4 ms·

> “I don’t know of anyone who has come close to causing more material harm than Ngo did to the average American,” O’Neill said. > Throughout the court proceedi

> “I don’t know of anyone who has come close to causing more material harm than Ngo did to the average American,” O’Neill said. > Throughout the court proceedings, Ngo sat through story after dreadful story of how his work had ruined the financial lives of people harmed by his services. He made it easier for people to steal money from banks and credit card companies. Its a pretty stupid system that forces the "average American" to be on the hook for that. We shouldn't even be calling it "Identify Theft", this is just bank fraud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E

pfundstein 6y ago
I have to say this is what I found most surprising. In most other countries, the bank will transparently cover such losses through their insurance, most of the time they won't even require evidence, just a phone call.
meowface 6y ago
What about cases where card-holders don't check their credit statements or transaction history or have alerts set up? Many may never even notice some of the fraudulent transactions. It's true that this is largely bank fraud rather than theft of consumers' money, but it's still technically both, and in some cases literally both. Carders justify their actions by saying they're just ripping off huge corporations, and, yes, it's undoubtedly more ethical than burglarizing someone's home or something, but it's still major fraud.
- droopyEyelids 6y ago
  Two things can be true at the same time. The other thing thats true is that the most wealthy corporations on earth have twisted language and law to make these breaches of their [bank] security the failing and responsibility of the individuals who trust the bank-- or, often didn't even have anything to do with the bank (in the case of new lines of credit being opened in your name at a different institution)
  - meowface 6y ago
    I'm certainly no fan of giant banks, but this isn't concerning breaches of bank security. The fraudsters discussed in the article are generally stealing people's credit card numbers by installing malware on their devices. Sometimes it's them putting a skimmer on ATMs, but the bank's security isn't necessarily to blame for that if they aren't the ones that operate the ATM. Sometimes it's hacking a company like Target and compromising all of their payment systems; but Target is really at fault, there. >to make these breaches of their [bank] security the failing and responsibility of the individuals who trust the bank It's really the opposite: the consumer fucks up, by torrenting something and running Game of Thrones.exe, or whatever, and the bank is 100% on the hook for the consumer's lack of caution. It's actually quite amazing that anyone who has their money stolen gets all of their money back if it was stolen using a credit or debit card. The banks could easily just say "unless you can prove this was our fault (and it rarely is), you're on your own", but they reimburse you with no questions asked every time. This is due to laws, not the banks' own good will, but it's still quite a nice situation for card-holders, if they realize their card has been used without their knowledge. (Often it's the bank who detects it and informs them.) That's why the fraudsters justify the ethics of their actions: the bank takes the hit, not the card-holder.
    - psadauskas 6y ago
      > The fraudsters discussed in the article Your comment almost directly contradicts the article. This isn't about just stealing credit cards: > “Many of them told us the same thing: Buying identities was so much better for them than stolen payment card data, because card data could be used once or twice before it was no good to them anymore. But identities could be used over and over again for years.” And your part about "The banks could easily just say "unless you can prove this was our fault (and it rarely is)": > “But during my case, the federal court received like 13,000 letters from victims who complained they lost their houses, jobs, or could no longer afford to buy a home or maintain their financial life because of me. That made me feel really bad, and I realized I’d been a terrible person.” That doesn't sound like the banks were very forgiving for those 13,000 people, and it is 100% not their fault that Experian published on the public internet enough personal data about them to open new credit cards.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This, to me, is incomprehensible. The Bank / Experian / whoever lost your data, they should be covering the damages.
- kyuudou 6y ago
  Equifax pretty much just got a slap on the hand.

pfundstein 6y ago

I have to say this is what I found most surprising. In most other countries, the bank will transparently cover such losses through their insurance, most of the time they won't even require evidence, just a phone call.

meowface 6y ago

What about cases where card-holders don't check their credit statements or transaction history or have alerts set up? Many may never even notice some of the fraudulent transactions. It's true that this is largely bank fraud rather than theft of consumers' money, but it's still technically both, and in some cases literally both. Carders justify their actions by saying they're just ripping off huge corporations, and, yes, it's undoubtedly more ethical than burglarizing someone's home or something, but it's still major fraud.

droopyEyelids 6y ago
Two things can be true at the same time. The other thing thats true is that the most wealthy corporations on earth have twisted language and law to make these breaches of their [bank] security the failing and responsibility of the individuals who trust the bank-- or, often didn't even have anything to do with the bank (in the case of new lines of credit being opened in your name at a different institution)
- meowface 6y ago
  I'm certainly no fan of giant banks, but this isn't concerning breaches of bank security. The fraudsters discussed in the article are generally stealing people's credit card numbers by installing malware on their devices. Sometimes it's them putting a skimmer on ATMs, but the bank's security isn't necessarily to blame for that if they aren't the ones that operate the ATM. Sometimes it's hacking a company like Target and compromising all of their payment systems; but Target is really at fault, there. >to make these breaches of their [bank] security the failing and responsibility of the individuals who trust the bank It's really the opposite: the consumer fucks up, by torrenting something and running Game of Thrones.exe, or whatever, and the bank is 100% on the hook for the consumer's lack of caution. It's actually quite amazing that anyone who has their money stolen gets all of their money back if it was stolen using a credit or debit card. The banks could easily just say "unless you can prove this was our fault (and it rarely is), you're on your own", but they reimburse you with no questions asked every time. This is due to laws, not the banks' own good will, but it's still quite a nice situation for card-holders, if they realize their card has been used without their knowledge. (Often it's the bank who detects it and informs them.) That's why the fraudsters justify the ethics of their actions: the bank takes the hit, not the card-holder.
  - psadauskas 6y ago
    > The fraudsters discussed in the article Your comment almost directly contradicts the article. This isn't about just stealing credit cards: > “Many of them told us the same thing: Buying identities was so much better for them than stolen payment card data, because card data could be used once or twice before it was no good to them anymore. But identities could be used over and over again for years.” And your part about "The banks could easily just say "unless you can prove this was our fault (and it rarely is)": > “But during my case, the federal court received like 13,000 letters from victims who complained they lost their houses, jobs, or could no longer afford to buy a home or maintain their financial life because of me. That made me feel really bad, and I realized I’d been a terrible person.” That doesn't sound like the banks were very forgiving for those 13,000 people, and it is 100% not their fault that Experian published on the public internet enough personal data about them to open new credit cards.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

This, to me, is incomprehensible. The Bank / Experian / whoever lost your data, they should be covering the damages.

kyuudou 6y ago
Equifax pretty much just got a slap on the hand.