If they change mine, it will be the second this year, fourth in two years, sixth or seventh in 3 years. Credit unions don't all own their card systems, and these issuers are lazy.
Some card issuers know that 40-60% of their cards in force are 'compromised'. They consider that normal, and perform fraud/risk monitoring as a normal course of business.
It's not NCR, IBM, etc. It's Ingentico, Verifone, the other terminal makers, and the acquirers (Paymentech, First Data, etc) that handle the data, but Home Depot needs to secure the transmission of that. And I bet most of this was skimmed off of databases that needed to be another layer away from intruders.
And in the UK, the stories of pensioners being shoulder-surfed at the ATM (or worse) while they peck away at the keypad end with them at the bank being informed that their money is gone, and they must have disclosed their PIN to someone. "Sorry, but the system is totally secure. It isn't our fault". Not as if the camera at the ATM wouldn't be showing some hoodie emptying their account, though the banks have no real incentive to investigate.
Home Depot has been replacing terminals with dip terms for EMV. But the issuers are waiting for some more traction. Most US merchants don't want to pay for the terminals, since the risk doesn't shift sufficiently for them to pay the money.
And as mentioned above, any card-not-present transactions are unaffected by EMV. Most of these rings sell cards to be used not-present. It;s fairly common to place the order on the website for local pickup, grab the loot and fence it. EMV doesn't stop that.
I'm not asserting any state regulators are acting out of some concern about global warming. The commissioners I've had the opportunity to watch have focused on both liquidity and rates. In Maine, for instance, it was a decades long battle with Blue Cross over returns and rates. Then BC went private, and a settlement over capital was reached. In the homeowners market, the commissioner battled over rates and returns, with a tertiary concern over reserves.
Most state commissioners are fighting over rate increase demands based on investment returns, and discerning the true state of the carriers.
None of this is as simple as your (and i) make it seem. Insurers have a vested interest in overstating risk always, either hiding profits or understating the value of reserves.
Global warming is a convenient excuse for higher premiums, but a rogue hurricane will do as well.
Oh, and reinsurers are largely unregulated, but they largely serve commercial and special (excess) coverage. By definition, they are not primary carriers.
There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.
The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.
Just like surveillance technology (whoops, it *is* surveillance technology), or tracking technology, and those are just so helpful. Especially to those in power.
I'm just as suspicious of this as I am of the police, the government at all levels, or our elected representatives. These entities all need adult supervision. And good controls.
It seems like you present the hypothesis that the government would propose an amendment to do what you then ask if I would accept.
The government could not be trusted to propose an amendment to serve the people. Certainly not now, nor for the foreseeable future. In fact, if the states were to attempt to convene a convention, I expect the federal government to attempt to prevent it.
Such an amendment would be unworkable and a sincerely bad idea. One of the most powerful aspects of our constitution of the fundamental nature of it. Specificity of principle, not narrowness of action.
There is no 'rampant' failure. And technology enabling encroachment on our freedoms does not justify the encroachment. Are you even paying attention? Technology is being used to harm us, not protect us.
These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?
The federal government can continue to monitor and enforce constitutional protections without new mandates forced by federal law and the narcotic of federal money.
Lots of infractions do not reach the DA. Minor traffic infractions in particular. These are so 'routine' that there is virtually no due process available to a citizen any more.
But cameras are not addressing running red lights or speeding. It's the violent confrontations these will be used for. Just as the courts 'don't have time' to process traffic stops properly, they will not be taking time to review video evidence either.
Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.
The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.
It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,
i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.
Wishful thinking, maybe, but a chance to calm down the interaction is not a bad thing. Can't much make it worse.
You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.
What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:
- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.
- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.
Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.
Slashdot Mirror
If they change mine, it will be the second this year, fourth in two years, sixth or seventh in 3 years. Credit unions don't all own their card systems, and these issuers are lazy.
Some card issuers know that 40-60% of their cards in force are 'compromised'. They consider that normal, and perform fraud/risk monitoring as a normal course of business.
It's not NCR, IBM, etc. It's Ingentico, Verifone, the other terminal makers, and the acquirers (Paymentech, First Data, etc) that handle the data, but Home Depot needs to secure the transmission of that. And I bet most of this was skimmed off of databases that needed to be another layer away from intruders.
There is no such thing as absolute security.
And in the UK, the stories of pensioners being shoulder-surfed at the ATM (or worse) while they peck away at the keypad end with them at the bank being informed that their money is gone, and they must have disclosed their PIN to someone. "Sorry, but the system is totally secure. It isn't our fault". Not as if the camera at the ATM wouldn't be showing some hoodie emptying their account, though the banks have no real incentive to investigate.
Yeah, Chip n PIN is a real winner, for the banks.
One way to scam that is to put a shim in the terminal, forcing it offline. Look for an extra cable coming from the card reader.
Home Depot has been replacing terminals with dip terms for EMV. But the issuers are waiting for some more traction. Most US merchants don't want to pay for the terminals, since the risk doesn't shift sufficiently for them to pay the money.
And as mentioned above, any card-not-present transactions are unaffected by EMV. Most of these rings sell cards to be used not-present. It;s fairly common to place the order on the website for local pickup, grab the loot and fence it. EMV doesn't stop that.
I'm not asserting any state regulators are acting out of some concern about global warming. The commissioners I've had the opportunity to watch have focused on both liquidity and rates. In Maine, for instance, it was a decades long battle with Blue Cross over returns and rates. Then BC went private, and a settlement over capital was reached. In the homeowners market, the commissioner battled over rates and returns, with a tertiary concern over reserves.
Most state commissioners are fighting over rate increase demands based on investment returns, and discerning the true state of the carriers.
None of this is as simple as your (and i) make it seem. Insurers have a vested interest in overstating risk always, either hiding profits or understating the value of reserves.
Global warming is a convenient excuse for higher premiums, but a rogue hurricane will do as well.
Oh, and reinsurers are largely unregulated, but they largely serve commercial and special (excess) coverage. By definition, they are not primary carriers.
There is virtually NO property or healthcare insurance market that is state-regulated and is NOT rate regulated. Roughly half the state regulate auto insurance rates. Virtually all insurance sold to consumers is state - regulated in the U.S.
The myth is that price competition is the dominant method of acquiring market share. Bear in that most insurance markets are state-regulated, and if we limit ourselves to property insurers, rigidly regulated.
Isn't that report (falsifying, inaccuracy, etc.) Enough for an investigation and penalties? Would be I I did it.
Couldn't be a reaction to past losses from storms, eh? Or just profiting from uncertainty?
Seriously, this isn't evidence of anything than a profit motive.
And add in the volunteer group that decided to save the project, working out of an abandoned McDonald's.
Oh, wait....
Just like surveillance technology (whoops, it *is* surveillance technology), or tracking technology, and those are just so helpful. Especially to those in power.
I'm just as suspicious of this as I am of the police, the government at all levels, or our elected representatives. These entities all need adult supervision. And good controls.
More than ever? I'm not yet convinced. Seems no one remembers the past
It seems like you present the hypothesis that the government would propose an amendment to do what you then ask if I would accept.
The government could not be trusted to propose an amendment to serve the people. Certainly not now, nor for the foreseeable future. In fact, if the states were to attempt to convene a convention, I expect the federal government to attempt to prevent it.
Such an amendment would be unworkable and a sincerely bad idea. One of the most powerful aspects of our constitution of the fundamental nature of it. Specificity of principle, not narrowness of action.
There is no 'rampant' failure. And technology enabling encroachment on our freedoms does not justify the encroachment. Are you even paying attention? Technology is being used to harm us, not protect us.
These responsibilities have been with local authorities all along. What has changed? Technology? Funding?
The federal government can continue to monitor and enforce constitutional protections without new mandates forced by federal law and the narcotic of federal money.
I disagree. Care to elaborate on what conditional authority the feds would be operating under?
Lots of infractions do not reach the DA. Minor traffic infractions in particular. These are so 'routine' that there is virtually no due process available to a citizen any more.
But cameras are not addressing running red lights or speeding. It's the violent confrontations these will be used for. Just as the courts 'don't have time' to process traffic stops properly, they will not be taking time to review video evidence either.
I'm not ready to give in yet.
Highway funding is regularly tied to compliance with federal laws, some of which are simply usurpation of local or state authority. Speed limits, for instance, drinking age, and DWI laws. There are other examples too numerous to easily list here.
The fight is to prevent the feds from tying the money to anything. Which should mean states and municipalities solving the problem themselves.
It may be missed in this debate, but cameras should change the behavior of citizens also. If a moron is arrested, claims the usual 'brutality' defense, and is confronted with video that prejudices the judge or jury against them to the tune of some time in jail, perhaps they will stop short the next time and try not to pile on additional charges.,
i'm not hopeful that morons will stop breaking the law, but they might stop being excessive idiots when the police are documenting their idiocy.
Wishful thinking, maybe, but a chance to calm down the interaction is not a bad thing. Can't much make it worse.
You have not been paying attention. Must be Democrat.
You don't know very many republicans, I suspect. I'm one, and I'm all for this.
What I am opposed to, for the moment, would be:
- Federal compulsory regulation requiring this. Local governments (and state governments as well) have the responsibility and so can make the decisions themselves. Claims that federal civil rights law would compel this are specious. Federal intrusion here leads only to more federal control, and I'm still enough of a Conservative to oppose this.
- Federal funding, which would be the vehicle for regulation. Federal funding is the hammer to drive control. Just say no. Those dollars came from somewhere, you know.
Police departments and communities that have problems with their police already know this, and should be acting. Citizens need to elect officials that ensure that problems are solved.
And some nations don't. Your point?
More to your point, do the nations that rely on oil for electricity generation seem to be good candidates for solar replacements?