dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4157
share rss forum feed

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Pentangle

Re: A good reminder for all...

said by Pentangle:

Most decent restaurants now have portable card readers. They just bring them to your table and wait while you punch in your pin.

That's only for Chip & Pin cards (C&P) - basically just in Canada & Europe right now, but coming to credit cards everywhere eventually.

Just be aware that there are ways around the PIN if your card is lost/stolen. Even though my C&P card was not stolen I have gotten authorization using an invalid PIN for $15k on my card. And there are other ways around C&P technology - see research from University of Cambridge in England for details.


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

1 recommendation

reply to jaykaykay

said by jaykaykay:

First of all, I don't believe much of what Snopes has to offer. That being said, I know that the gym example can happen, for a fact, as it happened here in one that we belong. Just because Snopes says it isn't true, don't rely upon that site to lead you.

What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.


Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18

1 recommendation

reply to jaykaykay

said by jaykaykay:

First of all, I don't believe much of what Snopes has to offer. That being said, I know that the gym example can happen, for a fact, as it happened here in one that we belong. Just because Snopes says it isn't true, don't rely upon that site to lead you.

But Snopes didn't say it isn't true. You must have read something else. I read it said "POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON" which means it does happen but very rarely.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?


MsTerra
Callipygian
Premium
join:2002-08-20
Nerdvana
kudos:1
reply to goalieskates

said by goalieskates:

said by jaykaykay:

First of all, I don't believe much of what Snopes has to offer. That being said, I know that the gym example can happen, for a fact, as it happened here in one that we belong. Just because Snopes says it isn't true, don't rely upon that site to lead you.

What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.

I've been on the internets for about 25 years, have seen a lot of multi-forwarded emails, and have long found snopes to be a good source of information for these things.

Certainly in this case, it is. Scene 1, for example - it is absolutely possible to dispute charges or make a fraud report based on a credit card statement (how do you suppose we did this before we had online access to our accounts?), and it is true that by law the maximum consumer liability for fraudulent charges is $50. (Many banks offer cards with $0 liability, as mine does.) It makes no sense that the victim in this case would be on the hook for $9K of fraudulent charges, unless you want to turn this into a cautionary tale of the consumer knowing his rights with regard to credit and not getting credit from unscrupulous banks that are out to rip off their customers.

I've been the victim of credit card fraud a few times now and have never lost physical possession of the cards. Not that that never happens, but a lot of credit card fraud involves data theft from within the banks. The last time this happened to me was a couple of months ago. My bank called me because a purchase had been made using a physical copy of my card at a pharmacy in another state. My actual card was still safely in my wallet. I had not reported my card stolen, because I still had my card. In developing the fraud claim, I discovered that someone had gone on a bit of a spree at a number of pharmacies and groceries. I filled out an affidavit, listing every fraudulent charge. The investigation took a few weeks, but eventually the charges, and associated interest and fees, were all credited and I was on the hook for exactly $0.

Really, the risk for any of us in the event of credit card fraud is quite small, at least monetarily. I'm still careful with my card, not so much because I'm afraid I'll lose beaucoup bucks to fraud, but because dealing with the fraud is a hassle, and it's no fun being a victim.
--
"Strive to change the world in such a way that there's no further need to be a dissident." Lawrence Ferlinghetti


vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to jaykaykay

said by jaykaykay:

but we grew up in a time when all the security issues weren't issues.

Back in the good old days we almost never locked the doors to the house and left the keys in the car's ignition. The only security issue was the kid down the street listening to our phone conversations on the party line. Charge cards were pretty much issued by/for use at the local department store.


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Well back in those days little Johnny was taken behind the woodshed by Father and given a whippin' when he did something wrong. These days dad is working with little Johnny to steal CC data.

Whip a child these days and Child Protective Services will take him/her and you'll end up in jail.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!



EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
canada
reply to jaykaykay

A lot of this fraudulent crap can be mitigated very easily by simply setting up a verbal password with the bank.
--
~ Project Hope ~



jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
USA
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
reply to MsTerra

I am happy that you think that it isn't a big problem...or at least one to sweat over. I do not agree at all. I know people who have had their information stolen from their card and have had horrible problems because of it, problems that made it almost impossible to get another account or another card, even though it was clearly not their fault. It depends entirely upon the individual that is having problems, believe it or not, and even if it didn't, this is one of those times when I would rather be safe than sorry and wear my tinfoil hat.

And even if I didn't, the title of this thread was a good reminder. Take it any other way, it's up to you.

--
JKK

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay



Doctor Olds
I Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.
Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18

1 recommendation

reply to EUS

said by EUS:

A lot of this fraudulent crap can be mitigated very easily by simply setting up a verbal password with the bank.

Explain how? That only protects you from others trying to access your account over the phone and that is rare.

If/When your account number and CVV are stolen then used to make large in person purchases they are using a clone card. They then have those purchases charged (meaning approved) to your account and the identity thief has now gotten merchandise he can keep or sell on eBay or Craig's List for cash and you get the hassle of filling out fraudulent transaction affidavits as your account password doesn't prevent purchases with a clone card present at the POS.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time?


vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

reply to StuartMW

said by StuartMW:

Well back in those days little Johnny was taken behind the woodshed by Father and given a whippin' when he did something wrong.

How did you know my name?
--
Some people don't know what they don't know.


jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
USA
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
reply to Johnny

I just had to look to see what Snopes had to say about this, and lo, and behold, they said it's possible but not common. That was written in 2004, which I dare say might have been true then. Now, it's all quite common. The article was updated in 2011, and it still took the card issues rather lightly, IMHO.


Johnny
Fed Up. Bye.
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to Doctor Olds

said by Doctor Olds:

said by jaykaykay:

First of all, I don't believe much of what Snopes has to offer. That being said, I know that the gym example can happen, for a fact, as it happened here in one that we belong. Just because Snopes says it isn't true, don't rely upon that site to lead you.

But Snopes didn't say it isn't true. You must have read something else. I read it said "POSSIBLE, BUT NOT COMMON" which means it does happen but very rarely.

When posting a random anonymous email without checking Snopes first, there are two responses when called out on it:

1. Admit that you should have checked Snopes first
2. Claim that Snopes is no good.

#1 is always the better choice.


DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1
reply to jaykaykay

Even if the information here was treated by Snopes as 'possible, but not common' years ago, it should remind people to be more aware of their surroundings when using a credit or debit card.

I've had a credit card skimmed a couple of times and had a merchant I did business with hacked once where my data was stolen and used.

If you have a major bank-issued credit card, your liability is likely to be zero, but it depends on the issuer. Debit cards are a different story.

Scenario #3 is most useful if both sides of the card are photographed. Depending on my mood at the time, I might have grabbed the phone and called the police on the spot.



jaykaykay
4 Ever Young
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-13
USA
kudos:24
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy

1 recommendation

reply to Johnny

"When posting a random anonymous email without checking Snopes first, there are two responses when called out on it:

1. Admit that you should have checked Snopes first
2. Claim that Snopes is no good.

#1 is always the better choice."

Wrong! Snopes is still not the end all to be all. I check my links before posting things. Have you not thought of the fact that there are other links to check something other than Snopes! I looked at Snopes only to see what they really did say (after looking at my own choice of links to see if something is true or not).

I didn't say I had not checked other sources prior to my post, and again, note the title to this thread...A good reminder for all... My intention was a reminder to be aware. It was not to prove the veracity of the way something was written. Since just about everyone is in agreement that watching one's credit cards is a good thing, let it go. But do keep in mind that Snopes is not the only way to check things on the Internet.
--
JKK

Age is a very high price to pay for my maturity. If I can't stay young, I can at least stay immature!

»www.pbase.com/jaykaykay



Johnny
Fed Up. Bye.
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2
reply to jaykaykay

said by jaykaykay:

I just had to look to see what Snopes had to say about this, and lo, and behold, they said it's possible but not common. That was written in 2004, which I dare say might have been true then. Now, it's all quite common. The article was updated in 2011, and it still took the card issues rather lightly, IMHO.

All I did was post the link. I made no comment about it being true, false, or otherwise. But the Snopes discussion, as always, clarifies the actual situation, whereas the forwarded email, as always, is intended solely to scare, and to get itself forwarded.

Always select a chunk of the email blurb, and right-click and choose "Search with Google", (or however you do it on a PC, I have no idea). The first hit will usually be the Snopes article on the forwarded email.




goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

said by Johnny:

But the Snopes discussion, as always, clarifies the actual situation

No.

The point I believe jaykaykay is trying to make (and I agree completely) is that no one source can be completely relied on, even if they're generally right.

We, the users, still have to think; we can't just put ourselves on autopilot and blindly let someone else do our thinking for us. Things change, situations change, and what was true 5 years ago isn't automatically true now.

Snopes provides a service and I use it, but I have on occasion found it to be inaccurate based on direct experience. So there's no "as always" to it.


Johnny
Fed Up. Bye.
Premium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2

1 recommendation

I'll stand by my statement that Snopes always clarifies a forwarded email. Forwarded emails never, ever give a balanced assessment of the topic. That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to get forwarded.

So if you believe that Snopes is sometimes wrong, then read it and make a decision. Or read other urban-legend sites.

Something like this ancient email is virtually guaranteed to be in the Snopes collection, and intentionally not reading what Snopes has to say about it is silly.

Or we could just all ignore forwarded emails completely. I don't think there has ever been one that was worth reading.



KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to jaykaykay

said by jaykaykay:

This is a new one. People sure stay busy
Trying to cheat us, don't they?

SCENE 1.
A friend went to the local gym and placed his belongings in the
locker. After the workout and a shower, he came out, saw the locker open, and thought to himself, 'Funny, I thought I locked the locker...

Hmm, 'He dressed and just flipped the wallet to make sure all was in order. Everything looked okay - all cards were in place...

A few weeks later his credit card bill came - a whooping bill of
$14,000!

He called the credit card company and started yelling at them,
saying that he did not make the transactions.

Customer care personnel verified that there was no mistake in the system and asked if his card had been stolen...
'No,' he said, but then took out his wallet, pulled out the credit
card, and yep - you guessed it - a switch had been made.

An expired similar credit card from the same bank was in the wallet.

The thief broke into his locker at the gym and switched cards.

Verdict: The credit card issuer said since he did not report the
card missing earlier, he would have to pay the amount owed to them.

How much did he have to pay for items he did not buy?

$9,000! Why were there no calls made to verify the amount swiped?

Small amounts rarely trigger a 'warning bell' with some credit card companies. It just so happens that all the small amounts added up to big one!

Your liability for unauthorized charges depends on whether the thief personally presented your card to make the purchase, or made the purchase over the Internet or by phone.

If the thief personally presents your card to make the purchase, the card issuer cannot hold you liable for more than $50 in fraudulent charges. Many card issuers waive this $50. If the thief uses your card by phone or the Internet, you have no liability.

It's important to notify the card issuer as soon as you know of the theft. If you wait, the creditor may not believe that the card was really lost or stolen.

ATM and Debit Cards

With ATM or debit cards, you must act quickly in order to avoid full liability for unauthorized charges when your card is lost or stolen. Under the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act, your liability is:

$0 if you report the loss or theft of the card immediately and the card has not been used.
Up to $50 if you notify the bank within two business days after you realize the card is missing.

Up to $500 if you fail to notify the bank within two business days after you realize the card is missing, but do notify the bank within 60 days after your bank statement is mailed to you listing the unauthorized withdrawals....

However your liability is UNLIMITED if you fail to notify the bank within 60 days after your bank statement is mailed to you listing the unauthorized withdrawals.


If you can convince the bank that your notification failure was due to extentuating circumstances, it must extend the notification timeline for a "reasonable period."

Not liable for the $9,000. By law.... the ONLY way that he could be liable for said money in any circumstance is if it was a debit/ATM card, and he didn't pay any attention or use the card for months (possible) AND ignored the statements and never read them for at least 3 months or so. If so, well....

Also, there is extenuating circumstances. If you can convince the bank that your notification failure was due to extenuating circumstances, it must extend the notification timeline for a "reasonable period." (That sounds fairly vague to me.)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to goalieskates

said by goalieskates:

What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.

Such as?

On this occasion their analysis appears to be spot on...I've heard this claimed other times, and when challenged, no good example has been forthcoming.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


goalieskates
Premium
join:2004-09-12
land of big

said by Ian:

said by goalieskates:

What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.

Such as?

On this occasion their analysis appears to be spot on...I've heard this claimed other times, and when challenged, no good example has been forthcoming.

Probably because your "challenge" is unreasonable and rigged. It's an old technique - demand "proof" chop chop, drop what you're doing and cite it now and then we can all argue some more. It's sophistry.

Snopes is not an article of faith. If you want to turn it into one, that's your problem. Snopes is a service run by humans, and sometimes humans get things wrong. Like I said earlier, we still have to use common sense and personal observation, not just put our faith on autopilot.


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3

said by goalieskates:

said by Ian:

said by goalieskates:

What she said. Snopes has its uses, but there are times it misses badly.

Such as?

On this occasion their analysis appears to be spot on...I've heard this claimed other times, and when challenged, no good example has been forthcoming.

Probably because your "challenge" is unreasonable and rigged. It's an old technique - demand "proof" chop chop, drop what you're doing and cite it now and then we can all argue some more. It's sophistry.

Snopes is not an article of faith. If you want to turn it into one, that's your problem. Snopes is a service run by humans, and sometimes humans get things wrong. Like I said earlier, we still have to use common sense and personal observation, not just put our faith on autopilot.

If you're going to make the statement "but there are times it misses badly. " I hardly think it's unreasonable to ask for an example. A single example. When you made the statement, you implied that you knew of multiple times.

Is snopes.com perfect? Probably not. But in the case of researching one of these forwarded e-mails, they do a pretty good job.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong