The laws/contract surrounding this are at fault. Either these are legal, authorised deductions, or they are not.
It seems entirely perverse that Banks will accept and action unauthorised charges to your account. I would suspect that in many countries other than the US, the complainant would have been covered for the total losses.
Blame the system that allows this, as the contract/laws which protect the bank, not the punter account holder.
The transactions aren't considered authorized, since you don't have to set up anything with the company and the bank. They're considered "pre-authorized".
There are laws/policies = that protect the consumer and the bank. Within 60 days you should be able claim it was not an authorized transaction, the bank credits your account, and gets a credit from the Federal Reserve.
Is it not the bank's responsibility to maintain security and keep secure transactions?
Then... Why the limitation of 50k$ when FDIC covers 100$k ?
ACH is more like a network than a bank owned commerce industry. It's the method by which the the transactions take place, as opposed to over the teller line, via ATM, etc. The bank is required to maintain it's end of the security of the ACH chain: it's networks, the terminal end points, and to oversee that things balance. The problem with this kind of fraud is that it requires account holders to be vigilant.
Most banks will allow you to specify an account to not receive ACH debits. If you're not going to be reviewing the statements regularly, this is something you probably want to do.
How is that a problem with IGE? It sounds like the game's screwed up if it's possible for 30-40 people to prevent anyone else from getting the item.
It is a problem only in part with IGE. From what I can tell, IGE is sort of like an item/money/account broker. Where they make their Real Life money from the transfer of In Game items/money/accounts. While IGE has claimed in the past that they don't employ others to retrieve the in game items, they certainly do facilitate the sale of these items no matter how they were obtained. In truth, it's the griefers who are the most noticable effect of the service that IGE provides.
Selling items outside the game should be OK.
I disagree because the world in game is affected directly by the amount of cash a player has outside the game. I see these types of games as closed systems where advancement comes with skill, and time invested.
Would driving with your highbeams on classify as Reckless Disregard for Human Life? What you if you blinded a bus driver carrying a load of passengers?
Are you asking for a legal opinion or a moral opinion? Are you driving with your highbeams on to intentionally blind the bus driver?
And is it just me, or is this recent trend toward "Sponsored Links" a real pain in the ass? When I see text in an article that is a link I expect it to be relevant, not a redirect to a merchant site.
Yes it is a pain in the ass, but that's why they do it. They are placing the banner ads in the content and relying on your experience that text links will lead to more content.
Umm... Minibosses are a rock band who play NES songs, gamingfm is a streaming site to hear game songs (or remixes).
The point is, stuff like this isn't remotely new or news. I'm guessing this is a buddy of someone on slashdot or VA, or they are paying for the advertisement.
The point is not to highlight covers or remixes of BGM as a new concept, but to indicate a new release of material within that genre.
If I were as conspiratorial as you I would insinuate that you were a fan/flunky of one of the other sources of music that you mentioned, and were attempting to raise awareness while discrediting a competetor. But I'm not, so I won't.;)
I once had a bank (Crestar, now acquired by SunTrust I think) that intentionally arranged the checks from highest-to-lowest so as to maximize the bounce fees. That way, the $1.53 check I wrote before my $200 bouncing check generated a bounce fee too. Once I had $125 in fees but if they had processed them in the order I wrote them it would have only been $25.
I agree about the escalation. I did, and eventually they refunded all but the one $25 bounce fee.
Do not write checks for funds that you do not have. It should not matter that you wrote the checks in one order or another. Perhaps you should use these fees to remind yourself not to write bad checks.
This is why Slashdot is relatively good journalism, IMO. Even when the submitters and editors are clearly biased, it is only a few comments into the following discussion that things get balanced out. How often do we see on the big cable and broadcast networks retractions and alternatives being shown within minutes? Almost never.
Even for the frequent story about Microsoft or SCO, there'll be at least a few comments among the flames adjusting the facts of the story. Actually, by being so harsh on these companies, for example, we can help the public better understand what is true and what is misrepresented regarding their actions. Hold the feet to the fire, so to speak.
Didn't I read somewhere on/. (a log of one of the chat sessions irrc) that most of the readers only view the front page, and do not decend into the comments? Even if the first few (highest moderated) comments were on the front page, is it really good journalism to make wild unsupported claims only to have the the 'whole truth' come out later? Unless you are claiming that those that comment are part of the journalism of/., I'd have to disagree with your "reletively good" assesment. If most of the readership doesn't view the comments, it's just sensationalism.
I'm curious about RSS - rather than breaking into a new technology, why not extend the existing platform? Why not set up a real-time form of html? Just have the user log-in to the webpage, and then the server sends diff information to the user whenever there's a change. Thus, there's no hitting the "refresh" button over and over again in your browser, and no wasting time downloading the full page over and over again, only the relevant diff info. People use webpages as chat systems all the time, why not make it work right and handle refreshing server-side?
They (whoever they are) tried this a while back, and they called it "push" technology. For the push I received you had to use a specific client. The problem was they decided to push ads to you too, and I could find more timely/relevant news from other non-push sources.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't buy shit, wont' be shit.
What is the difference in results between what gameshark does on consoles and what hacks do on PCs?
If it was a mainframe 100K might have been on the low side. The price may have also included the software on it..
I stand corrected :)
My accounts have been compromised three times.
I check the ones that are exposed tot he outside
world more than once a monht - the rest every month.
60 days from the date of the transaction.
What's it worth to them ?
Quite a bit I'd imagine. There are privacy issues at stake, and as you can tell from the article, potential security issues.
Poppycock. I bet I can get the transaction history using the same or less information than is being used to syphon funds from an account.
Really? There would be plenty of people in the industry that would be very interested to know how you would pull this off.
The laws/contract surrounding this are at fault. Either these are legal, authorised deductions, or they are not.
It seems entirely perverse that Banks will accept and action unauthorised charges to your account. I would suspect that in many countries other than the US, the complainant would have been covered for the total losses.
Blame the system that allows this, as the contract/laws which protect the bank, not the punter account holder.
The transactions aren't considered authorized, since you don't have to set up anything with the company and the bank. They're considered "pre-authorized".
There are laws/policies = that protect the consumer and the bank. Within 60 days you should be able claim it was not an authorized transaction, the bank credits your account, and gets a credit from the Federal Reserve.
Why are not banks responsible for fraud?
Is it not the bank's responsibility to maintain security and keep secure transactions?
Then... Why the limitation of 50k$ when FDIC covers 100$k ?
ACH is more like a network than a bank owned commerce industry. It's the method by which the the transactions take place, as opposed to over the teller line, via ATM, etc. The bank is required to maintain it's end of the security of the ACH chain: it's networks, the terminal end points, and to oversee that things balance. The problem with this kind of fraud is that it requires account holders to be vigilant.
Most banks will allow you to specify an account to not receive ACH debits. If you're not going to be reviewing the statements regularly, this is something you probably want to do.
What's to keep the bank themselves from taking $100k out sometimes and then saying they only cover $50k of it?
3rd party auditing. Many regulated institutions are required to have this.
It is a problem only in part with IGE. From what I can tell, IGE is sort of like an item/money/account broker. Where they make their Real Life money from the transfer of In Game items/money/accounts. While IGE has claimed in the past that they don't employ others to retrieve the in game items, they certainly do facilitate the sale of these items no matter how they were obtained. In truth, it's the griefers who are the most noticable effect of the service that IGE provides.
Selling items outside the game should be OK.
I disagree because the world in game is affected directly by the amount of cash a player has outside the game. I see these types of games as closed systems where advancement comes with skill, and time invested.
Are you asking for a legal opinion or a moral opinion? Are you driving with your highbeams on to intentionally blind the bus driver?
http://www.progressquest.com
Enjoy :)
And is it just me, or is this recent trend toward "Sponsored Links" a real pain in the ass? When I see text in an article that is a link I expect it to be relevant, not a redirect to a merchant site.
Yes it is a pain in the ass, but that's why they do it. They are placing the banner ads in the content and relying on your experience that text links will lead to more content.
Mods, please moderate parent as Informative/Insightful.
Everyone else, if you haven't already, please read the proposed law.
Section 110 can be found here:
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr4586.html
Lastly, whoever added the bit in the end of the summary about skipping commercials becoming illegal, please shut up.
The point is not to highlight covers or remixes of BGM as a new concept, but to indicate a new release of material within that genre.
If I were as conspiratorial as you I would insinuate that you were a fan/flunky of one of the other sources of music that you mentioned, and were attempting to raise awareness while discrediting a competetor. But I'm not, so I won't. ;)
You could use the rss feed links. They're all green for me.
su
df
du
ls
rm
passwd
chown
vi
more
bash
s/more/less/
Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 3.6).
I agree about the escalation. I did, and eventually they refunded all but the one $25 bounce fee.
Do not write checks for funds that you do not have. It should not matter that you wrote the checks in one order or another. Perhaps you should use these fees to remind yourself not to write bad checks.
Time for google to move out of Cali.
Is this law necessary if they disclose such practices? Isn't it up to the consumer not to use the product?
Time for google not to offer gmail in cali.
Just knee-jerk thoughts after reading the article.
Perhaps... Or maybe it would be a good time to start.
The most important question that hasn't been asked yet: Will Debian continue to use Pixar characters as the names of their releases?
I mean really.
c'mon.
Yeah...
Didn't I read somewhere on /. (a log of one of the chat sessions irrc) that most of the readers only view the front page, and do not decend into the comments? Even if the first few (highest moderated) comments were on the front page, is it really good journalism to make wild unsupported claims only to have the the 'whole truth' come out later? Unless you are claiming that those that comment are part of the journalism of /., I'd have to disagree with your "reletively good" assesment. If most of the readership doesn't view the comments, it's just sensationalism.
They (whoever they are) tried this a while back, and they called it "push" technology. For the push I received you had to use a specific client. The problem was they decided to push ads to you too, and I could find more timely/relevant news from other non-push sources.