Security → Re: A good reminder for all...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.