Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Using Your Privacy Against You 355

Posted by timothy from the guns-butter-and-syrup dept.
guttentag writes: "Christian Science Monitor Reporter Warren Richey suspects he may have stumbled onto a credit card fraud ring that uses Internet merchants to quietly funnel night-vision rifle scopes to Middle Eastern terrorists and privacy policies to cover their tracks. Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Your Privacy Against You More

Using Your Privacy Against You

Comments Filter:

  • Also a hammer... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sofist ( 556213 )
    You can use it for your work or you can hit your self on your fingers with it, if you are not careful.
    • This is more like someone taking another hammer and hitting you in the head with it.
      These merchants will suffer as much as the rest of us if the fraudulently-acquired goods are used against, say, the USA.
      Everybody loses when terrorism's involved.

  • Where are we heading to? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @04:44AM (#3651066) Journal
    Yesterday: Open Source development might make it easier for terrorists to break into systems.

    Today: Credit cards might make us pay for terrorist actions.

    Tomorrow: Windows might actually be an act of terror. Umm.. Nah, that wouldn't be news. We knew that all along.

  • You don't say... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ebbomega ( 410207 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @04:46AM (#3651073) Journal
    Can we please moderate the whole story?

    If I had the points I'd be giving it Flamebait with all five points....

    Jesus Christ. Yes, it's true that privacy helps criminals do crimes, but it's not like I'm going to install a camera in my bedroom so that the police know in case a crime happens to occur within the bounds of my room.

    I know of a similar group that had the general mantra that Security compromises Freedom, and quite frankly The Party in 1984 scared me more than two liner jets flying into the World Trade Center ever did.

    Point of the matter is the only way to ensure stuff doesn't get smuggled to the Enemies of State is to keep your eyes on the entire populous 24 hours a day. Unfortunately, then we forfeit our general human decency of free will.

    Honestly, every person who is capable thereof has a right to commit a crime. They also have a right to face the consequences of that crime. And that is what a lot of these security-mongers don't seem to understand.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we SHOULD go out and kill people and break every law in the book. What I'm saying is that with our free will we should be perfectly well allowed to do it to our capabilities and face the consequences. Me, personally, I don't think I'd want to go to jail, so as a result I won't do any crimes that would get me there. But there are crimes I break. I smoke Marijuana, I drive above the speed limit and I serve alcohol to minors (not all at the same time, mind you...). But I'm well aware of the consequences and I feel it is my right to break those laws, just as it is the government's right to punish me for doing so.

    • Re:You don't say... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BitHive ( 578094 )
      I was with you until you said:

      it is the government's right to punish me for [breaking certain laws]
      Why should the government have the right to punish you for smoking pot? I won't go into my rant against laws designed to protect us from ourselves, but driving excessively above the speed limit, serving alcohol to minors, (and not investigating shipment of arms to hostile countries, fraudulent shipments at that) potentially and needlessly endanger others, and this is where scrutiny of law is useful. You can get where you're going without speeding, minors can get their own damn booze :), and everyone (IMHO) can do without night-vision rifle scopes.
      • Whatever... Those were just examples of laws I happen to break, because, quite frankly, a LOT of people break laws... This wasn't intended to be a debate on Pot legalisation or anything like that... The point was more that Laws exist for a reason, and that is to punish people who take liberties with their rights.

        Laws are rules. Break the rules, face the consequences, whether it be the long arm of the law, Karma, a mellow high or whatever.
        • Yes, but we have a duty to overturn laws that make no sense. The punishment for posession of pot is completely disproportionate to the crime. In most cases, it is a "victimless" crime. When attempts to overturn such laws are unsuccessful, I feel it is the duty of the population to disobey the law in a peaceful manner.
        • "To punish people who take liberties with their rights."

          Heaven forbid we have liberty!

          What you mean is to punish people who act outside of their rights.

          To live in a (somewhat) safe and (somewhat) ordered society, we surrender some rights. In an orderless society, I would have the right to kill and steal. I (involuntarily) surrender these rights for the privelidge of living in this society. I see no problem with this. What other rights do I give up, and what further benifits do I gain by doing so? These are the big questions.

          Past the first steps of giving up the right to do obviously cruel and harmful things to others, I don't think giving up freedom for safety is ever a very good idea. If a man threatens me, I can deal with him on more or less equal footing (go out and buy a gun, intimidate him, etc.) if the government threatens me, I am powerless within the law. At such a point my friends and I excercise the 2nd amendment and perhaps the greatest lesson of 20th century urban warfare: resistance by an armed populace is frighteningly hard to control. Guerilla warfare, baby, the last tool of the true citizen.

      • Re:You don't say... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by brsmith4 ( 567390 )
        A lot of people simply do not understand why pot is illegal. Its not because of its effect on you or anything else. These days, its more because of the people that it comes from. By buying and using it, you are supporting these third-world drug cartels (or some d00d that grows the stuff under some special lights in a garage) that engage in some very risky business. The government dug themselves a hole on this one. They could have easily legalized the drug and then FDA tested, approved, and placed special guidlines on its manufacture. Legalizing pot would also put the substance in more accessable reach to minors. I don't mind an adult, chilling at home, lighting up a joint and having a good time. Its not something I would do. However, it is the last thing I would want to see in the hands of a 12, 13 year old child (that seems to be a prime age for the beginnings of cigarette smoking). Just a thought.

        • Re:You don't say... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bankman ( 136859 )
          That's a very sensitive topic:

          Prohibition doesn't work. Never has, never will.

          I would prefer to get my pot from a pharmacist, who in turn, got it from a government controlled farm. Why? Simply because I could be sure that I am getting a quality product and the government could have a pretty high increase in tax income, instead of spending money on catching and prosecuting users and small-time traffickers. Organized crime (yes, and terrorist groups, rogue nations etc. think of the political lobbying that is possible right now...) wouldn't get its share, and I would be happy about it.

          Just because something is legalized doesn't mean that you wouldn't be able to control accessability for minors. You could argue in fact that it is _now_ impossible to control the availability to minors, because the government doesn't control anything regarding to pot. I think it is even more dangerous to have it prohibited: It is proven that pot is not an entry drug (i.e. users will eventually move on to stronger drugs like cocaine etc.) medically, but it is one sociologically. Think about it, the government says that marijuana is dangerous, the average kid sees his or her friends smoking it, and they don't die instantly because of it. Instead it makes them feel good. He or she decides to try it, eventually wants to buy it as well. Where to get it? From your friendly (uncontrolled) neighboorhood dealer, who also happens to be engaged in hard drug traffiicking. Well, this guy (mostly guys in this business) offers something stronger. Our drug apprentice thinks that he was fed lies about drugs before and might just as well try something else

          It is this disinformation.strategy that is a lot more dangerous than pot can ever be. Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining. AFAIK, the Netherlands is the only country in the EU (and probably world-wide) where this is the case.

          • Look at the Netherlands for example, where pot is legal to own (in small quantities) and where the number of first-time drug users (and drug related deaths) is declining.

            A few years back we had some numbers on that. About 1 million people had used/still used marijuana. Of these 160.000 were regular/heavy users. These numbers had shown a significant growth over the time the survey was taken.

            In the same time period, the number of users of 'hard' drugs (heroin, cocaine, amphetamines) had stayed fairly constant.

            In other words, this study showed quite clearly that the 'stepping stone effect' that opponents of legalisation use, does not exist.

            I can't be bothered to look up the exact links now, but I believe the study was released by our Central Statistics Agency (CBS, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek). If you can read Dutch, you might want to try and search their website [www.cbs.nl] for more recent numbers. Or you might try our Health Ministry [minvws.nl].

            I agree that prohibition is a losing proposition. However, the pro-legalisation side of the debate should never lose sight of the downsides of a permissive soft-drug policy. These downsides have been used by conservatives in the Netherlands to try to make the goverment retract our current policies.

            Mart
      • The state has the right of force of law, the only acceptable form of violent force. Hence, force as applied by the state, defines all rights of itself and citizens. As such, their right to punish is a direct consequence of their monopoly on force (of law) and the inability to oppose said force (short of riots).
      • "You can get where you're going without speeding."
        But we can get there faster by speeding. Did you have a point here? Everybody wants police on the road to stop idiot dangerous drivers.

        "minors can get their own damn booze :)"
        Um, no they can't and that's the problem. I am a parent, and I love my children. But I want them to learn about the dangers and pleasures of wine and beer from me, not be droped headfirst into drinking at the unstable age of 21 amidst floudering loosers in bar scenes. The missinformation purposfully spread by anti-youth drinking campaigns is destabalizing our culture. Besides, this is unquestionable discrimination by age, something outlawed by the government. When I was 18 I was ten times more mature than any 21 year old I have ever met. That's not to brag, but rather because I had been through more crap than most 18 year olds.

        "and everyone (IMHO) can do without night-vision rifle scopes."
        Except the government. Perhaps you missed this part, but the right to bear arms wasn't granted for hunting, but to protect us from those that wanted to take away our other rights. They couldn't find a way to keep us from having the right to own and bear arms, so they just changed it to be that we couldn't own and bear any arms that were worth anything against the people in power. Effectively destroying the purpose of the right without removing the right completely. People are correct when they say this right has no reason for being anymore: it's been rendered worthless.
        • Even in crippled form, the right to bear arms is still useful.

          If the population of New York City decided to go into open revold, holed themselves up in buildings with only small arms and rifles, the government would have a bloody mess of a time doing anything about it.

          People underestemate their ability to resist opression.

    • The Goverment, any government, should be geven the right to protect others from me; and the responcibility to protect me from others.

      • It's too bad that the only way they know how to do that is by punishing those who commit crimes.

        The closest thing that the North American governments do is make verbal threats illegal. But that's about it.

    • Re:You don't say... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by peddrenth ( 575761 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @07:25AM (#3651378) Homepage
      Right. It's not a story about privacy policies, it's a story about credit-card fraud, and how one large credit card handler is destroying evidence even where there is clear proof of fraud.

      Their 'privacy' policy is irrelevant, they're laundering money for terrorists and destroying evidence. What does this have to do with privacy?

      Read the story, people
      • I hope the parent gets modded up, it is the only clueful post on this story about old-fashioned credit card fraud.

        BTW, all of you folks rambling on about what rights the government should have might want to look at the US Constitution. The feds have NO RIGHTS. The federal government has powers and authority. The People and the States have all of the rights.
      • They are not laundering money. To quote from the article: "Fraud investigators at my credit card company say that since they got their money back they are not interested in further investigation."
        And they're not actively destroying evidence either, I'd assume, they just keep these records for a limited time.

        But all this doesn't matter and here's why:
        If the merchant can't provide a valid customer signature with the credit card info, the entire risk of the transaction is with the merchant. Anyone who ever worked in e-business knows this is standard credit card company policy. They get their money back and it's the merchant who ends up being frauded.

        Which, by coincidence, has lead many online merchants to check the billing address listed with your credit card record, or even stricter only ship to that billing address. Because this info is harder for simple scamsters to obtain (though not impossible, stealing your wallet will do, but then the card is usually blocked completely).

        So the conclusion of this whole lame story is that the merchant of these rifle scopes loses a lot of money because they are not careful enough about their shipping addresses. And they will likely go out of business if they keep this up.

        Big deal. Personally I think they deserve it, for stupidity even more than for helping possible terrorists if you ask me.
    • Jesus Christ. Yes, it's true that privacy helps criminals do crimes, but it's not like I'm going to install a camera in my bedroom so that the police know in case a crime happens to occur within the bounds of my room.

      Well every once in a while we get a super genuis like R. Kelly who did.

    • Yes, you, like most people, would not want a video camera anywhere in your house. It should be pointed out though that this is a complete invasion of privacy and would yield very little usable intelligence for our country. Just because THIS instance of sacrificing privacy for security is completely unacceptable does not mean that all such transactions are. For instance, no reasonable person, in this day and age especially, would argue that it should be a right to board a jumbojet without being searched or subject to the possibility of being searched, i.e., if you're carrying wearing a large trenchcoat and boxes with wires in them. Yet you glady sacrifice this nominal amount of privacy for greatly improved security (however imperfect it may be). In much the same way, we regularly make reasonable trade offs in our privacy. I totally fail to see how you can mark this entire story as flamebait. The poster merely suggested that there is a tradeoff to be made, not even that we SHOULD pursue one course of action or the other. I might even be inclined to agree that we SHOULD monitor credit card fraud more for terrorist conspiracies, even where there might be some potential for loss of privacy. Please try engaging in rational discussion rather than scare mongering. If you want to say it is flamebait, then explain why. Please explain WHY it is unreasonable or undesirable to monitor already KNOWN criminal behavior (e.g., credit card fraud) for a much worse element, i.e., terrorism, when there might be a real possibility of tracking terrorists with it or at least reducing their access to arms.

      I, for one, believe that we need to seriously re-evaluate our approach to privacy in light of MODERN terrorism. To BLINDLY use the exact same legal principles and laws today that we used more than 100 years ago without any discussion of the dramatic shift in threats to our security is just plain FOOLISH. First and foremost, we have weapons of destruction that can cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and can be obtained and used by a handful of determinated individuals unlike anything before. Secondly, we have known groups of individuals that seek to do just this sort of destruction. Thirdly, we have vastly increased access to this country by foreign groups that may seek us harm between our immigration policy, our modern open economy (i.e., massive international shipping), and our various forms of high speed transit. Fourthly, we have far more dense population centers where terrorists can inflict much greater harm on us with the same weapons. In short, what was an acceptable risk during the 1800s, or even 1950s, may not be today. I'm not proposing wholesale abandonment of our laws with respect to privacy and individual rights, but we should, at very least, DEBATE some very particular laws.

      (No, 9/11 did not somehow create this threat and it's not just a reaction on my part. I've been saying this for a long time. However, it has made the threat real for a large number of Americans and, consequently, given many the resolve to do what they were previously unwilling to do. It's also demonstrated to the skeptics that the terrorists are both willing and capable of killing thousands of people without warning in one fell swoop.)

  • privacy vs. control (Score:2, Insightful)

    by anno1602 ( 320047 )

    Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us.

    Well, yeah, that's the whole problem the governemnts have with privacy... The more privacy is guaranteed, the harder it is to track such things as financial operations or observe people or institutions. Somebody who wants privacy but doesn't see this needs a hit with a clue-stick. It's a question of choosing between two equally bad extremes: A privacy so harsh that even police is not allowed to search anything, no matter what (that's going to hurt crime investigation big time), or the police state where the police knows about everybody and everything. The truth lies,as always, somewhere in the middle, and more importantly: It is up to every society to decide where they want to draw the line. There is no such thing as the best equilibrium for everybody and everything. To sum up my reaction to the above sentence: d'oh.

    • The more privacy is guaranteed, the harder it is to track such things as financial operations or observe people or institutions. Somebody who wants privacy but doesn't see this needs a hit with a clue-stick.

      I proudly present my head to your clue-stick. What definition of government does one have to subscribe to in order to believe that governmental monitoring of people and institutions is a good thing?

  • It is scary how much the banks don't track (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @04:54AM (#3651093)
    In the last six months I have been the victim of check and credit card fraud. My bank burned the evidence (the checks) on the day it happened even though I had called them only hours after the checks were cashed.With the credit card fraud, all they did was credit my account. No investigation was done.
    In both cases, the police did absolutely zero.

    In the end I got my money back so why should I care? Well I saw first hand how not only do the institutions not actively track these criminals, they actually activily put road blocks in place so you cant track them.

    I mean, why would my bank burn checks the same day they got them? And why were they unable [as they told me] to track further checks that came in on that (now closed) account? Given the evidence I had (video tape at circle K), and notifying the banks and police within hours of the crime, I would have thought they would have had a good chance at catching the crooks. But they refused to do anything at all; even though supposedly this the way terrorists are being funded.
    If I ever get into financial trouble, I now know an easy way to steal money with no fear of being tracked down...

    • Sorry sir, regulations! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:21AM (#3651150) Homepage
      The banks simply apply cost/benefit calculations, same as the credit card companys.

      See, for example if an extended check storing facility costs 10'000'000 $ per year and check fraud costs them 7'000'000 $ per year. They're 3'000'000 $ better off to burn canceled checks and cheerfully refund your money.

      CC companies are even worse, since the merchant always bites the bullet; so they don't really give a shit! There's really no incentive here to invest big into fraud detection systems.

      This is a rotten attitude of course. Because ultimately we all pay through higer prices. What's even worse (and grossly unfair) is that as a merchant even if he verifies the CC data and the shipping address of the order and the CC company OKs it, the merchant still pays if something goes awry.

      The fincancial service industry is rotten and they don't give a shit about their customers as long the bottom line looks OK.

    • This echoes my experience from getting my check card number stolen. A merchant called to verify a purchase I never made, so I contacted the bank fraud people who a) treated me with suspicion and b) never contacted me further about it all, the money just magically appeared back in my account and I was issued a new card. I've heard that the major (multi-million) bank frauds often don't get reported due to the bad PR that would result, and this must be a similiar situation in the credit industry.

      LEXX

  • RTFA please (Score:4, Informative)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <ememalb.gmail@com> on Thursday June 06, 2002 @04:58AM (#3651103) Homepage Journal
    Dude was in a foreign country. In Amman, Jordan to be exact. This is a sensationalist version of basically what amounts to standard fraud, except dude was in a middle-eastern country where a lot of people aren't friendly to the US and West in general. Granted, sucks that this occured, but is it news?

    Synopsis: Journalist travels to Middle Eastern country. While there, orders stuff on his Amex. Amex receipt (I assume? Article not too clear on this) was used to purchase military equipment. Sucks, but such is life. This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see.

    As a side note, when I was in the Middle East, (USMC--Oohrah!) we were instructed to make purchases only in their currency, so scams (which is all it really is) wouldn't happen.

    Lastly, why the hell wasn't his card cancelled? Is he that stupid?

    I seriously doubt this story is real at all, come to think of it.

    • Re:RTFA please (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Afty0r ( 263037 )
      "This doesn't have anything to do with Privacy in the US, as far as I can see."

      You are right, it doesn't have anything to do with privacy in the US, but along with the majority of your fellow countrymen, you seem to have forgotten that there are still a few humans on this planet who have not yet managed to obtain US citizenship.
      • The article was about a US citizen overseas. Has absolutely nothing do do with anyone else other than that US citizen. So, in your need to bash me, you forgot what the article was essentially about. Which is ok, happens all the time here on /.

        And, as someone who has been all over the world, yes, I do realize there are a lot of people out there that aren't as blessed (yes, I said blessed) to be American. We have our issues, sure, but so does every other country.

  • Privacy verses Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Diabolical ( 2110 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @04:59AM (#3651105) Homepage
    Of course privacy is being used against us. It allways has and always will be. Every country has it's examples of this fact.

    But would it be worth it to give up our privacy to maintain a false feeling of security? Terrorists will always be able to get their hands on weapons and other stuff to use against us. Whether it is through buying stuff with stolen creditcards or use of a malafide dealer or manufacturer. Weapons and other military stuff are being produced all over the world.

    In the light of 9/11 would we have to give up our privacy? For what? The hijackers used frigging hobby knives and some of them weren't even known terrorists. The absense of privacy is not a threath to them. It is to us though...

    What's more important is that our governments will not be a totalitarian one and our every move would not be under scrutiny by the government. I like my privacy although i know that my name and other information is going through hundreds of databases [databasenation.com] each day. I would never like the idea of a government knowing every little thing i say or do though. What's preventing a government of misuse of all that information?

    • Why is this marked as flamebait? This is the smartest fucking thing anyone's said in response to this article...the guy's absolutely right. Our government seems to have a privacy-removing agenda going on lately, from nuts like Ashcroft all the way up to Bush. There's even a bill being repeatedly sent through Congress to ban yet even more handguns/small arms on the grounds they could be used in "terrorist acts." I mean come on...these guys used freakin box cutters on their airplanes...this is isn't Afghanistan, you need certain qualifications to even BUY a gun. (like citizenship, a drivers license, and the ability to pass a background check) And buying on the black market...well, that's going to be even easier if more guns get banned.

      Not to mention the so-called Patriot Act and its provisions to make electronic intrusion a "terrorist act."

      All this in the name of fighting terrorism. Someone mod this guy back up. -1 Flamebait, my ass.

  • Freedoms (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:14AM (#3651137)
    The freedoms enjoyed by millions of people can be exploited by a few hundred, or even a few thousand malicious people. This is new to someone? Someone ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD? Wow. You must know very, very little about the histories of free countries, as well as very basic things like the wide availability of kitchen knives, which can be used to cut meat and also murder family members in their sleep.

    Why do these stories suddenly become new or shocking when the word "terrorist" is connected to them? Are so many people really that ignorant about the basics of how freedoms work and the costs that come with them? This stuff is so simple that it could be taught to first graders and they would fully understand it in less than an hour.

  • TV commercials. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Una ( 122314 ) <erh@@@10base2...net> on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:16AM (#3651142)
    Strangely enough, This reminds me of the war on drugs commercial where they have multitudes of teenage children proclaiming "I support terrorists" and "I killed those cops", and at the end gives a message something to the effect of "If you use drugs, Your supporting terrorism."

    Now Id really like to see a new mastercard commerical along those same lines:

    Hotel room in Jordan: $125 a night.
    Crispy waffle breakfast: $5
    Knowing your MasterCard helped Al Qaeda terrorists buy weapons: Priceless.

    -Una

  • Partial solution CC fraud: volutary limits (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Drashcan ( 113359 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:20AM (#3651145)
    Why don't the credit card companies introduce the possibility for the card holders to opt out of certain categories of goods so that the credit card cannot be used to buy these kind of goods?

    I am thinking in the first place about firearms. These are usually sold in specialised stores which can be easily identified in the credit card transaction databases. Most people do not buy firearms very often and certainly not with a credit card.

    This could also apply to other goods.

    • Data Quality (Score:2, Insightful)

      by CaptainZapp ( 182233 )
      From what I understand the authorization systems (specifically in the US) suck shit!

      From a data processing pov it would be incredible hard to implement, specifically based on current systems.

      True story: MCI was not able to authorize a 10$ purchase via the phone on my non-us credit card. They wanted a zip code. No zip-code no authorization. Now, if the cc authorization systems really rely on 5 digit zip codes in order to authorize a 10 dollar purchase it's beyond my comprehension just how much those systems must suck.

  • So, When does somebody actually reveal the truth? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That the ICA, NSA, FBI, President Bush and his son George W. are behind the greatest terrorist outrage of modern times in order to oust a hostile regime so's they can build an oil pipeline across that peoples' lands for their rich oil cronies?

    Waiting for the truth. Still waiting. And still...yeah, right...

  • Slashdot summary totally wrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smiff ( 578693 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:41AM (#3651194)
    Once again, Slashdot got the summary totally wrong. From the Slashdot writeup:

    it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us.

    The privacy policy was never intended to protect us. From the article:

    Ccnow says it has a confidentiality agreement with Internet merchants.

    The privacy policy is a contract, and its purpose is to protect the merchant (which in this case, may also be the perpetrator).

    With all due respect, it is rare that I ever see a privacy policy intended to protect me. Usually, privacy policies have so many loopholes, that they do not constitute a privacy policy at all. There general purpose is to protect the merchant from liability. Even if there were a privacy policy to protect the author, that policy would not have impeded the investigation.

    Finally, the article wasn't even about privacy policies. The article was about credit card fraud. The privacy issues just happened to be mentioned in the third-to-last paragraph.

  • Nothing to see here ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RWarrior(fobw) ( 448405 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:42AM (#3651195)
    This isn't news.

    Kids have been stealing credit card numbers for years. Fraud investigations on stolen credit cards have ended when the CC company gets the money back. Story time.

    Someone at my place of employment either stole a Visa debit card from my personal posessions or from my wife's purse, or I left it in an ATM machine, or something. They wiped my checking account clean of well over $3000 plus my overdraft protection, buying beer, shoes, gasoline, and in general living it up and having a good time.

    When I discovered what was going on (because checks started coming back), I reported the card compromised, closed the account, did a police report, the whole bit.

    If it had been stolen from the ATM machine, the security camera might have snapped a shot of the person who took it. In any case, the establishments that took the card might have had security cameras picking up someone committing fraud with my card to the tune of three grand.

    The police took the report and filed it under "Theft Under $100" (because the cash value of the card is less than a dollar), and that's the end of it. My employer didn't care either, because it didn't cost them any money. My bank closed the account after charging back the merchants who took the money.

    The only people who lost here were those merchants. Nobody cares. Write it off as a cost of business.

    The only thing that makes this different is that it happened to two people in the same office. They could have bought rocket launchers, and it wouldn't matter.

    As for the privacy policy ... well, that's CCBill's problem. Someday they'll get slapped with a subpoena they can't fulfill because they don't keep records for the length of time they should, and then they'll be a huge Congresscritter investigation about privacy on the Internet with people storming that there shouldn't be any, and then the EFF and CDT will have to get all worked up and lobby some more. Until then ... business as usual.

  • FUD by idiots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @05:58AM (#3651222) Homepage Journal
    someone used her account information to send a $1,800 US-made night-vision scope with infrared capability to an address in the United Arab Emirates

    Let me get this straight: this author use two unique instances to conclude that 1) piracy helps terrorists, and 2) Internet merchant helps terrorists.

    This is incredibly idiotic, how could /. even repost such an article written by people as dumb as ox? I'm sure this guy has a collection of Dummy's books on his shelf.

    To author:get a clue! The goods was NOT magically shipped to Middle East electronically, it's sending to a real address physically. The supplier must be well aware what goods is to be shipped to what destination. Just because the paymant is done on the Internet and he concluded that Internet merchant is to be blamed?

    Also I'm not convinced that piracy helps terrorists in any way in this case. If the supplier shipped suspicious goods to problematic countries without question, then they should take full responsiblity.

    We have enough news sites that crowded with editors who have subliminal intelligence and clue. I'm very annoyed that /. even post this article, making people thought /. is standing in ths same line with such news sites.
    • "You will never know who the supplier was," Mr. Anderson said.

    Hahaha, this one sounds right out of The Matrix [imdb.com]. Priceless.

    • Meanwhile, the next time I want a warm, crispy waffle, I think I'll just pay cash.

    Duh, who would ordes waffles over the internet. Just drive to the nearest waffles outlet and buy one. Or ask your wife/goflfriend to bake you some :-)

  • Aren't night-vision rifle scopes used to violate people's privacy? The night-time privacy of possible targets, that is. Kinda funny that merchant 'privacy' results in the violation of target 'privacy'. Oh, and then there's the whole taking your CCN/exp date thing - It really seems like credit cards are not secure enough. It seems stupid that they aren't more secure. Why don't they just have a system that, say, requires voice authorization for purchases (stores have a phone, net purchases result in a quick 'did you buy this' phone call), or perhaps a unique Purchase Authorization Number (PAN) that is entered directly by the purchaser, so the merchants never see it. As it is now, the merchants have direct access to your CCN, name, and expiration date - everything they need to ring up charges - and all you can do is trust them.

    Credit cards suck, and I don't plan on getting one unless I have to.

  • And in other Credit Card News... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @06:40AM (#3651295) Homepage
    People are watching pirated movies over the Internet, after giving their credit card number to a website in Iran.

    Hmmm. $1 for a movie, extra for the night-scope to go?

  • Article's Real Issue (Score:3, Informative)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @06:54AM (#3651319)
    Its pretty hard to find something worthy of discussion in this article. Lets cut throught the fluff real quick:
    1. Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning. You were thinking that the weapons seen in civilian hands on CNN were purchased at the Wal-Mart in Al Kars?
    2. Two reporters from the same newspaper get their card info lifted at the same restaurant - same racket is ran in the US on occasion. No mysterious conspiracy there.
    3. Terrorism might involve crime - terrorism IS crime... or at least was according to US Military doctrine. At least, until the War on Terrorism.
    4. The FBI didn't jump on the opportunity to track down a set of night scopes headed for Saudi Arabia - those involved with the security of US citizens and forces in the Middle East are probably rather resigned to the fact that terrorist forces in the area already have access to such equipment. They might have one lead that could eventually uncover something, but hardly drop-everything-else valuable. Its likely a dead-end.
    5. ccnow [ccnow.com], identified as the "vendor", wouldn't give the reporter details citing privacy policy - amazing, an absolute stranger on the phone claiming some connection to a transaction can't get details? Its obviously a front!

    Actually, the ccnow bit might be the only interesting piece of the entire article. The fact that the reporter couldn't get information is probably a good sign that the policy is actually being followed as promised. But it hardly means the information is not available to appropriate parties. CCNow's privacy statement [ccnow.com] reads in part:

    We treat this customer information as private and confidential, and we will not disclose this information to other individuals or organizations unless required by law.

    There is more detail in their client agreement [ccnow.com] which notes in Section 7 (emphasis mine):

    While CCNow generally treats Client and Customer information as private and confidential, including contact information (name and address), personal data, sales data, product data, credit-card information, and E-mail addresses, Client agrees that CCNow may, without notice to Client, divulge or share any Client or Customer information with law enforcement or regulatory authorities in response to a valid subpoena, court order, or other similar order issued by any law enforcement official, regulatory official or any Federal or governmental agent or body of the United States or of International Countries. Client agrees to deliver, acknowledge, execute or produce any documents, information, instruments, data (financial or otherwise) or certificates, and to cooperate and do such other acts and things as may be required by law, or as may be reasonably necessary for the compliance with the requirements of any federal, state, local or international law, or any regulations of any governmental agency or authority.

    So really - what we have is another non-issue. If / when the FBI, CIA, or other lawfull agency makes the appropriate request for this information, CCNow will apparently present it (and furthermore requires their clients to also comply with such requests). The privacy policy is not inhibiting this case at all, despite the reporters horrified whispers and hand-wringing over waffles, weapons, and Al Qaeda.
    • Freud is being used to purchase weapons - hello and welcome to the world of gunrunning

      You know, sometimes an M-16 is just an M-16.

      There's another famous psychiatrist who was into terrorism, too...does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    • I agree with the above poster about the lack of a real story here. I must comment though for the clueless:

      Night Vision Scopes are not weapons in and of themselves.

      Unless the buyer takes the scope and bludgeons someone to death with it, it is not a weapon by itself.

      Night Vision is not a controlled substance or technology. Most countries with a military now have night vision. We, the United States, are not the sole holder of that dreadful technology.

      Lastly, at $1800 US, this is not state of the art night vision, I would guess it to be about 10 year old or more technology.



      • Night Vision Scopes are not weapons in and of themselves.

        ...

        Night Vision is not a controlled substance or technology. Most countries with a military now have night vision. We, the United States, are not the sole holder of that dreadful technology.

        Two excellent points.


        But at the same time, I don't think its too much of a jump to expect military-grade equipment being collected for militaristic purposes when they are being imported to such an unstable area of the world. The eventual buyer could be an enthusiast or collector. But considering the market, its unlikely.


        The other interesting point is the nationality of the devices in question. Soviet surplus, it would seem. Old, but effective enough. And cheap. And readily available. At the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had friends who would drive in to Berlin to buy Soviet military hardware; clothes, insignia, firearms, and other equipment (grenades could be had rather cheaply too, but we weren't interested). This equipment is obviously available from plenty of sources throughout the world.


        The fact that we are dealing with only night-vision scopes, items that are commonly available, does a lot to show why the FBI might not be overly concerned about this case.

  • Welcome... to the real world. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @07:14AM (#3651356) Homepage Journal
    (This is probably going to be a hit on my Karma, but what the heck).

    Credit card scam? ID theft? Poor journalist scammed of good ol' US$$$?

    Frankly, I am not surprised.

    Credit card "security" is nothing but the latest scam of the banking establishment.

    In Europe, where almost every credit card carries a so-called "smart chip", banks have tried to suppress information that these cards can be broken using a few thousands of Euros worth of standard electronic equipement.

    You think I am spouting nonsense? Search for "Serge Humpich" [google.fr] on Google, and see what I mean!

    In the USA, most credit cards do not even offer the ridiculous security of "smart chip" -- how come you are surprised by ID or credit theft?

    And are you really surprised that banks quickly destroy all traces of the fraud? This is just their way of saying: "Situation under control, Sir. Nothing to see here".

    As usual, the customer is left to pay the bills: if you think the fraud is bad, wait until you see what it does to your credit report!! Not to mention finding yourself on every "terrorist list" there is out there.

    And one more thing, and this is simple common sense: let's face it, most Middle-East countries have a bone (or several) to pick with the USA. How come this guy thinks he can go to Amman, Jordan, pay something with his credit card and hope that some underpaid islamic clerk in the hotel lobby is not going to swipe the card number to buy expensive little (russian) toys?

    Sorry, seems to me the journalist in question is an idiotic whining moron!!!

    So there. Flame all you want.

  • Did anybody actually READ the story? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @07:20AM (#3651369) Homepage
    • Transaction records reveal that the first attempted fraudulent purchase was made on the same day that I returned to the US. The $3,100 transaction for two Russian-made night-vision rifle scopes and a more high-tech miniature night-vision scope was refused because it exceeded the single-purchase limit on my card. Roughly a month later, however, someone submitted a scaled-down version of the same order and it was accepted.

    Yeah, whatever. So either the CC company didn't tell Charlie Church about a $3000 dollar rejection, or he didn't cancel his card at this point. Pick the least implausible alternative.

    Anybody else here thinking that this whole story is purely or largely fictional, based on a rationalisation that this is the sort of stuff that's probably happening to other people? I note that CCnow's Privacy Statement [ccnow.com] only covers purchasers, not sellers.

    You know, it seems to me that he could use the Freedom of Information Act to pursue the FBI and find out exactly what they've done with the information he allegedly gave them, and why they failed to act before the records were wiped. That sounds like it would make a much bigger and better story. I wonder why this guy will fly to the Middle East in the hope of getting the same story as everyone else, but he won't write a couple of letters to pursue an exclusive.

  • Atleast here in Finland credit card holders can deny purchase of paying any credit card bill just by saying "I did not do it". I have one real life experience on this matter, when my card was used to order some stuff that 1) was not purchased by me and 2) never arrived to me. Everything worked fine with the issuer and the bill got cancelled.

    The responsibilities regarding credit card orders in Finland if I have understood correctly (I quess this is an international ruling) go: origin of purchase <-> credit card issuer <-> credit card holder. The losses I create, go to issuer, who seeks a compensation for the losses from origin of purchase, which seeks compensation from somewhere.

  • Us? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mqduck ( 232646 )
    "it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

    Ya know, I find that comment a bit disturbing. And not just because of the obvious reason that it appears to support limiting privacy (further). I hope I don't sound like one a them trolls, but honestly, while the "Middle Eastern terrorists" that the White House likes to talk so much about are obviously engaging in activities that are immoral as a whole (death and destruction), I DO agree with them that the "us" you try to speak of, the "us" that isn't really inclusive of us at all, but of the rich and powerful that control this nation, and others, need a serious ass-whooping.

    To put it another way, while I will agree with anybody who calls a terrorist bad (not "evil") no matter what his or her motives are, I will also say that I am in full support of the society that those "Middle Eastern terrorists" grew out of.

    I think it's really just a matter of looking at who the real enemies are.

    -Jeff
  • The way the CSM article was written you'd think that a night-vision scope was the moral equivalent of a cubic foot of weaponized anthrax or a backpack nuke.

    The most dangerous thing you can do with a night vision scope is hit someone over the head with it.

    With sensationalistic journalism like this, baby monitors become spy-killing machines and those X10 cameras are automatically associated with sexual predators. It's a slippery slope that I do not want us to go down!

  • Liberty, security. Liberty, security.

    I think we know that freedom comes with a price: less security. Security comes with a price too: less freedom.

    In the US, this idea was a commonplace before the Revolution. Anybody have any idea as to its earlier origins? (I'm sure it was bandied about during the English Civil War.)
  • Typical Slashdot readers will be the first to point out that you're not a criminal and shouldn't be labeled one until you commit the crime.

    Aren't people allowed to buy a rifle scope without it being your business?
  • "Even if these are isolated incidents, it's worth noting that the privacy rules intended to protect us can also work against us."

    Well, at least somebody's noting it and not just jumping on the privacy bandwagon blindly, chanting "Priavcy! Privacy! Privacy!" It should be obvious, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that the privacy they so feverently wage holy wars for is a double edged sword. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Everybody loves privacy. Until you find out that your local chapter of Jihads R Us has been thriving under the same policy and cooking up plans to slaughter your peoples wholesale. Then, when those same privacy fanatics scream "FIND THOSE TERRORISTS!", ultimate irony will set in as they realize their government can't help them because it would be violating all the privacy acts these people wish existed. I'm not advocating total government oversight, but some people out there need to buy a bottle perspective. What protects you, protects them.
  • Life causes death

    what goes up must come down

    Open source software enables cacking security

    Locks are for honesty people

    What we make, we can break

    etc..

    It's not about this thing or that thing being bad, it's about people and how they use things to be bad.

    Maybe automobiles and trucks should be added to the list of terrorist tools that should be ban, along with anything that can be use to make a bomb.

    In fact, why don't we just make up a list of all things that can be used to kill.....Guess that would include water....

    But it's really about people, what they do, and most important WHY?

    Like what is terrorist reason to do bad things?

    Or Like why was a trillion dollar bet [pbs.org] allowed to happen? Hmmmm, isn't Indonesia like 80% or better muslin?

    And Why is military spending not being used [osearth.com] to address and remove reasons to be a terrorist or do bad things? Certainly it cost us all alot more backing up wrongful world financial manipulations with guns, then it would in being more productive with such military labeled finances.

    So yeah, on the list of things that can be used for terrorist act, we really do have to add the world militaries, as common sence will tell anyone that the majority of people living on this planet don't want war but only to live a happy and healthy life.

    It's just the few creating wars and bad things, spending huges amount of money that can be far better spent.
  • Let me get this straight:

    - Customs is able to stop the delivery of tools that MIGHT be used to hack Nintendo games
    - Customs is UNABLE to stop the shipment of night vision equipment to terrorist harboring nations where it WILL be used to commit violent crimes

    Yeah, we've got our priorities straight.

  • Have we already lost? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rben ( 542324 )

    You can have freedom or security. Choosing freedom means that you accept a certain amount of risk in order to maintain that freedom. One of our founding fathers (Too my shame I can't remember which one) said that those who are willing to trade freedom for safety deserve neither one.

    Since 9/11 we have allowed our government to reduce our personal freedoms in exchange for a promise of greater security.

    Stories like this one are important, since they show that there is a cost for freedom, it shouldn't be taken for granted. The events of 9/11 were part of that cost as well.

    By allowing legislation like the Patriot Act to pass without fighting it lots of Americans have given tacit approval to the destruction of the country that I love.

    Osama bin Ladin says he wants to destroy this country. Ironically, we seem to be doing the job for him. More and more I see people saying that we have to accept these new restrictions on our privacy.

    The real war is not one of terrorism and counter-terrorism, it's a war of ideals and information. The men who attacked our country did so because they had been taught that the U.S. is a great source of evil in the world. We need to find ways to teach people what our country is really about.

    We also have to accept responsibility for our mistakes and policy failings.

    So yes, there is always a risk that our freedoms can be used against us. Sometimes it's high, but do we really want to trade it away?

  • Privacy laws are there to protect consumers, not vendors. Vendors are not entitled to have their identities obscured. The system doesn't work that way.

    This isn't really a privacy issue so much. Every business keeps their records for a limited amount of time and then gets rid of them. 6 months is kinda short and if we want to take issue with that and force them to keep transaction records longer I'm OK with that. I still don't see any privacy issues.
  • Maybe the government should stop selling its weapons to weird countries
  • The posts modded at 3 and up just now make no mention of what for me is the central point here:

    The purchase was made with the stolen identity of the reporter. Therefore the right to privacy to be protected is the reporter's own. Therefore he should have full rights to the details of the transaction. Period. Any party withholding those details is complicit in the theft of his identity, and aiding a criminal. They should go to jail, for a long time.

    Ran into a similar situation with AOL a few months back. Someone stole a credit card number of a housemate to buy a bunch of porno and sign up for an AOL account. AOL absolutely refused to provide any information - it required redundant effort just to get them to cancel the account and stop trying to collect on it. Why should someone who has stolen your identity have any right to privacy in what they do with your identity? Is it your identity, or not? Why should any corporation have any right to withhold from you information on what's been done using your own identity? Shouldn't you have an absolute right to full disclosure of all information that can help you protect and defend your own good name?
    ___

  • give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Thursday June 06, 2002 @12:58PM (#3653230)
    This should've been from the 'no shit sherlock' category or the 'captain obvious' category. Any privacy policy can be used for felonious means. It's the same reasoning the US government uses to circumvent any form of personal privacy afforded it's citizens. "If we can't listen to everyone's phone calls, how will we find the terrorists?" type of mentality. Just ask yourself how many more rights you're willing to give up in the name of 'national security' and don't bitch when we have a full-on police state. 1984, here we come.

  • And iBill, etc. Those companies are basically front ends from businesses too sleazy or incompetent to get their own merchant accounts. CCBill charges 14.5% [ccbill.com] on each transaction. The normal credit card processing rate is around 3%.

    Getting a real merchant account isn't that hard if you're legitimate. I've done it, and I used Bank of America, not some off-brand "Internet bank". Anybody who's willing to pay 14% instead of 3% is probably doing something suspicious.

  • The problem isn't a privacy policy, the problem is CREDIT CARD FRAUD. DUH
  • A militaman in Wisconsin bought a night-scope. While he was at work, terrorists broke into his house and stole it. He is working with the terrorists!!!!!

    This is a non-story. I can't see what it is ever here except to be sensational.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close