That, and the up-front cost to make the change. Everyone I knows agrees that the metric system is better, but we're kinda stuck with it because a concerted effort to change is a vast undertaking. To do so would be the equivalent of an American Moonshot part II. The very idea is epic in its own right.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      They'll get to it. Right after they switch to metric

    5. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by cusco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Our banks are run by people who play "executive musical chairs". If something will save the bank a million dollars over the next ten years, but nothing for the first three years, it won't get implemented because the executives will have rotated out to another company by the time the savings could affect their quarterly bonuses. Chip and pin would cost the banks money to implement, so it won't happen until you get a set of executives who can see further than the next board meeting.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    6. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      The 110m number is comprised of 40m credit and debit cards as well as personal data of 70m individuals. The latter includes names, addresses, phone, and email records but not credit/debit card.

      The 40m cards is not 40m customers, as customers may have used multiple cards during the breach. The 70m customer with stolen personal data also likely has a huge overlap with the 40m cards.

      I can guarantee that almost all of that personal data is very readily available on public lists already, diminishing the impact as well as value of that portion of the data.

    7. Re:Uh, it's not 40 million... by causality · · Score: 1

      Same-sex and weed have fuck all to do with establishing standards of measurement.

      You saw all the trees and asked where the forest is. That happens far too often on this site because too many of you want to find fault with the other guy so you can feel clever.

      The (slightly) abstract principle here is that overcoming inertia in order to effect change is often difficult no matter what that change may be or how overdue it is. That's what the otherwise unrelated issues of same-sex couples, legalization of marijuana, and implementing the metric system all have in common. You'd have noticed that if you were looking for it.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  11. lying low by contrapunctus · · Score: 2

    ugh! lying low not laying low.

  12. I thought card data was already being sold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Supposedly one bank had already figured out the Target hack happened before Target announced it by buying back some of their own card data and checking the common point of purchase:
    http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/12/cards-stolen-in-target-breach-flood-underground-markets/

  13. Plastic is the past by aacool · · Score: 1

    To borrow from the Graduate, plastic has no future - is it really necessary to possess physical plastic cards and scan them? Not at all, the future is biometric/electronic/e-wallets and in at least one large retailer's case, regular customers will be able to walk out of the door without ever approaching a cash register.

    1. Re:Plastic is the past by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "in at least one large retailer's case, regular customers will be able to walk out of the door without ever approaching a cash register."

      rfid tags and 'walk through' charging is dubious at best. imagine a small smartphone app that jams the rfid tag signal with its own, at close range quite a bit can be stolen.

  14. Really? by crioca · · Score: 1

    I find this difficult to believe; for one the data can simply be sold off in smaller chunks, and secondly because there exist fences for this type of product that would be willing to purchase the data at a low-ball price and sit on it until the right buyer is found.

    1. Re:Really? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Moreover the data has to be sold in chunks anyway. The card info pretty much has to be used in the region in which it was purloined. They don't have the CCV codes, so mostly they will need to make counterfeit cards and use them at physical locations, online will be difficult. There is already evidence the cards are being used in the region they were stolen from, and that makes sense to do otherwise would trip everyone's fraud monitoring.

      So they are not trying to sell the whole grab to anyone to begin with.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  15. They're doing it wrong by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Since it sounds like we are near the point where everybody's credit card will need replacing anywayâ¦. how about this?

    Under the current credit card system, when I want to purchase something from Target (or from anybody else), I send them my name, credit card number, billing address, and security code. Anyone who has this information is able to bill any number of charges to my account, in any amount, for as long as they want to (or until I catch on and cancel the card).

    That seems like a bit too much power. What I'd like instead is the ability to send information that the holder of that information can only use once, to initiate a single transaction, for a specified amount, and (ideally) only to a specified destination account. That way if (okay, when) some miscreant gets ahold of the data I sent, the damage they can do is limited to the amount specified in that one transaction -- I won't have to replace my credit card, and I won't have to fight the credit company to get thousands of dollars in charges reversed.

    Given that it's 2014 already (the future!), surely a system like this (or better) is possible? Build it around BitCoin if you have to, they seem to manage it just fine.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  16. An embarrassment of riches by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

    Not a bad problem to have from a hacker's point of view. As Mae West said, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."

  17. garbage by csumpi · · Score: 1

    This is stupid. Starting with the title:

    "Target Hackers Have More Data Than They Can Sell" - so what? And based on what? Any guarantees?

    "But it's also likely that they can't sell them" - but that leaves the possibility that they can, right?

    "no one will buy the stolen goods in these amount" - why not? And why would they need to sell ALL to the same buyer? Couldn't they sell them in batches?

    .

    1. Re:garbage by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      We need to think of this like spam, where the cost of sending the second and subsequent spam messages is negligible. Even if these guys can't sell 95% of the card numbers they collected, it did not cost them much to collect them. Even to sell 1% of their take at $35 ea. is a lot of money. The volume is key here.

  18. Implying by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    Implying they haven't been selling them in smaller batches.

  19. What is the point of this article? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    I mean, if you are in business of stealing something to sell, you can never have "too much". You just have to sell in packets or whatever is the usual instead of advertizing "hey! Anybody wanna buy 110 million CCs wink, wink, nudge, nudge!".
    But most importantly, they had been stealing at least since November. And CCs are a "commodity" with an expiration date. You think if they wanted to sell them they have sat on them for all these months (when there was supposedly no "problem" finding buyers), waiting for something?
    Low article even for /.
    Not that I read it of course ;) The summary was too much already!

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  20. LOL by bloggerhater · · Score: 1

    Bull. They will be selling these numbers for months. Many of the people who were impacted by this will never follow up by changing credit cards and pins. A large percentage of these numbers will remain valid until used.

      What we are going to see is more large scale attacks because these gray and black hat hackers have access to vast resources. Stolen credit cards are a favorite for buying cloud hosting.

  21. Chip and PIN instead of BitCoin by MacTechnic · · Score: 1

    I think that the current US magnetic strip EMV credit card days are numbered.

    Some form of two factor authentication should follow, which limits the vulnerability of the card information. Most european EMV credit cards use a Chip and PIN method of authentication, but the expense of these cards have been a deal breaker so far.

    The heist is so big, I sometimes wonder, if it was done to destabilize the current US credit card system.

    1. Re:Chip and PIN instead of BitCoin by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      The Credit "industry" is one of the few big industries the USA still has. Cheap bastards never had a legitimate excuse - they simply do not want to spend the money or be the 1st one and compete with that extra overhead.

      If they really cared about the issue and their losses (which I'm sure they have clever uses for,) they would LOBBY the US Government and regulation mandating chips would have happened already. The losses have to be significant enough.

      Given the CIA was involved a while ago already and it likely has at least international implications that politicians are going to want to do something about it.

  22. Paranoid much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What kind of awful bank / credit card company do you have that charges you a replacement fee? I literally replaced my debit card and credit card without any fee, and my debit card was even replaced with a temporary one free of charge.

    Furthermore, most of them would likely prefer to send out a card rather than have to deal with claims of account fraud, which costs them money to investigate as well as to eventually replace.

    I'm no fan of the banks, but this is ridiculous.

    1. Re:Paranoid much? by ubergeek2009 · · Score: 2

      My bank sent me a replacement debit card in the mail without charge and without even asking. I just got a letter apologizing saying that my card may have been compromised, so they sent me a replacement the same way they would have if my card had expired, so no charge and a new card with a new number.

  23. Nothing's changed... by jasno · · Score: 1

    Let's face it - credit cards are insecure. They always have been, and they still are. I have long operated under the assumption that all of my cards are compromised, but that someone hasn't gotten around to making use of them yet. Even 20+ years ago when I was trading cards using stolen voicemail boxes, we had more cards than we knew what to do with. Sure, there are organized gangs now using smurfs to work the cards, but they're still few in number. When you have say, 1/2 of all credit cards at your disposal, it's going to take you quite a while to go through them all, gang or no gang.

    Until the economics change, the financial companies have no incentive to change things. Adding another step to a credit card transaction which reduces convenience, leading to even a infinitesimal amount of spending reduction, could easily cost more than all of the fraud combined.

    --

    http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
  24. Re:It's not the *coin dealers that are profiting by ArbitraryName · · Score: 1

    Where the hell do you bank? I once had a bank that charged me a very nominal fee (like $5) if I wanted to replace a card out of cycle because it was worn or damaged, but never for routine or fraud related replacements. A $50 charge would be outrageous and unheard of. My current bank just out of the blue sent my wife and I new cards with a letter about the compromise. Only one of our two cards had even been used at Target so I guess they just reissued en masse. We were certainly not charged,

  25. only in theory. call the customer by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Theoretically, yes. Practically, it doesn't happen.
    You sell something. 40 days later, the customer calls their bank. The bank mails a form, which the customer receives 10 days later. They fill it in and mail it back. 14 days later, the bank deducts the amount from the merchant's receipts. Ten days after that, the merchant receives a letter saying they've been charged back for a transaction that occurred over two months ago. They money has already been taken from them, subtracted from recent sales.

    IF the merchant digs up a signed receipt, they can start the process to dispute the chargeback. 90 days later they'll just get another letter saying the customer now says the product wasn't as advertised.

    What HAS worked for me, in a small business, is to call the customer and start some friendly small talk. "Hi George, it's Ray from bettercgi.com. How was your vacation? ...". After establishing that human contact so the customer sees me as an actual person, I mention the chargeback. "I wanted to see if there was a misunderstanding because the bank sent me a letter saying you filed a fraud report against me...". When they are reminded of what the charge is for, I used to ask them to call the bank and cancel the chargeback. That involves the bank mailing another form for them to fill out, so that never ended up working. Now, I just get them to repay the amount. I end up eating the chargeback fee of about $39, plus the double processing fees. I then CALL them 20 days later and REMIND them what the charge is for because people who forget and charge back once tend to forget and charge back again.

    As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.

  26. The Silver Lining by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't shoot someone then leave the goods laying there on the floor like idiots. Good for them, and go to jail. There are laws against that kind of griefing in this MMO.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  27. www.buyastolencreditcard.com by GauteL · · Score: 1

    Now you too can own stolen credit card to buy all your online pr0n! All for the limited cost of $1. Nothing could be easier! Simply pay by Credit Card! No hassle!

  28. Re:It's not the *coin dealers that are profiting by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Even if the "service charge" is only $50 per card,

    Hmmmm...

    (a) Limits on liability
    (1) A cardholder shall be liable for the unauthorized use of a credit card only if—
    (A) the card is an accepted credit card;
    (B) the liability is not in excess of $50;

    So, do I pay $50 to the bank right now, or do I risk possibly, maybe being liable for up to $50 later on? I can't decide.

  29. Check my card number by mikehilly · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have that website handy where you can enter your card number to see if it was stolen? That could be pretty helpful for people to figure out their risk level here...

    1. Re:Check my card number by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Does anyone have that website handy where you can enter your card number to see if it was stolen? That could be pretty helpful for people to figure out their risk level here...

      Sure, reply to this message and I'll look it up for you.

      Of course, you might want to really consider what you're asking here... if a website claimed to have a list, they could use your lookup to verify your data. If they don't, they could use your lookup to add it to the list.

      If you're not sure, call your bank. They'll issue you a new card. (The CC numbering system has been extended a decade ago, there's plenty of numbers to go around).

  30. Re:only in theory. call the customer by causality · · Score: 1

    As a consumer, please keep in mind your credit card provides strong protection from FRAUD. When you call the bank and charge back, you are accusing someone of fraud.

    Or (unrealted to the Target hacks) of having an unreasonable returns policy that is not consistent with what the sales guy promised. So yes, I suppose that is fraud, though incompetence is a more likely explanation.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  31. Get the whole bundle for $35? by dunnomattic · · Score: 2

    Does the stolen-card pusher take plastic?

    1. Buy 1 stolen card for $35
    2. Buy x stolen cards using a previously acquired stolen card
    3. Wash/Rinse/Repeat
    4. ???
    5. Profit

    --
    ...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.