PCI is pushed by the card schemes so acquirers and banks they reduce actual fraud and to reduce the reputation / legal 'complications' of a reported breach. Which is more important is a question for the reader.
Yes there is the insurance aspect, however it is useful to note that the card schemes attempt as much as possible to push liability to the card issuers who push to the acquirers / third party processors who push to the merchants.
The requirements relating to segmentation give the payment processor the ability to implement stronger security within the 'PCI' secured segment. That is, corporates do not have to prove the same level of security is in place for the corporate network side - as long as the full PAN, CCV, exp date is not able to be accessed from the corporate network side.
There are also requirements about length of time transactions are to be stored / retained in full. There is less of a problem (note: not no problem) for the actual transaction authorisation / payment and more on the merchant storing the data (particularly those that store the data in their POS systems (integrated into the acquirer terminals or separate).
Card Schemes are pushing the card issuers to have the reviews performed on the third parties they use for payment processing, this goes all the way down to the smallest merchants. However companies that have low transaction volumes are not required to prove compliance (through external review) and are just required to self report.
'Egyptian blogger The Arabist said he would "resume posting after the problem [two broken undersea fibre cables] is resolved" and predicted, with a hint of sarcasm, "complete social breakdown in vast swathes of (upmarket Cairo districts) Heliopolis and Mohandiseen as thousands are unable to update their Facebook status."'
(para. 11 in article).
A "Current Affair" can be more accurately described as a "That guy's a welfare cheat, therefore all people on welfare are cheats"-type of infotainment show.
I am more concerned at the lack of action from the RTA than the possibility that a precedent has or has not been set.
Oh - The ABC reports on the issue, it must be true.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s14344 78.htm
-----
I haven't been caught by a speed camera since I sold my car.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes there is the insurance aspect, however it is useful to note that the card schemes attempt as much as possible to push liability to the card issuers who push to the acquirers / third party processors who push to the merchants.
The requirements relating to segmentation give the payment processor the ability to implement stronger security within the 'PCI' secured segment. That is, corporates do not have to prove the same level of security is in place for the corporate network side - as long as the full PAN, CCV, exp date is not able to be accessed from the corporate network side.
There are also requirements about length of time transactions are to be stored / retained in full. There is less of a problem (note: not no problem) for the actual transaction authorisation / payment and more on the merchant storing the data (particularly those that store the data in their POS systems (integrated into the acquirer terminals or separate).
Card Schemes are pushing the card issuers to have the reviews performed on the third parties they use for payment processing, this goes all the way down to the smallest merchants. However companies that have low transaction volumes are not required to prove compliance (through external review) and are just required to self report.
Ahahaha - They say that civlisation is three meals away from barbarism...
The Sydney Morning Herald writes:
'Egyptian blogger The Arabist said he would "resume posting after the problem [two broken undersea fibre cables] is resolved" and predicted, with a hint of sarcasm, "complete social breakdown in vast swathes of (upmarket Cairo districts) Heliopolis and Mohandiseen as thousands are unable to update their Facebook status."' (para. 11 in article).
The AFP don't appreciate you taking photos of the site, and no you are required to hand them over when you arrive on-site.
If they catch you being naughty they give you a smack, or something like that.
A "Current Affair" can be more accurately described as a "That guy's a welfare cheat, therefore all people on welfare are cheats"-type of infotainment show. I am more concerned at the lack of action from the RTA than the possibility that a precedent has or has not been set. Oh - The ABC reports on the issue, it must be true. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s14344 78.htm
-----
I haven't been caught by a speed camera since I sold my car.