3 ms·
The article is specifically about card-skimming of EBT cards ("food stamps"), which are effected by card skimming particularly because they basically never have
by jrochkind1 4y ago
The article is specifically about card-skimming of EBT cards ("food stamps"), which are effected by card skimming particularly because they basically never have "chips", and also because it's basically possible to get reimbursed for fraudulent charges.
So it's a specific story about EBT cards, which, by definition, are basically given to "those most in need", and how users of such are hit especially hard. It's not just about card-skimming in general, or about something "obvious on it's face".
But the headline could have mentioned EBT cards instead of "those most in need", and perhaps krebs used the "most in need" phrase to get attention, sure.
- abigail95 4y agoMost in need is a superlative expression. Yet there is no analysis why these fraud victims are in fact, "most in need". It's a poor form of rhetorical exaggeration because everyone knows it's either true tautologically or it's not strictly true and someone can nitpick an example to prove it. The problem identified by the article is that specific state issued EBT cards don't have chips in them. What does that have to do with why card skimming affects those most in need? That's just a method of fraud. It does affect needy people, but what are the proprtions? You expect, based on the title that the article will examine proportions of fraud experienced by peoples of different vulnerabilities. Which is uninteresting to me. California being too lazy to issue EBT cards with chips is much more interesting.
- jrochkind1 4y agoi mean, you're complaning that the headline suggested the article would do something uninteresting to you, and then didn't follow through on doing the uninteresting thing? "the food was terrible, and such small portions!"