4 ms·

> a group that hacked into restaurants ... and planted malicious software to steal card data from store point-of-sale devices I've started compartmentalizing m

> a group that hacked into restaurants ... and planted malicious software to steal card data from store point-of-sale devices I've started compartmentalizing my spending a few years ago, using different cards for different purposes. For instance using debit cards for the riskiest locales. On several occasions I asked to lower the credit limit to reduce the risk of underwriting the entirety of losses. Also, the sentence is harsh. I don't think sentencing a criminal for more years than he deserves just 'to send a message' is called justice.

meritt 9y ago
> For instance using debit cards for the riskiest locales That seems counter-intuitive to me. If there's going to be a fraudulent charge on my account, I'd rather it be a temporary charge that can be resolved instead of actually taking money from my checking account until the bank decides to refund the fraud. I almost never use my debit card for this exact reason and use credit cards for everything possible.
- nathancahill 9y ago
  Yeah, GP is wrong, I think that's common knowledge.
scythe 9y ago
>the sentence is harsh. EDIT: inaccurate -- see 'tptacek below Sentences in the United States have a de jure length which is longer than the de facto length. Usually a 27-year convict will be eligible for parole after about 9 years. I didn't see anything in the article about denying parole (which is very rare). Considering the number of people Selezny harmed and the fact that he continued to do so after he knew that there were warrants for his arrest, I think that a decade in prison is a reasonable sanction. Also, the extended sentence is not so much "to send a message" as it is in response to his evasion of the authorities. That message was sent a long time ago.
- tptacek 9y ago
  There is no parole in the federal system. 27 years will mean almost 27 years (maybe something closer to 23 if everything breaks Seleznev's way in prison).
  - rodionos 9y ago
    Looks like Skilling got 10 years off the 24 year sentence and will be out of jail this year. It's not a parole but it's close. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-enron-skilling-idUSBRE95K12520130621 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-enron-skilling-idUSBRE95K1...
    - tptacek 9y ago
      By striking a deal with prosecutors and the court, not by availing himself of some process available to federal convicts generally. It could indeed be that Seleznev will serve drastically less time by making a deal to (e.g.) rat out co-conspirators.
mmanfrin 9y ago
For instance using debit cards for the riskiest locales Do not do this. Credit can be fought because it is a future debt, debit is much more difficult because the money is already gone. Do not, do not, do not use your debit/check/atm card at riskier places.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Unless it uses chip-and-pin.
- rodionos 9y ago
  To be fair, I haven't had a single case of fraudulent withdrawals happen to me. But I'm curious why would a credit card transaction be more protected? It's the same purchase 'in obligation', isn't it? My checking account balance is way smaller compared to much larger credit card limits, so there is less risk in absolute terms.
  - treyfitty 9y ago
    Because most credit cards and debit cards follow different regulatory protections. Credit Card: FRB Regulation Z Debit Card: FRB Regulation E From a Fraud Prevention perspective, the companies are incentivized to take measures to prevent suspicious transactions from happening to begin with. With debit cards, there is a $500 liability that can be shifted to the consumer*, so less "pressure" to develop more stringent controls. Lastly, this calls for different customer experiences when you dispute Fraud (http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/4-keys-zero-liability-policies-debit-credit-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/4-keys-zero-liab...).
  - uiri 9y ago
    A checking account is money that the bank owes you. A credit card balance is money that you owe the bank. The bank cares a lot more about getting its money back than it does about getting your money back.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  I agree with this, with a caveat. Some banks will allow you to create a 'prefunded' debit card, where you add funds to it and those are the only funds it has available. It has no overdraft, it has no ability to acquire any funds other than those allocated. Those cards are quite useful for risky places because you can use them and then burn them after you're back in safety. (just withdraw the final balance and destroy the card) Oddly, the first experience I had with fraudulent card withdrawals was when the cards were compromised in the self checkout line of the Sunnyvale Safeway store. The self checkout stations had internal skimmers installed at some point.
sunstone 9y ago
The Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court agrees with you regarding the "sending a message" sentiment. But the other eight justices disagreed. Personally I think it's unsupportable too. For example the first guy to commit that crime gets the full "sending a message" sentence but the following violators just get the standard "proportional justice" sentence? Not sure King Solomon would go for that.

meritt 9y ago

> For instance using debit cards for the riskiest locales That seems counter-intuitive to me. If there's going to be a fraudulent charge on my account, I'd rather it be a temporary charge that can be resolved instead of actually taking money from my checking account until the bank decides to refund the fraud. I almost never use my debit card for this exact reason and use credit cards for everything possible.

nathancahill 9y ago
Yeah, GP is wrong, I think that's common knowledge.

scythe 9y ago

>the sentence is harsh. EDIT: inaccurate -- see 'tptacek below Sentences in the United States have a de jure length which is longer than the de facto length. Usually a 27-year convict will be eligible for parole after about 9 years. I didn't see anything in the article about denying parole (which is very rare). Considering the number of people Selezny harmed and the fact that he continued to do so after he knew that there were warrants for his arrest, I think that a decade in prison is a reasonable sanction. Also, the extended sentence is not so much "to send a message" as it is in response to his evasion of the authorities. That message was sent a long time ago.

tptacek 9y ago
There is no parole in the federal system. 27 years will mean almost 27 years (maybe something closer to 23 if everything breaks Seleznev's way in prison).
- rodionos 9y ago
  Looks like Skilling got 10 years off the 24 year sentence and will be out of jail this year. It's not a parole but it's close. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-enron-skilling-idUSBRE95K12520130621 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-enron-skilling-idUSBRE95K1...
  - tptacek 9y ago
    By striking a deal with prosecutors and the court, not by availing himself of some process available to federal convicts generally. It could indeed be that Seleznev will serve drastically less time by making a deal to (e.g.) rat out co-conspirators.

mmanfrin 9y ago

For instance using debit cards for the riskiest locales Do not do this. Credit can be fought because it is a future debt, debit is much more difficult because the money is already gone. Do not, do not, do not use your debit/check/atm card at riskier places.

jacquesm 9y ago
Unless it uses chip-and-pin.
rodionos 9y ago
To be fair, I haven't had a single case of fraudulent withdrawals happen to me. But I'm curious why would a credit card transaction be more protected? It's the same purchase 'in obligation', isn't it? My checking account balance is way smaller compared to much larger credit card limits, so there is less risk in absolute terms.
- treyfitty 9y ago
  Because most credit cards and debit cards follow different regulatory protections. Credit Card: FRB Regulation Z Debit Card: FRB Regulation E From a Fraud Prevention perspective, the companies are incentivized to take measures to prevent suspicious transactions from happening to begin with. With debit cards, there is a $500 liability that can be shifted to the consumer*, so less "pressure" to develop more stringent controls. Lastly, this calls for different customer experiences when you dispute Fraud (http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/4-keys-zero-liability-policies-debit-credit-1282.php http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/4-keys-zero-liab...).
- uiri 9y ago
  A checking account is money that the bank owes you. A credit card balance is money that you owe the bank. The bank cares a lot more about getting its money back than it does about getting your money back.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
I agree with this, with a caveat. Some banks will allow you to create a 'prefunded' debit card, where you add funds to it and those are the only funds it has available. It has no overdraft, it has no ability to acquire any funds other than those allocated. Those cards are quite useful for risky places because you can use them and then burn them after you're back in safety. (just withdraw the final balance and destroy the card) Oddly, the first experience I had with fraudulent card withdrawals was when the cards were compromised in the self checkout line of the Sunnyvale Safeway store. The self checkout stations had internal skimmers installed at some point.

sunstone 9y ago

The Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court agrees with you regarding the "sending a message" sentiment. But the other eight justices disagreed. Personally I think it's unsupportable too. For example the first guy to commit that crime gets the full "sending a message" sentence but the following violators just get the standard "proportional justice" sentence? Not sure King Solomon would go for that.