obviously someone unaware of reality since you want to assume that trump would be the one bribed.. your former manchurian candidate was in bed with them non-stop. If anyone would have an axe to grind it would be someone who perceived he was cast in a bad light by google.
during the Obummer presidency, Google's Director of Public Policy, Johanna Shelton, had more visits to the whitehouse than Facebook, Comcast, Oracle, ATT, and Verizon combined. That should tell you something creepy is going on. To put this in perspective, from 2009 - 2015 she was in the logs as visiting the white house 128 times.
Shelton's visits were just the tip of the iceberg. The Google Transparency Project found a total of 427 White House meetings involving employees of Google or related firms — more than one a week for the Obama administration.
not just once, as someone pointed out that trying to avoid detection directly will make you stick out. Instead how about other devices that feed false information simultaneously and more regularly than reality. Say that at any given time you appear to be taking 3 trips to and from 3 different locations and with such frequency that it dwarfs reality significantly. Perhaps even randomize the number of simultaneous feeds to prevent basic process of elimination. But this would need to happen on a scale that at least 70% of the population did this, or, at least, had their data altered, in order to make the entire database of information substantially worthless.
maybe society needs to spawn a anarchist hacking group. Instead of taking down these places, as they always have backups for their backups, maybe it should pollute it with so much false data that the entire data itself is no longer considered reliable. Make it appear you were in 3 places at once and take trips 50x more per day than you actually do. Make the data so unreliable and untrustworthy that advertisers stop spending money on what they perceive as 'snake oil' once word spreads on how unreliable it is. Why pay for a targeted ad when your likely to be sending some 80yr old man an advertisement on tampons when its cheaper and easier to just blast the tampon commercial to everyone and hope someone who needs them is watching.
its the most obvious target.. the laws enacted will be unilateral and will apply to any company, now or in the future. Companies that specialize in selling your private info to target you for advertising have the least need but commit the most intrusion.
My biggest concerns over companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple developing autonomous cars is not whether they can make them safe. Eventually I know that they will be safe. One concern is that these people will collect data non-stop about where I am going and how long I stay. I considered this picking up my daughter from school to take her to her pediatrician, specifically that its really none of their damn business that I did such a thing. That led me to my second concern for these 3 companies developing autonomous vehicles. Imagine every damn time you drive past a BugerKing or Wendy's having to suffer a damn commercial or have the car offer to stop because a Whopper is only $3 this week. Non-stop, never-ending barrage of advertisements. Think back to the scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise's character had eye replacement surgery, replacing his eyes with a japanese businessman. It was more noticeable the second he walked near any store, how every single ad started addressing him by his stolen identity. The two technologies that ad-based companies should be forbidden from developing based on privacy concerns should be
1) any location based technology that requires knowing where you are to function (maps, gps, autonomous cars, etc) 2) any technology that specializes in identification (facial recognition, biometrics, retina identity, etc.)
some of those ideas have merit, but ending homework is a terrible, terrible, idea. My daughter is now in high school and has only recently had any kind of homework and accountability in place. Still, a vast majority of her classes are not assigning homework. A school has a few roles to fill besides just 'teaching' a student how to do something. There is a socialization aspect it needs to fill as well. The sort of socialized skills needed to conduct yourself in a workplace need to be mastered before graduation from public schools. For examples:
Punctuality - arriving to school and/or each period before the bell rings instills the concept of punctuality which is critical to job retention in many, many career choices. Especially those in healthcare. Those professions have the strictest attendance policies and do not even lend themselves to sick time amidst one of the highest risk factors on contracting illness.
Homework - giving assignments and expecting them to be turned in completed instills the work ethic associated with jobs that are project oriented instead of shift and/or task oriented. Missing deadlines for assignments or projects can reflect bad on the company you work for and directly impact ones effectiveness at job retention. Few job exist without homework and the higher you climb within an industry the more you are likely to acquire. Does the waitress working at a restaurant have homework? No, but as you go higher up the food-chain in the service industry, those sales, marketing, and management positions demand more than a 9-5 investment and become more project-based. This is also a key difference between an hourly-based employee versus a salary-based one. If it was cheaper to pay someone hourly, there would not be salary positions. Salary positions exist because often people find themselves working more than 40hrs per week in order to meet the job requirements and project deadlines. If you can meet all your goals and deadlines in 30hrs then enjoy the rest of the week off; if not, I guess its going to be a long night. It's literally how the expression "I guess you did your homework on this one" came about.
Peer behaviors - teaching people how to treat each other, whether via 'the golden rule' or any other methodology, goes to the heart of employability as nobody wants to deal with a hostile work environment. Knowing how to behave around peers you may, or may not, even remotely like is critical to job retention. We learn these skills in school. The higher the grade level, the more parallel to the sort of scenarios you will have to endure at work. At some point in your life you are going to have a boss that you think is the biggest idiot on the planet, and wonder how in the hell they got into a position where they not only are paid more than you, but also give out instructions, knowing less than a remedial level of knowledge on the subject.
Sports teams - I am about 50% with you on this one. I think the degree to which they have taken sports is bad, but in general the concept of team based goals and making sacrifices for a team are huge in terms of working at a company. We've heard it a million times, 'there is no I in team'; and while its funny to say 'but there is a ME', the concept still stands. On some level employers want to believe that their employees are loyal and will put the companies needs above their own. Being a member of a team for competition helps bring this idea into focus. For the employee it helps them decide if their personal needs are more important than the employer's, or vice versus. Sometimes the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many, esp if it involves your children, esp if its health related. Team participation teaches people this balance.
for me its "the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly:"
since there is never any real risk, I really don't see it as gambling. Certainly not the kind that requires big brother to go around telling people what to do.
I think the definition of gambling is too literal. If I spend $2 because the lottery jackpot hit 500 million, or if I go to the Derby and place a wager of $2 for a horse to show, I really donâ(TM)t consider that gambling, Because I risked nothing.
People piss away, on average, $5/day on âstarbucksâ(TM) or other specialty coffees. I dont, but so many more do. Many more buy in-app purchaes that average out to $1/day. In some cases these, for lack of a better word, addictions, create a financial burden for some as this tends to add up.
If I buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse, or decide one day to try a slot machine, Iâ(TM)m going into the process with an exact amount that I am willing to spend on the experience of playing. For me thats generally the lowest wagers possible as I have zero faith that luck will ever be in my favor. Especially with horses, I do it to see if I ever will pick a winner, Not for the cash ($2 doesnt pay shit even on 30:1 odds). I like watching the race and seeing if I can come up with any sort of method of picking a decent winner.
At no point have I ever risked anything. Without risk, its no more gambling than paying to do any other activity. The mcdonalds momopoly game was closer to gambling than what I do on occassion. (Which btw is like 2 - 3 times a year at best)
yep, and out of control it will start attacking artificial heart valves, stints, IUDs and just about every other non-junk application of plastics. Now it will just take some other scientist to make some bacteria that secretes this enzyme as a bi-product.
yea, some of those reasons are why when I vacation I only use money I stuck on a MyVanilla card, and my Paypal card as a backup. It mitigates damages to hundreds, not thousands. I never use my bank card outside the state, and never at gas station pumps etc. I even go as far as to pay for gas with cash (throw $20 in the tank every couple hours) to avoid the risk of bluetooth card readers in the pumps.
laws exist so you can push the lawbreaker, agreed. There is quite a bit more fraud in the post office than you may be aware. Its possible you worked at a branch and were fairly isolated in this respect. Even in the 90s there was some reality 'cops' style show that followed postal inspectors. They in fact do more than just look for drugs being mailed. They spend a great deal of time investigating postal employees. One episode indicated that some branch in NYC were using 'temps' do do deliveries. Well, this one temp was more of a 'free paycheck' type and was dumping the mail into a dumpster and claiming she delivered it.
In this case I think its _much_ more of a case of organized crime, since the secret service is involved and not the postal inspectors. The secret service involvement suggests the crimes of fraud are on the scale of counterfeiting. They certainly aren't on the looking of some random asshole breaking the law. This is a bit more structured. There is most assuredly some inside people intercepting this and getting it to the crime ring involved.
when they first came out they were called 'check cards'
there are two networks at play...
1) bank gateway services like Quest and Star, in which you use a PIN number at an ATM or POS terminal to conclude a transaction. This is using your Debit card like an ATM card
2) then there are the network services for Visa and Mastercard. This is using your Debit card like a Credit Card (ie sign for transaction)
at first they used to say ATM or Credit at the POS machines back in the 90s. Later when check cards got renamed Debit card, the implication was that you could use it as an ATM or a Debit (using Visa or MC networks). At some point the POS machines now say 'Debit' or 'Credit', redefining the word Debit to now imply ATM transactions.
In most cases a real Credit card vs a Debit card are irrelevant to the fraud perpetrated. The criminal is just grabbing any bank issued card and swapping out a chip. At the end of the day he just needs to complete a transaction where you sign on the POS terminal and go about their merry way to sell the now purchased goods.
To answer why anyone would use 'credit' instead of 'debit' at the terminal, it has to do with reward points and cash back. By hitting 'credit' the merchant has to pay a percentage or transaction fee depending on his volume of transactions. This can be as high as 4%. In turn the bank agrees to give you 1.5% cash back (such as Paypal) or gives you reward points. Hitting the Debit button and entering a PIN will deny those bonuses since they did not get that 4% loanshark fee from the merchant.
they are using the cards with chips to buy merchandise that they can then sell for cash AND/OR making purchases that eventually find their way into some other account. They aren't pulling physical cash from your account, but it gets drained nonetheless.
yes, in the US, when your at a POS terminal (point of sale, not piece of shit), you're given 2 options Debit and Credit. Debit really means ATM at which time you have to use a PIN number, and any sort of cash-back is forfeit. Credit technically is what they used to call 'debit' in which its using Visa or MasterCard clearing houses to withdraw your cash and earns your 1 - 2% cash back, no PIN required. They used to compare the signature on the back of your card to your signed slip, but that doesnt work now that they give us plastic crayons to mark up a not-so-well-working touchpad titled at almost 90% to the floor.
your comment was that a postal employee could not be the culprit because there is a law that would punish a postal employee for stealing, therefore it could never be a postal employee. In most cases it is in facy occurring at the hub distribution centers. You implied the presence of a law implies noone would dare disobey it. I felt it necessary to give you multiple examples of how far from true that is. Organised crime usually always facilitates the need of having an inside man to complete the job.
an ATM card or ATM transaction goes through a banking gateway service like Star, Quest, Paypass, etc. You usually get a fee for every transaction (like $2.50 now)
a Debit transaction uses the Visa and/or MasterCard networks to deduct money from your account, and the marchant usually eats the transaction fee's based on his volume. Small operations eat 4% or tell you that they will add 4% to use the card.
they are two completely different networks where one necessitates a PIN, while the other just wants you to scribble a 'signature' on a screen for anything > $50.
I once had a card cloned (before the days of the chip) and about a week later I got notified that a Home Depot in Miama (600+ miles away) just hit my card 6 times in a row for $100 each. They bought home depot gift cards. At that point the money trail stops and they can sell these cards to anyone for less than face value. I had suggested that since they knew which gift cards they had activated, they should go in and deactivate them. That way when the person buying the stolen card tries to use it, and gets denied, he goes back and puts a bullet in the asshole that took money from my account. People buying stolen goods don't typically take kindly to getting ripped off.
My suspicion is by swapping the chip, the card cloning process resumes in full swing. They cant do ATM withdrawls but they can certainly make point-of-sale purchases without a PIN for merchandise that they can then convert to cash. It used to be called fencing.
exactly, it sounds as if they replace the chip with any other chip on the card and reseal the envelope. Then with the orginal chip, they put it onto a cloned card. Then ususpecting customer gets card in the mail, and calls the phone number to activate their card, not knowing there is a duplicate floating around. I agree, it might be more hassle, but having to go to the bank or the ATM to activate the card would make sense. I am guessing that it would have to be a bank ATM equipped with a chip reader, since some that you see in gas stations only read the magnetic strip similar to a gas pump.
What really irritates me is that the most effective tool at identifying fraud is denied to us constantly by the banks. Its as if they want a system of fraud. Every time I use my paypal card I get a notification of a charge both via email and SMS within a minute or two of the transaction. I find it disturbing that my bank does not do this, nor does any credit card, or even my MyVanilla card, though the latter notifies me every time I add funds to confirm the process worked.
which would not solve a situation of targeted mail intercept, only random mail intercepts. If your mailbox itself is targeted, then they would grab anything with your banks name on it.
i havent had a PIN mailed to me in a very long time. I used to have that happen, only when I opened a new bank account and they had to assign a PIN. Once I went in and had my PIN changed to something else, every subsequent card always had the PIN I set up ahead of time.
With my Paypal card I set the PIN from my paypal account. The same with my MyVanilla card of pre-paid funds (I tend to load money on a prepaid card when I am vacationing out of state so if my card gets cloned the damage is limited).
I suspect it got flagged because there were already reports of fraud and stolen funds in which just prior to large amounts of theft, a $5 donation was donated to the same charity in order to verify the card is in working order before they hit it with a larger withdrawl. Once they realize that they have a large number of reported fraudulent charges, and in every case there is a small charge to a common place, they flag that place and trigger an alert. I suspect that these card companies probably share a security database the way we share db's of known spammers and query every transaction against it in realtime.
OMG, I met one! I finally met one! You're one of those mythical people I read about that believe making a law somehow stops crime. "we need to ban this" , "we need better gun control to stop criminals from getting guns", "we need a law that says...". How are you not besides yourself that criminals *gasp* don't give a shit about laws? There are two groups of people that think laws don't apply to them a) criminals b) elected officials. One can certainly argue that b. really is a member of a. with more damage control. Did you know that in every state, murder has been against the law, with pretty severe penalties, since 1787? It amazes me that anyone would even suggest we have a murder problem in the states, because the penalties for murder are pretty severe/sarcasm.
Slashdot Mirror
obviously someone unaware of reality since you want to assume that trump would be the one bribed.. your former manchurian candidate was in bed with them non-stop. If anyone would have an axe to grind it would be someone who perceived he was cast in a bad light by google.
http://www.googletransparencyp...
during the Obummer presidency, Google's Director of Public Policy, Johanna Shelton, had more visits to the whitehouse than Facebook, Comcast, Oracle, ATT, and Verizon combined. That should tell you something creepy is going on. To put this in perspective, from 2009 - 2015 she was in the logs as visiting the white house 128 times.
Shelton's visits were just the tip of the iceberg. The Google Transparency Project found a total of 427 White House meetings involving employees of Google or related firms — more than one a week for the Obama administration.
from the article : http://www.googletransparencyp...
not just once, as someone pointed out that trying to avoid detection directly will make you stick out. Instead how about other devices that feed false information simultaneously and more regularly than reality. Say that at any given time you appear to be taking 3 trips to and from 3 different locations and with such frequency that it dwarfs reality significantly. Perhaps even randomize the number of simultaneous feeds to prevent basic process of elimination. But this would need to happen on a scale that at least 70% of the population did this, or, at least, had their data altered, in order to make the entire database of information substantially worthless.
maybe society needs to spawn a anarchist hacking group. Instead of taking down these places, as they always have backups for their backups, maybe it should pollute it with so much false data that the entire data itself is no longer considered reliable. Make it appear you were in 3 places at once and take trips 50x more per day than you actually do. Make the data so unreliable and untrustworthy that advertisers stop spending money on what they perceive as 'snake oil' once word spreads on how unreliable it is. Why pay for a targeted ad when your likely to be sending some 80yr old man an advertisement on tampons when its cheaper and easier to just blast the tampon commercial to everyone and hope someone who needs them is watching.
its the most obvious target.. the laws enacted will be unilateral and will apply to any company, now or in the future. Companies that specialize in selling your private info to target you for advertising have the least need but commit the most intrusion.
My biggest concerns over companies like Facebook, Google, and Apple developing autonomous cars is not whether they can make them safe. Eventually I know that they will be safe. One concern is that these people will collect data non-stop about where I am going and how long I stay. I considered this picking up my daughter from school to take her to her pediatrician, specifically that its really none of their damn business that I did such a thing. That led me to my second concern for these 3 companies developing autonomous vehicles. Imagine every damn time you drive past a BugerKing or Wendy's having to suffer a damn commercial or have the car offer to stop because a Whopper is only $3 this week. Non-stop, never-ending barrage of advertisements. Think back to the scene in Minority Report when Tom Cruise's character had eye replacement surgery, replacing his eyes with a japanese businessman. It was more noticeable the second he walked near any store, how every single ad started addressing him by his stolen identity. The two technologies that ad-based companies should be forbidden from developing based on privacy concerns should be
1) any location based technology that requires knowing where you are to function (maps, gps, autonomous cars, etc)
2) any technology that specializes in identification (facial recognition, biometrics, retina identity, etc.)
OMG I cannot believe you just invoked RMS. Thats like saying Beetlejuice.. Have you any idea what you've just unleashed?
some of those ideas have merit, but ending homework is a terrible, terrible, idea. My daughter is now in high school and has only recently had any kind of homework and accountability in place. Still, a vast majority of her classes are not assigning homework. A school has a few roles to fill besides just 'teaching' a student how to do something. There is a socialization aspect it needs to fill as well. The sort of socialized skills needed to conduct yourself in a workplace need to be mastered before graduation from public schools. For examples:
Punctuality - arriving to school and/or each period before the bell rings instills the concept of punctuality which is critical to job retention in many, many career choices. Especially those in healthcare. Those professions have the strictest attendance policies and do not even lend themselves to sick time amidst one of the highest risk factors on contracting illness.
Homework - giving assignments and expecting them to be turned in completed instills the work ethic associated with jobs that are project oriented instead of shift and/or task oriented. Missing deadlines for assignments or projects can reflect bad on the company you work for and directly impact ones effectiveness at job retention. Few job exist without homework and the higher you climb within an industry the more you are likely to acquire. Does the waitress working at a restaurant have homework? No, but as you go higher up the food-chain in the service industry, those sales, marketing, and management positions demand more than a 9-5 investment and become more project-based. This is also a key difference between an hourly-based employee versus a salary-based one. If it was cheaper to pay someone hourly, there would not be salary positions. Salary positions exist because often people find themselves working more than 40hrs per week in order to meet the job requirements and project deadlines. If you can meet all your goals and deadlines in 30hrs then enjoy the rest of the week off; if not, I guess its going to be a long night. It's literally how the expression "I guess you did your homework on this one" came about.
Peer behaviors - teaching people how to treat each other, whether via 'the golden rule' or any other methodology, goes to the heart of employability as nobody wants to deal with a hostile work environment. Knowing how to behave around peers you may, or may not, even remotely like is critical to job retention. We learn these skills in school. The higher the grade level, the more parallel to the sort of scenarios you will have to endure at work. At some point in your life you are going to have a boss that you think is the biggest idiot on the planet, and wonder how in the hell they got into a position where they not only are paid more than you, but also give out instructions, knowing less than a remedial level of knowledge on the subject.
Sports teams - I am about 50% with you on this one. I think the degree to which they have taken sports is bad, but in general the concept of team based goals and making sacrifices for a team are huge in terms of working at a company. We've heard it a million times, 'there is no I in team'; and while its funny to say 'but there is a ME', the concept still stands. On some level employers want to believe that their employees are loyal and will put the companies needs above their own. Being a member of a team for competition helps bring this idea into focus. For the employee it helps them decide if their personal needs are more important than the employer's, or vice versus. Sometimes the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many, esp if it involves your children, esp if its health related. Team participation teaches people this balance.
for me its "the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly:"
since there is never any real risk, I really don't see it as gambling. Certainly not the kind that requires big brother to go around telling people what to do.
I think the definition of gambling is too literal. If I spend $2 because the lottery jackpot hit 500 million, or if I go to the Derby and place a wager of $2 for a horse to show, I really donâ(TM)t consider that gambling, Because I risked nothing.
People piss away, on average, $5/day on âstarbucksâ(TM) or other specialty coffees. I dont, but so many more do. Many more buy in-app purchaes that average out to $1/day. In some cases these, for lack of a better word, addictions, create a financial burden for some as this tends to add up.
If I buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse, or decide one day to try a slot machine, Iâ(TM)m going into the process with an exact amount that I am willing to spend on the experience of playing. For me thats generally the lowest wagers possible as I have zero faith that luck will ever be in my favor. Especially with horses, I do it to see if I ever will pick a winner, Not for the cash ($2 doesnt pay shit even on 30:1 odds). I like watching the race and seeing if I can come up with any sort of method of picking a decent winner.
At no point have I ever risked anything. Without risk, its no more gambling than paying to do any other activity. The mcdonalds momopoly game was closer to gambling than what I do on occassion. (Which btw is like 2 - 3 times a year at best)
yep, and out of control it will start attacking artificial heart valves, stints, IUDs and just about every other non-junk application of plastics. Now it will just take some other scientist to make some bacteria that secretes this enzyme as a bi-product.
yea, some of those reasons are why when I vacation I only use money I stuck on a MyVanilla card, and my Paypal card as a backup. It mitigates damages to hundreds, not thousands. I never use my bank card outside the state, and never at gas station pumps etc. I even go as far as to pay for gas with cash (throw $20 in the tank every couple hours) to avoid the risk of bluetooth card readers in the pumps.
laws exist so you can push the lawbreaker, agreed. There is quite a bit more fraud in the post office than you may be aware. Its possible you worked at a branch and were fairly isolated in this respect. Even in the 90s there was some reality 'cops' style show that followed postal inspectors. They in fact do more than just look for drugs being mailed. They spend a great deal of time investigating postal employees. One episode indicated that some branch in NYC were using 'temps' do do deliveries. Well, this one temp was more of a 'free paycheck' type and was dumping the mail into a dumpster and claiming she delivered it.
In this case I think its _much_ more of a case of organized crime, since the secret service is involved and not the postal inspectors. The secret service involvement suggests the crimes of fraud are on the scale of counterfeiting. They certainly aren't on the looking of some random asshole breaking the law. This is a bit more structured. There is most assuredly some inside people intercepting this and getting it to the crime ring involved.
the confusion is defining a 'Debit' card....
when they first came out they were called 'check cards'
there are two networks at play...
1) bank gateway services like Quest and Star, in which you use a PIN number at an ATM or POS terminal to conclude a transaction. This is using your Debit card like an ATM card
2) then there are the network services for Visa and Mastercard. This is using your Debit card like a Credit Card (ie sign for transaction)
at first they used to say ATM or Credit at the POS machines back in the 90s. Later when check cards got renamed Debit card, the implication was that you could use it as an ATM or a Debit (using Visa or MC networks). At some point the POS machines now say 'Debit' or 'Credit', redefining the word Debit to now imply ATM transactions.
In most cases a real Credit card vs a Debit card are irrelevant to the fraud perpetrated. The criminal is just grabbing any bank issued card and swapping out a chip. At the end of the day he just needs to complete a transaction where you sign on the POS terminal and go about their merry way to sell the now purchased goods.
To answer why anyone would use 'credit' instead of 'debit' at the terminal, it has to do with reward points and cash back. By hitting 'credit' the merchant has to pay a percentage or transaction fee depending on his volume of transactions. This can be as high as 4%. In turn the bank agrees to give you 1.5% cash back (such as Paypal) or gives you reward points. Hitting the Debit button and entering a PIN will deny those bonuses since they did not get that 4% loanshark fee from the merchant.
they are using the cards with chips to buy merchandise that they can then sell for cash AND/OR making purchases that eventually find their way into some other account. They aren't pulling physical cash from your account, but it gets drained nonetheless.
yes, in the US, when your at a POS terminal (point of sale, not piece of shit), you're given 2 options Debit and Credit. Debit really means ATM at which time you have to use a PIN number, and any sort of cash-back is forfeit. Credit technically is what they used to call 'debit' in which its using Visa or MasterCard clearing houses to withdraw your cash and earns your 1 - 2% cash back, no PIN required. They used to compare the signature on the back of your card to your signed slip, but that doesnt work now that they give us plastic crayons to mark up a not-so-well-working touchpad titled at almost 90% to the floor.
your comment was that a postal employee could not be the culprit because there is a law that would punish a postal employee for stealing, therefore it could never be a postal employee. In most cases it is in facy occurring at the hub distribution centers. You implied the presence of a law implies noone would dare disobey it. I felt it necessary to give you multiple examples of how far from true that is. Organised crime usually always facilitates the need of having an inside man to complete the job.
an ATM card or ATM transaction goes through a banking gateway service like Star, Quest, Paypass, etc. You usually get a fee for every transaction (like $2.50 now)
a Debit transaction uses the Visa and/or MasterCard networks to deduct money from your account, and the marchant usually eats the transaction fee's based on his volume. Small operations eat 4% or tell you that they will add 4% to use the card.
they are two completely different networks where one necessitates a PIN, while the other just wants you to scribble a 'signature' on a screen for anything > $50.
every time I have had an issue where unauthorized transactions have occurred on my account, I have been refunded within a week.
I once had a card cloned (before the days of the chip) and about a week later I got notified that a Home Depot in Miama (600+ miles away) just hit my card 6 times in a row for $100 each. They bought home depot gift cards. At that point the money trail stops and they can sell these cards to anyone for less than face value. I had suggested that since they knew which gift cards they had activated, they should go in and deactivate them. That way when the person buying the stolen card tries to use it, and gets denied, he goes back and puts a bullet in the asshole that took money from my account. People buying stolen goods don't typically take kindly to getting ripped off.
My suspicion is by swapping the chip, the card cloning process resumes in full swing. They cant do ATM withdrawls but they can certainly make point-of-sale purchases without a PIN for merchandise that they can then convert to cash. It used to be called fencing.
exactly, it sounds as if they replace the chip with any other chip on the card and reseal the envelope. Then with the orginal chip, they put it onto a cloned card. Then ususpecting customer gets card in the mail, and calls the phone number to activate their card, not knowing there is a duplicate floating around. I agree, it might be more hassle, but having to go to the bank or the ATM to activate the card would make sense. I am guessing that it would have to be a bank ATM equipped with a chip reader, since some that you see in gas stations only read the magnetic strip similar to a gas pump.
What really irritates me is that the most effective tool at identifying fraud is denied to us constantly by the banks. Its as if they want a system of fraud. Every time I use my paypal card I get a notification of a charge both via email and SMS within a minute or two of the transaction. I find it disturbing that my bank does not do this, nor does any credit card, or even my MyVanilla card, though the latter notifies me every time I add funds to confirm the process worked.
which would not solve a situation of targeted mail intercept, only random mail intercepts. If your mailbox itself is targeted, then they would grab anything with your banks name on it.
i havent had a PIN mailed to me in a very long time. I used to have that happen, only when I opened a new bank account and they had to assign a PIN. Once I went in and had my PIN changed to something else, every subsequent card always had the PIN I set up ahead of time.
With my Paypal card I set the PIN from my paypal account. The same with my MyVanilla card of pre-paid funds (I tend to load money on a prepaid card when I am vacationing out of state so if my card gets cloned the damage is limited).
I suspect it got flagged because there were already reports of fraud and stolen funds in which just prior to large amounts of theft, a $5 donation was donated to the same charity in order to verify the card is in working order before they hit it with a larger withdrawl. Once they realize that they have a large number of reported fraudulent charges, and in every case there is a small charge to a common place, they flag that place and trigger an alert. I suspect that these card companies probably share a security database the way we share db's of known spammers and query every transaction against it in realtime.
OMG, I met one! I finally met one! You're one of those mythical people I read about that believe making a law somehow stops crime. "we need to ban this" , "we need better gun control to stop criminals from getting guns", "we need a law that says...". How are you not besides yourself that criminals *gasp* don't give a shit about laws? There are two groups of people that think laws don't apply to them a) criminals b) elected officials. One can certainly argue that b. really is a member of a. with more damage control. Did you know that in every state, murder has been against the law, with pretty severe penalties, since 1787? It amazes me that anyone would even suggest we have a murder problem in the states, because the penalties for murder are pretty severe /sarcasm.