but no one of relevancy is going to throw themselves under the bus to stop a Googler from getting a CTO position during an election cycle that the Republicans hope to win the majority in.
They don't just throw themselves under the bus, they pile up in front of it. It whips the base into a feeding frenzy.
Because while she is quite qualified for the position I can bet that some in Congress will not only have an issue with her gender but also her sexual orientation.
Note that I do not believe this should be an issue at all, but reality is often different from what we would hope.
Note that for American Express and Discover the retail store calls their processing center directly. That's because they handle their approval system and they will frequently speak with the customer to verify security details. But the Amex number for merchants is an entirely different number than the one on the cards themselves, and the retail clerk initiates the call and speaks with the representative.
A simple work around is to alter the phone number on the card to a number you control.
Then the retailer could call the number receive the code from your accomplice and provide a valid false code.
The retailer doesn't call the number on the card, the retailer call's the merchant service center. For example, customer has a Chase Mastercard and when Apple tries to post a transaction the card receives a decline. Apple would never call Chase, but instead calls their provider (which at my store is First Data Merchant Services). Apple's provider in turn electronically contacts Chase and then provides an approval code back to the clerk. The customer (or scammer) never has an opportunity to change the phone number unless they physically get behind the checkout counter and overwrite the numbers that are posted for the retail clerks to use. So it doesn't matter what phone number is on the card, that number is for the customer's use and not for the merchant's use.
1: The clerk is the one that should be calling for an approval code, and the call is made not to the cardholder's bank but rather to the bank that processes the cards for the retail store. It doesn't matter what the customer's bank says (or in this case the fake bank) since the approval/authorization code must come from the retailer's bankcard processor.
2: At my store a manager override is required to "force" a bankcard approval. So even if the clerk makes the call and gets a voice approval code a manager/owner must also provide a password to allow the approval to go through. Apparently Apple has no such security check in place and clerks tan type a manual code into the POS system to force the sale to go through.
Amazingly simple scam, but also amazingly simple to prevent if the stores involved had even rudimentary procedures in place.
- There just aren't a lot of devices linked yet within a home, especially since Verizon was targeting a novice and not someone who's played with X10 or can configure their own router.
- Verizon support is terrible for most products, and this would likely have been even worse.
- Who really needs to control their lighting and thermostats more than they already do. By now anyone with a computer or Verizon Internet service likely has a programmable thermostat, motion sensor outdoor lights, and timers on lamps for when they go on vacation. Is it worth paying a bloated company like Verizon $120 a year to help you manage what you're already handling fine for free?
The nail in the coffin was probably Google purchasing Nest. And no, I did not RTFA.
Nobody but you brought up NSA.
Other than the headline.
1: I expect that police would monitor public spaces, for example Times Square in NYC
2: I expect that the video is recorded, both for short term review as well as later investigation if a crime takes place
The question is how do we limit the use of the recordings? If a hit-and-run occurs two blocks from Times Square then police would likely canvas the area for witnesses. Isn't the most reliable witness the actual surveillance video from the neighborhood? I'd rather the police rely on that video than on the recollections of random tourists gawking at the skyscrapers.
My original post was stating that NSA surveillance is quite different from video recording of license plates on public highways, so the conversation has branched out.
Oh stop with the "no expectation of privacy" crap. Your argument is basically saying it's OK to stalk someone. Yes that's what you are saying, if someone leaves their house it's OK to record their every movement, who they are with, where they go, for how long. You are saying that if there was enough money it would be OK to have a police cruiser at every residence so that when you leave you home you can be followed and watched.
I never said it was OK. I do not support this recording, but I did say you should not privacy when driving a government registered vehicle on government maintained roads and bridges while in possession of your government issued license. I guess you also expect to fly in a plane anonymously, and cash your paycheck anonymously as well. LOL at you posting as anonymous and calling me a coward. Have fun in your fantasy world of anonymous driving.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz
