FTC Cracks Down On Porn Site Billing Scams 111
This story perhaps should hit home with many Internet wonks, not just in terms of getting illegitimate charges on our credit cards from porn sites, but from any web site, or from having our card numbers lifted while we are online. I have been fighting with my bank for at least a couple years trying to dispute one illegitimate charge after another. In my opinion, the problem doesn't just lie with the companies making the fraudulent charges, but also with the banks, who are too cheap to create a security process for credit card utilization that 1) blocks particular merchants chosen by the cardholder (I call it "merchant block"), and 2) disallows usage without a password that the cardholder chooses and can change at any time."
Those both sound like reasonable ideas; would any credit card companies like to "add stockholder value" by implementing them? Maybe providing a list of "merchants our customers frequently ask to have blocked" as a default would be a good start.
Grr! what about the gak factor? (Score:5)
Typically, this works like this:
1. Guy visits goatporn website.
2. Guy pays for goatporn.com on his credit card.
3. Guy gets off and loves the website.
(camera pans, one month later)
4. Wife opens credit card bill and sees charge to goatporn.com.
5. Wife confronts husband while weeping, convinced she's not satisfying him and that the marriage is about to end.
6. Guy decides that (after a quick 'GAK!') rather then explain that he loves his wife and just needs some goatporn once in a while, instead claims 'Gosh, I never made those charges!'
7.Under her watchful eye, he calls the bank and disputes the charges.
I doubt there's a real industry wide problem with fraudulent charges. In actuality, I suspect it's almost 100% legit charges that get reported as fraud because the significant other is flipping out.
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
No, as age verification they're pretty useless, I agree. If nothing else, all Junior needs is to get a look at Daddy's card and write down the numbers -- unless there's a charge Daddy will never know.
However, useless standards have never stopped our fearless leaders before.
Tasty (Score:1)
That's easy... (Score:2)
Credit card company calls livegoatporn.com and says "This guy says he never bought that goat porn."
livegoatporn.com digs up its records and calls dude's ISP. They match dude's user ID to the originating IP at the time and day of the charges.
Re:An Alternative to Chargebacks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
Useless is a very good way to describe that age verify scheme..I think eventually the credit card companies should have to come forward and start monitoring this. They every so often complain about their consumer outstanding debt being in the billions and growing. If they don't then I feel they are to blame for it as much as the consumer. I think they should have the credit card companies be like a middle man in e-biz sites..like the CCbill and Ibill etc sites.
For example you make an account on the cc companies site using encriptions (like pgp and etc) e-mail the user of the card when a transaction is processed for that card and make his or hers reply to that be the determining factor of wether or not the transaction is going to be accepted or not.
I think adding a few more steps like that to an e-biz purchase wouldn't be to troublesome for people to do.
This may have some flaws and is not perfect but what do we have in place now that is any better or worse?
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:1)
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:1)
hrm (Score:1)
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Urban myth similarities... (Score:1)
Firstly, you put ads out for, say, a heap of hardcore porn. People join up and pay you money. Now you bank that money into account 'A'. A little while later, you contact all of the people and tell them there are some legal issues with the service that you want to check out (being the good business person you are) and in order to be fair to them (the paying customer) you are going to refund their money. You now transfer the money from account 'A' into account 'B' that has a name like 'Anal Sodomizers of the World Unite!'. You send them all cheques with their refunds. The best part is, most of them won't present that cheque and after a certain time frame (differs in each country/state), the cheque becomes invalid and you get to keep the money :) Can't be too upset with that <chuckle>
I don't know if it has actually been done and I'm not sure how legal it is (the act in itself isn't as far as I can tell, but the intent to defraud is definitely there).
All standard disclaimers apply (ie. don't sue me when you go to jail :)
Re:Isn't Discover Doing This? (Score:1)
It is extremely hard to find this information, escpically with all those dam pop up windows. I think those are giving javascript a bad name
Re:Something you might care to try (Score:2)
Accually if I sign my check D. Duck it should clear. In fact courts have held that unsigned checks can clear, so long as there is reason to belive the owner of the checking account intended to sign the check but forgot. Courts have also held that I can write out and sign my dads checks (I don't have power of atterny or any such thing) so long as dad would have wrote out that check had he been there - ie if dad always writes a check for the phone bill and I pay the bill one month with his checks).
Some of the above examples depend more on the mood of the judge then others. I would expect an unsigned or miss signed check to hold up in court (so long as the rest is in my hand writing!) much more likely then someone else writing one of my checks for something that I always buy.
I have learned to sign my credit card with my right hand, and then sign the recipts with my left. I've only had one clerk ask for further ID, and those signatures are very different.
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
I vote first for the televangelists that try to screw you out of your hard-earned money.
Remember, scams aren't limited to porn. If you want to limit scams, you need to limit them all included in your much vaunted religion.
Re:Could the Christian Right DOS porn sites? (Score:1)
Are there members of any organization (be it right-wing, left-wing, or foreign) that will laugh in the face of legality or morality in order to advance their cause? Of course. Should the rest of the group be judged by this pathetic minority's actions? No.
My point is that I don't agree with abortion clinics or porn sites, nor do I feel that their presence is good for America. Although an abortion clinic is not someplace my anatomy would cause me to visit, I did spent several months addicted to porn, and it just about destroyed my life. However, even with my own experience, do I think that porn sites should be forcefully shut down, either through DOS or legislation? No.
I believe that pornography is a symptom of a greater longing deep within someone's empty life. I do my best to spend my life giving people an alternative to that longing. This alternative is something that lasts and will last a lot longer than simply a good wank.
To quote C.S. Lewis, one of the most respected Christian writers of all time, "If you search for Truth, you may find Comfort. If you search for Comfort, you will find neither Truth nor Comfort."
Porn sites? (Score:2)
The online porn industry is for the most part a disgusting crass system. I don't have a problem with porn in and of itself, but seeing the commercialization of sex like this is disturbing.
Re:Here is what I don't understand (Score:1)
Re:Blocking specific merchants (Score:1)
The vendor can effectively charge at any time, however the customer has to give permission beforehand and can revoke this at any time (usually by going to the bank, but I've just noticed that my online banking account allows me to see all the permissions and revoke them instantly... Handy
Of course a similar system could be used for credit cards but in reality it would be practically impossible to change all existing systems. Nonetheless the credit card companies might be willing to give a discount on processing fees to merchants operating the new scheme since presumably their losses to fraud wuold be lower.
"oh, we'll give you a refund now" (Score:4)
Imagine you have been operating a car theft ring for several years. Then you get caught. So you offer to return all the cars which you borrowed without authorization to their owners.
Pardon me, but isn't charging someone's credit card without authorization a felony? I'm thinking "federal wire fraud".
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:2)
Simon
My own experiences. (Score:2)
The fine print on my card says that if my *card* is stolen, I must report it immediately, and that I may be responsible for all charges in between when my card was stolen and when I reported it stolen (or up to $50, I forget the details).
The fact is.. if my card is still in my wallet, then my card is not stolen. So.. if someone elses gets the number, somehow, and uses it.. I have no problem. Call company, tell them I didn't do it, and they refund it. IT' sup to the merchant to *prove* that I used my card to charge something. If he has no signature, and no other identifying info (shipping address, etc..) he's out of luck.
As for these sneaky porn charges, the fact is...
Even if there is fine-print, you can call your credit company and say 'they said nothing about blah-blah-blah'. The fact that you didn't see something is not directly relevant. You did not agree to those charges. You were under the impression that you would pay $X and that's why you did it. If it was otherwise, that's their problem. Your credit card company *will* cancel the debt and take it back to the merchant.
Re:Grr! what about the gak factor? (Score:1)
Ahh. Xpics (Score:1)
Skript Kiddies didn't need to steal credit card numbers from Xpics when they could just steal money itself (and legaly, I read every word of the agreement and i wasn't violating anything in it
Of course, Xpics was doing the exact same thing to their customers with their fucked up cancle procedure. You went online to cancle, and if they felt like it, they could just reactivate your acount, so you would have to cancle again, and again, and again...
Xpics finaly wised up to the fake advertizing though, so I only got to do it for about a month or two. But it was so nice to have two big fat checks for $300 each comming in each month... The only problem was that it really warped my sense of the value of money, but I can't really complain there.
We don't know how bad things are in north korea, but here are some pictures of hungry children. -- CNN
Re:Actually, the charges are legal (Score:1)
Thanks!
Re:Isn't Discover Doing This? (Score:2)
Oh man, what a conversation in the bathroom this would be...
"Hey man, I've been hunting around for some good sources pr0n and I ran across this awesome site. You ever been there? How're their credit ratings?"
"Yep, in fact, the boss is also a major client... that's how I found out about it."
"So that's why he's always in his office... Any problems with them?"
"Not really... once they double billed me for a show with twin sluts, but other than that, they're on the up and up. "
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
As if I'd trust the logs from http://random.pr0n.com
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Grr! what about the gak factor? (Score:1)
- Walbey Interactive Media Group
- Livegoatporn.com"
Re:"oh, we'll give you a refund now" (Score:1)
This is similar to the sweet deal SouthWestern Bell got several year ago over intentionally overcharging customers. They gave each of their customers a card/account worth $100 worth of free long distance.
The total amount of long distance given out was less than the profits they made overcharging. The accounts were notoriously unreliable and tedious to use; it took about five minutes just to make a call. And, to top it all off, they could only be used for calls that were long-distance but in the same area code (in 918, about half the population was in local call range).
Ah, justice.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Ahh. Xpics (Score:1)
"I managed to make over $3000 from them..."
with
"I only got to do it for about a month or two. But it was so nice to have two big fat checks for $300 each comming in each month"
Dude, that's either $600, or $1200. Not "over $3000".
Here is what I don't understand (Score:5)
Here is where I begin to loose track of the situation. In the case of one individual, 17 monthly charges had been posted before they decided to call in and discuss the situation. It is obvious by looking at the usage that the account was never used, but 17 monthly charges before it ever clicked to me seems idiotic. I calmly inform the individual that I am only able to refund two months back. The next thing said is usually "I'll get my credit card company in on this." To which I respond that "As far as credit cards are concerened, all charges are valid unless disputed within the fist 60 days."
Read the fine print on your credit card statements. If you don't dispute that charge within 60 days the credit card company isn't going to do anything for you. Consumers seem to forget all that legal mumbo jumbo they sign when they sign up for credit cards. You are legealy and financially responsible for that card. Every single charge. If you were an idiot and didn't read your monthly statements for the past 17 months, PLEASE do not yell at me telling me that we've been stealing your money.
I think truthfully that credit cards are a much bigger and deeper problem in this country (the US) than just hacked cards being used on the internet. It strikes right at the heart of consumerism in America. I like to say this country was built on the backs of plastic.
Ok enough preaching.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"
Re:That's easy... (Score:1)
Mind you, I can imagine some sysadmin doing this in return for a three months subscription to livegoatporn.com.
How about starting a company to cash such checks.. (Score:1)
We take a cut (say 10%) and make millions.
Remember : You Read It Here In
Aren't online sigs legal now? (Score:1)
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:1)
Could the Christian Right DOS porn sites? (Score:1)
matt
Re:more like..... (Score:2)
Strange that they need this sort of scam (Score:2)
It's a good thing... (Score:2)
Its your fault at this point..... (Score:1)
dude.... move to another back..... or do you just like punishment???
Re:Its your fault at this point..... (Score:1)
Isn't Discover Doing This? (Score:2)
Anyways, if people would take a few precautions, there would be a lot less hassle over this entire matter. Checkout their SSL Certificates. If you have any questions, read their privacy policy and research them through friends or other online sites that might rate the vendor.
Of course, with porn, it might be a little bit harder to find or access this information, but attempting this is a lot better than fighting with the bank/credit card companies over charges you did not place.
MunITioN
Re:How about starting a company to cash such check (Score:1)
Duh--two words (Score:3)
The FTC also said the company charged some consumers who never visited Xpics' sites, but it did not explain how that occurred.
Script Kiddies
Wouldn't you just love to see a script kiddy thrown in jail for credit card fraud? Man... that'd be great. "733+ hax0r, meet your new cell mate Bubba."
----
The fact is.. (Score:2)
This is required of phone companies now, that they have a clear and concise way of explaining the increasingly complex phone billing structures.
In normal business, it is considered fraud in some cases to 'mislead' people into purchasing something, even if there is fine print..
Why shouldn't a porn merchant be held accountable for misleading poeple? They make their sites purposely misleading because they *know* people will fall into the trap, and not dispute it afterwards. They are therefore making money off of *deceit*, which is fraud.
I knew it! (Score:3)
Every time I saw that "this is a free trial, your cc will not be billed" I thought, yeah right, why do you need it, then? Bottom line, you can't trust people in certain industries, like porn, drugs (including pharmaceuticals), tobacco, cars, etc. And the seedier the industry is, the more likely you will be ripped off outright. I would imagine that the company was banking (pun not intended) on the fact that people would be afraid to dispute the charges lest they be known as "perverts" or worse, being charged with a crime. (In many states, the laws are vague enough and far-reaching enough that Playboy and Penthouse, to say nothing of Hustler, could be considered illegal if they did not have big bad lawyers...)
Maximum Pc had a short segment on this, their answer was that the bank has nothing to do with crimes, and with hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on porn annually in the US, no one is alone despite the denial. (Everyone knows the Us is comprised of a populace of teetotaling virgins who never use that horrible language those Hollywood liberals from canada use, right?)
Oh and the same pornography sites that were doing this were among the worst in creating the pop-up hell (browser hijack expliot.. kill one window and two more come up). It was done through a javascript though, so a word to the wise, set javascript off or set it to "prompt" if you think you will need it for a site. No JS, no hijack!
Where there's porn . . . (Score:2)
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
unless my memory is worse than I remember...
But for the few who aren't honest... (Score:2)
Re:Its your fault at this point..... (Score:2)
This is usually harder than getting the bank to give you money. Me, I've got all my cash stuffed in my matress. Must get a combination lock for it some time.
For some reason, people are surprised when you buy a brand new car with cash.
Re:Usenet (Score:1)
that works.
Dear Mr and Mrs Cardholder (Score:5)
According to the new code of conduct aggreed to by the internet sex industry, you should only have been charged for six hours viewing, and not the seven hours charged.
We trust that the matter has been resolved to your expectations.
May we also take this oppertunity to inform you of our member discounts from Grabbit, Floggit, and Leggit partners, Divorce lawyers.
Authorise with SMS (Score:1)
take a look at http://paybox.net/
there you can make a creditcard alike payment with authorizasion.
It's a simple system where the credit card company, sends a SMS message to the card holder, when they recive a request from the company wanting the money. And without your reply including a pin code, the payment dosn't happen.
In Hamburg the taxi's already use it. (acording to www.3sat.de)
Charges (Score:1)
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
Re:Something you might care to try (Score:1)
The funniest example was once I got a notice from the phone co that they were going to close my service for only paying $10 of the bill.
Turns out I accidentally sent them my CD club check. So I checked the other end. Sure enough, the CD club had me listed with a hundred dollar credit on my account.
---
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
That was posted as AC, so I don't know if it was your post or not, but I think it was fair to infer a Christian POV.
I suspect, however, that it wan't your post, and that perhaps you thought I was replying to a different comment. OTOH, I don't see any other "goodcitizen" posts in this thread, so I don't really know what's up with you.
Re:Duh--two words (Score:2)
A minor can get a checking account at a bank. With most checking accounts now days they automatically get a mac card. They are mostly support by visa or mastercard. How can these companies verify that they are a minor? To the merchant they see it as a visa/mastercard.
When I got my checking account about 8 years or more ago you had to ask for mac cards (at least at the bank I used at the time). I got the card after I was 18 because of a requirement the bank had where you had to have the account open in good standing for a year before getting a card.
An Alternative to Chargebacks (Score:2)
Still, this article brings up an important reason why I haven't been too successful with the adult industry so far, IMO (it's certainly not for lack of trying!!!). They want to automagically charge people who didn't even visit their (stale, in many cases) sites this month, and with e-gold [e-gold.com] they'd have to work harder, and not all of them want to work very hard, since they've been used to this mint (er...goldmine?) of automatic-charging. Using a medium where their customers see what they'll pay every month might cause those customers to want them to do something every month. IMO, this rant probably doesn't apply to all pron-sites, YMMV, etc.
As usual, any
JMR
I worked in the industry (Score:5)
It gets worse, see. First, usage of the service automatically signed you up for a credit account, and half the charges were applied to that account, to obfuscate the scam. nearly everyone was shocked to recieve a bill from the phone sex company, some paid withouta peep, others tried to complain in vain.
Also, early on it was realized that there was enormous latitude in the collection process, with the outfit I was involved in acting as a 'first party' collection agency to circumvent normal FTC regulations, plus the looming threat of exposure to friends and family and reportings to Trans Union and TRW.
I was young and impressionable, this activity was all couched in phrases that suggested legitimacy and legality, but once I realized the full extent of the evil, I fled forthwith. These guys are bad, bad people. My prediction is that they will pull a stunt like the one mentioned in 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' and send refund checks with an account name like 'Dildo Lovin' Ass Sluts Incorporated', which nobody in they're right mind will cash. Toooooo sad...
-=(V)0(V)0cr0(V)=-
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Grr! what about the gak factor? (Score:1)
I lost that fight.
Anyway, to all you oppressed drunken old perverts who also happen to be married, fight the power!
-- (Name withheld pending final signatures
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
First off, that post should not have been moderated down. It is probably intended as a troll, but it's one of the rare devils-advocate posts; these should be highlighted.
Second, you're an idiot. I could just as easily argue that credit cards caused this problem, or computers. And the fact that you used a computer to post means that you are going to Hell.
Now this post should be moderated down...
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Incorrectly billed? Chargeback. (Score:1)
me for two months after a "free test drive." They refused to refund me the money, "you didn't read the fine print."
I just went straight to my credit card bank (Wells Fargo) and asked for a chargeback form. I told them which charge it was, they sent me a form which I filled out and returned--no embarrasment at all. The money was refunded, and the site was charged a "chargeback processing fee" by the bank.
I've done similar with my Discover (was double charged by a sleazy "las vegas tour" solicitor). I feel very safe using my credit card... even if I have a feeling that I'm being scammed.
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:2)
Australian Police have been unable to recommend a prosecution for the following scam:
A company takes out a newspaper advertisement claiming to be able to supply imported hard core pornographic videos. As their prices seem reasonable, people place orders and make payments via check. After several weeks, the company writes back explaining that under the
present law they are unable to supply the materials and do not wish to be prosecuted. So they return their customers' money in the form of a company cheque. However, due to the name of the company, few people will present these checks to their banks. The name of the company:
"The Anal Sex and Fetish Perversion Company"
Re:I worked in the industry (Score:2)
That was a great bit!
I'm also reminded of the bit from Fight Club where the airport guy explains the situation when luggage is found to be vibrating: ``Nine times out of ten, it's an alarm clock. But sometimes... It's a dildo. We never imply ownership, though: it's always... the dildo, never... your... dildo.''
`` But I...''
``That's allright sir.''
Re:Grr! what about the gak factor? (Score:1)
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:1)
Re:They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:1)
Although given the relative cleverness and realism of the story, I think it's pretty likely people have actually done it, urban legend or not -- it would work.
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Re:bleh (Score:1)
open source porn! heh.
from the article... (Score:1)
Under the "stipulated judgment" filed with the court, Xpics Publishing and its principals, Mario G. Carmona and Brian M. Shuster, did not admit to any violations of the law.
Eh? If blatant stealing isn't a violation of the law, I don't know what is. It could hardly have been a more blatant "violation of the law" if he had knocked an old lady's teeth out with a cricket bat.
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:2)
This is exactly why... (Score:1)
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
Re:more like..... (Score:1)
A similar setup exists (with a very interesting photo database) at http://www.stileproject.com/rnd/index.php3 [stileproject.com]. Oh, I should warn you -- don't go to that link unless you're seriously deranged.
Not lazy banks..... (Score:2)
Although they probably deny it... but if you look at it this way the banks are not being "cheap".
Whenever a chargeback happens, not only does the bank get 100% of the charge back from the merchant, they also charge the merchant a $10-25 charge for each chargeback.
So if the credit card company makes 1% on a normal charge ($1 on a $100 charge).. that same company will end up making 10 times that much on a chargeback.
Granted there are administrative costs the credit card company has to pay for in order to process the chargeback.. but I doubt its $10 a chargeback.
Re:more like..... (Score:1)
The point was exactly, that in this age of enlightened phone/computer bookings, a signature is no longer required...
On that note, remember the ancient system of swiping cards through some clunky thing to take an imprint? A restaurant in Melbourne had a famous customer, photocopied his imprint, blew it up really large and put it in the window. "Look who eats here!" Only problem: they didn't black out his number. He had to cancel the card shortly thereafter.
And a current affairs show, doing a beatup on internet credit card fraud... "admittedly, no-one in Australia has been charged with doing so, but we're sure it'll not be long" (*blah*). Funnily enough, the reporter flashed her credit card to the camera on air. Guess how many people freeze-framed it and used it? I'm not sure, but I remember it was in double digits. :) Delicious, sweet, irony :)
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
Or so they claimed. This sort of thing makes pressing charges kind if difficult.
Re:Could the Christian Right DOS porn sites? (Score:2)
--
Actually, the charges are legal (Score:2)
"The vendor, upon recieving the method of payment, shall gain full access to provision good to this card with or without given consent of buyer"
This clause has not yet been ammended, the IICA of 1999 will fix this, but is still being negotiated.
Blocking specific merchants (Score:4)
1) It would seem that few merchants would accept future charges from a customer who had disputed charges.
2) Most bad merchants will be fined heavily and probably lose their merchant acounts.
3) It would seem to create oportunities to rip off legitamate merchants. Forinstance merchants who verified credit cards at purchase but didn't bill them until the product shipped. (a bad customer could simply ban the merchant between the two acount accesses)
IMHO a system which banned most merchants in problem catagories but allowed specific merchants to be quickly unbaned
I would propose a system as follows:
1) Allow banning of certain types of business (or all busniess) (Porn, Ebusiness, Mail order, 1-800 number, ALL, etc.)
1a) require a one day waiting period for this to prevent scam in (3) above
2) Allow banning of merchants who you had contested charges with instantly.
3) Allow banning of other specific merchants with a 7 day waiting period to help prevent problem 3.
4) Allow instant unbanning of any merchant or catagory by calling an 800 number or by going to a website and entering a password.
5) Allow a customer to set a price threshold below which authoriztion is not required (in some or all catagories).
Re:Could the Christian Right DOS porn sites? (Score:2)
Using the "christian right" is much simpler to foster discussion than to post my message with the subject line of "Could the (insert your favorite far right wing organization here) DOS porn sites?"
matt, registered republican
They rely on the embarrassment factor. (Score:5)
In other words, most of their customer are too embarrassed to complain either to the company in question, or to the their own card company.
The dialogue might go something like this:-
Card company: What is the nature of your complaint, sir?
Customer: I was billed without my authorisation by a company called "Wank-o-matic"
Card company: [stifles giggle] I see. Do you know how they obtained your card details.
Customer: Yes. I gave my card details to them to get a free preview of their "Jugs-o-rama" web site, but I cancelled my membership before the deadline.
Card company: [explodes into laughter] but did you have a good wank, sir?
Mass Debate [mass-debate.net]
Re:Duh--two words (Score:1)
I opened a checking account with my bank the day that they let me--my 16th birthday. Included with that was a VISA check card. Today I'm still only 17...
Although I don't like to admit it, I've been able to use it more than once to view age restricted items at eBay and other "unsavory content". he he he.
So to anyone putting together an age verification system out there--the credit card check thing is easily and legally circumvented.
--
finally (Score:2)
Re:Duh--two words (Score:2)
And, of course, Xpics probably logs the IP from where the account was opened. This would choke and die for the AOLs of the world where a single IP is but a drop in a vast DHCP pool, but might be useful for company networks, smaller mom and pop ISPs, static IPs, etc.
----
New pr0n exploit... (Score:2)
Description: Machine is compromised when end user attempts to close a pornographic page. This pops up two new pornographic pages. Each of these subsequently pops up two more pages until a stack or buffer overflow occurs. This compromises the system and allows root access on port 69.
OS's affected: ALL. Using Nescape or Internet Explorer can be compromised
Solution: Until patches for Netscape and IE are available, it is recommended that users browse with Lynx, although this will interfere with legitimate pornographic viewing.
Adult Credit Card Watch site. (Score:2)
Usenet (Score:2)
Not that I would know, of course...
Re:Duh--two words (Score:3)
Re:This is why we need censorship laws (Score:3)
Why should the government be deciding whether you and your children can see naked women on the Internet, and yet shouldn't be deciding whether or not they show naked women in schools?
(Oh, and while we're here, may I point out that over the years there have been any number of scams involving religion, apparently proving the point that religion is bad for everyone. As a matter of fact, when groups of pornographic zealots start a civil war somewhere, or kill themselves and their children with poisoned Kool-Aid, pornographers will have begun to catch up with religion as a force for good).
A Little Information on Credit Card Fraud (Score:4)
To put the most important part of the post here, by federal law, you do NOT have to pay any more than $50 of fraud whenever your card or credit card is compromised. Most banks are smart enough to absorb the first $50 of fraud anyways and not charge the consumer. Otherwise there'd be thousands of people a month having to pay $19.95 to Plymouth Phone (an adult phone company that was... popular).
This means, then, that the financial responsibility for covering fraud falls on banks, not consumers. Even if consumers wereto pay the first $50 in fraud charges to their account, a bank still has to provide the personnel to investigate fraud. Fraud / Loss Control is a very important part of the agenda of most banks.
Now, mind you, it is going to be rather difficult for banks to institute a 'merchant-blocking' system in your account. This is because of several reasons:
Currently, the system really isn't all that bad. There's a lot of nightmares, certainly, with the major credit reporting bureaus (TransUnion, etc.), but the average national, well-established credit card bank is on yourside when it comes to fraud, mainly because essentially it's their money and their business that's being affected.
The best thing you can do to prevent fraud to your account is basic common sense: Guard your number. Don't trust every merchant online (for the same reasons you wouldn't trust every offline merchant). And, if you are the victim of fraud, report it as soon as possibe to the bank and, for your sake, write down and save everything. Amounts, dates, times, names of people you talked to. The more informed you are as a consumer the easier it is for the banks to help you.
Finally, remember that there are a lot of reputable adult merchants out there. One time we had an older woman call in saying that there were $150 in calls to an adult service. She said she lived alone and would not make such calls. Sure enough, it wasn't her. We called the adult service, they still had the caller's number on record, as well as the time of the call. It happened one time while her 12-yr old grandson was visiting for a few days.
Why not use a merchent whitelist? (Score:3)
If I ran a credit card company, I'd have options of:
1) All merchants
2) All merchants except blacklisted
3) No merchents except whitelisted
4) Authorise
You'd have a choice, a normal credit card, a credit card that couldn't be used at companies that had a record of mischarging customers, a credit card that only works at popular shops that have a good trade record, and a card where you telephone before buying anything and say 'I'd like to authorise 'Jon's Pr0n-o-rama' to take $15 per month from my card', or 'I'm going shopping. I'd like to authorise the spending of $150 on my card, within the next 2 hours'.
This could be a good cash safety feature, or it could just be annoying... more likely annoying, after a while.
Some peer review might be in order?
Michael Tandy
...another insightless comment from Michael Tandy.
Re:Urban myth similarities... (Score:2)
Yes, this would be a crime. Taking funds with no intention of providing anything in return and hoping to exploit embarrassment so as to keep the funds is definitely an offence of deception.
No, it wouldn't work. It's perfectly simple to present a cheque for payment without having to meet someone in person: in the UK, we have automated deposit boxes that are quite anonymous. Since the poor sods who process the cheques haven't time to read much more than the amount written on them, they aren't going to even notice that the cheque is drawn on an embarrassingly-named account.
And even if they did, they're processing a cheque every second and a half or similar, so they don't even have time to snigger even if they do notice - and anyway, they don't know the poor sap who's presenting the cheque for payment anyway.
Something you might care to try (Score:2)
... is a humorous exploit of the banks' (and I mean all of them) policy regarding the relative cost of policing cheque signatures as against the cost of processing and paying claims.
A cheque without a valid signature ought not to be paid, and the bank is liable if it does pay it. On the other hand, most cheques are properly drawn - the vast majority of their customers are honest and careful with their cheques.
So they don't trouble to check signatures. That means the operator only needs to read off and type the amount on the cheque, and can do forty cheques a minute. Anything more, and the rate would drop and more people would have to be employed and paid for.
So try this next time you're collecting your poker debts: offer a double or nothing bet that a cheque signed "D. Duck" or similar will clear. Easy enough to do - the mark writes the cheque for double the amount and you agree that if it's queried you won't quibble. The odds are thousands to one against you losing - the bank reckons that a few claims each year are going to be cheaper than hiring four or five times the number of people to clear cheques.