3 ms·

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

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.
  - meowface 6y ago
    Sorry, you're absolutely right, I was mistaken and somehow ended up only skimming the parts of the article that were more about his personal story (and I guess overlooked the thread and article title, as well). Maybe partly due to reading some other previous Krebs posts about carders. Identity theft definitely is far more damaging to consumers than carding is, and banks and financial institutions are definitely a lot less forgiving. People should disregard my above post. I think I just fell into the unfortunate HN stereotype of getting wrapped up in the comment section instead of RTFA.

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.
- meowface 6y ago
  Sorry, you're absolutely right, I was mistaken and somehow ended up only skimming the parts of the article that were more about his personal story (and I guess overlooked the thread and article title, as well). Maybe partly due to reading some other previous Krebs posts about carders. Identity theft definitely is far more damaging to consumers than carding is, and banks and financial institutions are definitely a lot less forgiving. People should disregard my above post. I think I just fell into the unfortunate HN stereotype of getting wrapped up in the comment section instead of RTFA.