AT&T's Call Protect is "powered by HiYa".
Amazon does now limit reviews of non-verified purchases to 5/week. (Books, videos, CDs and Vine excepted.)
They ought to provide a way to filter reviews so that one can choose to see only reviews/ratings from verified purchasers.
They do - if you click See All Reviews, you can choose to filter by Verified Purchase Only.
That's a problem across the whole web and, at least the deletion part, happens more often than you'd think. When I've updated links on Wikipedia, I note that it not only asks for a CAPTCHA but alerts editors to the change, in case the change was malicious.
I think the motivation is good, but the implementation (as I understand it) could be better. Perhaps what is needed is to add a Wayback link alongside the original one. Does Wikipedia have a process for human review of broken links? In the cases I've found, replacement links can be found quickly for content that just moved.
I have found many cases on Wikipedia where the links are broken but the correct content exists at a different URL. This auto-archive system would bypass that and perhaps prevent ever recognizing that the link target still exists. This is especially an issue for links to corporate and government pages where someone periodically gets the bright idea to reshuffle the web site's organization and doesn't put in permanent redirects.
I write such reviews - both for Amazon Vine and for vendors who offer me free or discounted products. I take my reviewer role seriously and don't treat a review any differently if I paid for the item or not. I recognize that that there is a serious abuse problem - my fellow reviewers use the term "coupon queens", though these can be both male and female - and I applaud Amazon taking this position even though it means I will receive fewer items to review.
I would urge you, though, not to automatically downvote incentivized reviews. If you believe the review is genuinely not helpful, ("I haven't received it yet but I'm sure my grandson will like it, unless I sell it on eBay first..), downvote away. But there are good reviewers out there trying to help purchasers as if they had bought the item themselves. Indeed, those who paid for an item are often biased in favor of it so as to not appear foolish for having spent the money.
From what I read, it's the heartbeat-sensing LED on the watch's underside that overheats.
Many banks, including mine, do this as well. But that doesn't help with card-not-present transactions.
You misunderstand the threat. It is not that an attacker uses MITM to relay the data, though that has been demonstrated. The threat is due to the cardholder data (name, account number and expiration date) being readable in plaintext from hundreds of meters away using readily available and inexpensive equipment. This data can then be used to perform offline transactions or other identity fraud ("what are the last four digits of your credit card number..." sort of "verification" questions.)
Even just knowing the name of a cardholder passing by could be a security risk (ask in nearby hotel for the room of Jane Doe, etc.)
But consider what happened to me last year on the first day of a two-week international vacation. I got a notice from my primary card bank (Chase) that my card had been compromised and that they would cancel it and send a new one. The problem was that I was depending on this card (which has no foreign transaction fees) and I would be moving around every two days meaning that it would be difficult to get a new card to me quickly. They did offer a compromise - disable any card-not-present transactions and had me list which countries I would be in, until I could return home. I had several online purchases outstanding so I had to scramble to fix those, and even then I missed one of the countries I would be in and had my card declined twice before I figured out the problem.
I am sure this case was a leak from a merchant that stored card data insecurely, or maybe a skimmer somewhere. That card did not have RFID. We really do need to move quicker to a tokenized system. Even so, it was more than a minor annoyance to me.
The EMV chip contacts have nothing to do with RFID capability.
The chip creates a digital signature for the transaction, but the data is cleartext. EMV makes card cloning much more difficult, but it doesn't protect the data against interception.
Pretty much every week I place online orders with merchants that don't ask for CVV2. While it is true that the RFID data doesn't include CVV2 (it has a digital signature code created by the EMV chip), what is sent is MORE than enough to commit wide-scale fraud.
Do you really think that the banks would have added a feature that makes fraud as easy as pointing an antenna at people walking past? Where are the crime waves of people draining accounts with concealed card readers?
Why yes, I do. It has been demonstrated numerous times, and is easy to reproduce on your own with inexpensive equipment. The specs are public (have you read them? I have.) Even EMV chips send your card information in plaintext - any encryption needs to be added by the terminal. You may not have read much about it as RFID cards are still uncommon in the US, but that is changing. The specs for this and EMV are more than a decade old and were designed for the banks' convenience, not your protection.
US banks have shown a singular unwillingness to invest in technology that helps their customers. In the US they fall back on "zero liability" terms that mostly shield customers from direct financial losses but then pass on the cost of billions of dollars of fraud to all consumers and merchants.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker