×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hacking Ring Nabbed By US Authorities

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the go-directly-to-jail dept.

The Courts 146

Slatterz writes "The members of a hacking ring responsible for stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from retail organizations in the US have been caught and charged. The case before the US Department of Justice is believed to be the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted. The criminals allegedly obtained bank details by hacking into the retailers' computer networks and then installing 'sniffer' programs to capture card numbers and password details as the customers moved through the retailers' credit and debit processing networks."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

146 comments

will there be changes? (5, Informative)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507197)

are security measures going to be changed with this revelation to the public? having seen the inner-workings of various bank and investment facilities, i can safely say that one doesn't need to go through any really complicated work to take financial information from consumers: most wiring closets aren't even locked.

Re:will there be changes? (5, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507645)

are security measures going to be changed with this revelation to the public?

Of course not. After all, they caught the people that abused it. Why waste money to protect something from criminals when the criminals were already caught. Nobody would dare to try it again.

Re:will there be changes? (1)

that IT girl (864406) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509351)

Well obviously... I mean, look at what happened when they enacted the death penalty for murder. Nobody ever did that again...

Re:will there be changes? (5, Interesting)

Strilanc (1077197) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507995)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the core of the problem isn't the security of the computers, it's the fact that in order to use a credit card number you have to reveal it. There will always be some retailer or customer without a secure system. _We can't change this, it's too hard_.

I think the solution is a small device with an embedded secret key. All it has to do is sign data [secondary: show text, wireless, usb, etc].

For example, to complete a transaction, a store asks you to sign this:
[
      VISA Credit Transfer
      "here's a one-line ad because we just can't help it!"
      amount: 12.34$us
      buyer: John Doe
      seller: Matt's Grocery Store
      date: August 7, 2008
      buyer public key: 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
      seller public key: 4B 3D BA 71 3B D8 56 43 2B A7 E8 F4 69 CA C5 5A
      seller transaction id: 594864purplebunnies
      protocol version: 1
]
Then the store also signs it, and sends it and the signatures to VISA, or whoever.

The beauty here is that the security is now entirely encapsulated in a) the signing device, and b) the plaintext format for requesting credit.

In the example I have given the buyer only has to check that the amount is correct because all other modifications give them free groceries. The store only needs to ensure they match the format specified by VISA, and that the buyer's signature is valid. VISA takes most of the work, checking that the format is correct, the signatures are valid, the transaction id is unique for the seller, the buyer has enough credit, etc.

I'm sure there are holes, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Re:will there be changes? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508315)

already done, patented and on the way for deployment (at least in Switzerland):

http://www.zurich.ibm.com/ztic/

Re:will there be changes? (2, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508741)

In the example I have given the buyer only has to check that the amount is correct because all other modifications give them free groceries. The store only needs to ensure they match the format specified by VISA, and that the buyer's signature is valid. VISA takes most of the work, checking that the format is correct, the signatures are valid, the transaction id is unique for the seller, the buyer has enough credit, etc.

I'm sure there are holes, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

I'm surprised that we even still use signatures now. It seems like no cashier actually looks at them, or could tell if there is even a difference. There is a strong part of me that would like the credit/debit card industry to add various biometrics that would at least be scanned by a machine so we'd actually have some ID verification other than the damn PIN number.

I think that the credit card companies are stuck at the moment. They'd like to actually throw out a few more security measures, but it would cost retailers money to add the biometric scanners. We could end alot of ID theft if a finger print was required to be sent with each purchase. If some one stole your card, they'd also have to have a means to forge your finger prints to use it most places. It won't stop these professionals as they'd figure out ways around any system in a few months, but for all the less casual ID thefts that go on, it would make detecting ID fraud and criminals far, far easier.

Re:will there be changes? (4, Informative)

bberens (965711) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509123)

Or you could.. ya know.. discover that there's vulnerabilities inherent in the system and just use cash instead. Using cards (even debit) causes price inflation. Cash is king.

Re:will there be changes? (3, Insightful)

dsginter (104154) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508063)

are security measures going to be changed with this revelation to the public?

If they secured credit cards so that there was no fraud, then how would the providers justify their exorbitant [unfaircreditcardfees.com] fees?

Re:will there be changes? (1)

neuromancer23 (1122449) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508133)

I doubt they can charge the companies. You probably couldn't even sue them unless they hasd a contracted privacy agreement.

Everyone else will be charged except the FBI agents who were running the ring. This seems like a repeat of what happened when the FBI bombed the world trade center '93.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/06/retail_hacking_ring_analysis/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.google.com/search?q=false+flag [google.com]

No doubt the solution will be the absolute censorship on the internet and the collecting of all possible personal data on every individual from the second they are born to the second they die.

Re:will there be changes? (1)

gardenwall2 (1209418) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509327)

You're correct about the wiring closets. How many have additional items, such as janitorial and office supplies stored in the same location? As a result, the staff says it's "too hard" to keep the door locked. Not to mention the risk of social engineering. How many employees would really question anyone appearing on site that looked "official" - in retail locations, not just financial.

Hacking? (0, Redundant)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507205)

Dear editor,

You use the word hacking, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

On all other laces I would let it slide by, but this is /. and yes I blame the editor, because (s)he should, uh, edit the stories.

Re:Hacking? (5, Informative)

srjh (1316705) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507255)

hacking [wiktionary.org] (uncountable)

1. (computing) Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network.

Hack [merriam-webster.com]

...4b: to gain access to a computer illegally

You may prefer to use other definitions yourself, but the usage here is perfectly correct.

Re:Hacking? (5, Informative)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507295)

You can bet hackers didn't write those definitions. Those definitions are accurate in the context of mainstream media, but as the GP stated, this is /.

Re:Hacking? (3, Informative)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507343)

Provided that this is still the /. that we all know, this [catb.org] should not be necessary, but one may never be sure about the level of truth...

Re:Hacking? (1)

Stormie (708) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508341)

Provided that this is still the /. that we all know, this [catb.org] should not be necessary

Trust me, linking to Eric S. Raymond's tiresome ramblings should never be necessary.

Re:Hacking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508679)

Why do they always have to take words and use them for their own purposes...Free, hack...

stupid OSS fanatics

Re:Hacking? (1)

srjh (1316705) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507453)

Troll?

Ouch, looks like I hit a nerve...

Re:Hacking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507749)

Hence why I browse at -1. Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

Re:Hacking? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508177)

With a user ID well into the seven figure zone, don't presume to tell the rest of us what hacking means, you retarded little larva.

Yours sincerely,
    ESR.

Re:Hacking? (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509109)

hacking comes from german "hacken" which means to chop, so a hacker is actually a lumberjack (and is okay).

Re:Hacking? (2)

Dramacrat (1052126) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507499)

The quote the immortal words of our Imam: "Nowadays, it is claimed that the Chinese and even WOMEN are hacking things. Man, am I ever glad I got a chance to experience "the scene" before it degenerated completely. And remember, kids, knowing how to program or wanting really badly to figure out how things work inside doesn't make you a hacker! Hacking boxes makes you a "hacker"! That's right! Write your local representatives at Wikipedia/urbandictionary/OED and let them know that hackers are people that gain unauthorized access/privileges to computerized systems! Linus Torvalds isn't a hacker! Richard Stallman isn't a hacker! Niels Provos isn't a hacker! Fat/ugly, maybe! Hackers, no! And what is up with the use of the term "cracker"? As far as I'm concerned, that term applies to people that bypass copyright protection mechanisms. Vladimir Levin? HACKER. phiber optik? HACKER. Kevin Mitnick? OK, maybe a gay/bad one, but still WAS a "hacker." Hope that's clear."

Re:Hacking? (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507643)

Don't try to correct the editors. Instead, try to correct yourself. Remember - there is no dupe.

Re:Hacking? (2, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508003)

The price for correcting the Editors is being moderated as a troll, apparently.

Re:Hacking? (2, Informative)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508227)

Maybe because you are ignorantly trying to say that because they are black hats they should not be called hackers. The term hacker can be appropriately used to describe anyone with above-average knowledge on a subject and a desire to explore and tinker, usually outside the confines of what is expected or desired. Maybe you can educate yourself a little better before complaining on slashdot, Try reading some Kevin Mitnick [amazon.com] , Michal Zalewski [amazon.com] , or if nothing else Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

More details (5, Informative)

hattable (981637) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507209)

If you felt a little cheated by the lack of info in the 'article' the DOJ site [usdoj.gov] has more.

Re:More details (1)

p0werhouse (1045446) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507279)

Thats exactly what I wanted! Thanks. I also heard TJMax might go under as a result of this. They have already lost millions to lawsuits.

Re:More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508891)

Thats exactly what I wanted! Thanks. I also heard TJMax might go under as a result of this. They have already lost millions to lawsuits.

Lawsuits? They could lose millions from reversed charges alone, without any lawsuits.

Re:More details (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507289)

From that FA:

"Criminal informations were also released today in Boston on related charges against Christopher Scott and Damon Patrick Toey, both of Miami."

Informations? The DOJ can't find a person who knows basic English to write their PRs?

Re:More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507781)

If you felt a little cheated by the lack of info in the 'article' the DOJ site [usdoj.gov] has more.

US Department of Justice website is down. could it be that too many users from slashdot trying to visit overloaded their website?

www.usdoj.gov [usdoj.gov]

11 Timed out Destination network unreachable Timed out

wireless registers (1)

p0werhouse (1045446) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507241)

I heard that they went around to stores using wireless networks to process purchases at checkout. Basically any store that thought they were being high tech by using wireless registers. Guess they forgot to encrypt the data...anyone have a better link?

Re:wireless registers (1)

hattable (981637) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507271)

In whatever newspaper I read about this in, they said that it was sent to the server with WEP, but I'm sure that took them what, a whole 20 minutes to break. They just backdoored the reception system so they didn't just get the card numbers that were being used in that store, but in all of whatever chain of stores.

Hacking?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507245)

Do you even what hacking means?!

How come we see something like this on /.?!

This is sad... :(

Really sad... :~(

It is sad (1)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507601)

There is such a big difference between people who do it for the fun, and challenge, and those who do it for personal gain. I really wish the media would pick up on these differences. Me personally I enjoy the challenge, and find it to be fun, and I consider myself a hacker. Of course if I went around telling people that they would get this idea that "I'm the bad guy who wants to steal all of your personal information". They really need to do some investigative reporting to see that there are white hat hackers and black hat hackers...of course with media outlets such as fox news, cnn, msnbc, etc...they tend not to seek out the truth.

Re:It is sad (1)

sir fer (1232128) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507963)

To paraphrase "never let the truth get in the way of a good story, especially if it complicates the issue!"

Re:It is sad (1)

inasity_rules (1110095) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508097)

Don't forget all the hard hacks too. They're fun, a challenge and (mostly) even legal.

Signed

An Electronic Eng Student

i don't even it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507617)

sorry, it is odd to me.

Better Article (5, Informative)

FSWKU (551325) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507321)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7545212.stm [bbc.co.uk] has a much better write-up.

So now we will get even MORE draconian measures to stop the "evil hackers" when in reality, it was a combination of bad intentions, and old-fashioned stupidity. The article specifically mentions looking for "vulnerable" access points. This means that whoever set the network up for these stores did not do a proper job in securing said network. Also, why the HELL were the systems used to process credit card transactions on the same insecure wireless network? There is NO excuse for that. I'm not excusing what these guys did, but once again we have a case where whoever setup the hardware in these places needs to be held for criminal negligence.

Re:Better Article (4, Insightful)

elnico (1290430) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507481)

whoever setup the hardware in these places needs to be held for criminal negligence

IANA(legal scholar), but this doesn't seem to fit the definition of criminal negligence for two reasons:

1) Doing a bad job at something and allowing others to come to harm isn't enough. Essentially, you must be aware of the risk of your actions (or inaction), or you must intentionally allow yourself too little information to make a proper decision.

2) I'm pretty sure that once you commit a negligent act, it has to be nature that takes something "the rest of the way." If your act simply allows someone else to commit a crime, then the crime falls the perpetrator, not you.

Keep in mind too, that I'm talking about criminal negligence. You can sue in civil courts on a much broader basis.

In fact, I find your entire comment rather ironic, since you imply that the recent crimes will be an excuse for some 1984-state to implement "MORE draconian measures," but then go on to suggest criminalizing what is essentially poor job performance.

Re:Better Article (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508211)

While in principle what you say may be correct, I think using insecure wireless to transfer credit information is a crime in and of itself. That literally amounts to broadcasting the numbers to anyone nearby the store. I'd almost say that goes beyond negligence. That's hitting golf balls off your roof and then claiming you didn't know anyone was down there. Granted, you may not have known - I suppose to take this metaphor to the proper extent we'll say you live in a field in the middle of nowhere. However, you only own the land around your house, and you have no excuse for harming someone by hitting the ball into an area you do not control - that is downright criminal if it hits some(one|thing).

Re:Better Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508543)

Big corps are like that. Stupid things get done all the time... for no obvious reasons.

I'm guessing that most systems were intentioned to be secure, but were either misconfigured, or augmented with things like wireless networks [WEP!] (or with high turnover [or lack of care], folks were running things on faith alone---without anyone really understanding where things go).

For example, the corp I work for will be giving their customers a private key so that whatever we publish with our public key will be readable by them (ie: we need ``secure email''). The whole concept of -them- giving us their public key is beyond our IT department's understanding. And nobody seems to listen to reason. Eh. Big corps are like that.

Re:Better Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508575)

"whoever set the network up for these stores did not do a proper job" or was on it from the beginning...

Billing department infiltration (1)

Centurix (249778) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507335)

I've always wondered how safe you are when paying utility bills over the phone using a tone phone, like if someone finds a connection at the call centre which takes the card number and listens to tones of card numbers/expiry dates/verification numbers flowing through the line. Maybe it's a little more secure than my paranoid mind thinks, maybe someone knows a little detail on what's involved with these systems?

Re:Billing department infiltration (4, Interesting)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507549)

Well if you can record the call (and phone boxes aren't hard to tap, though I'm not sure how exactly it would work at a call center) then it's easy to convert the DTMF tones into numbers using a tone decoder.

Here's a link to a DIY hardware version: http://www.bobblick.com/techref/projects/tonedec/tonedec.html [bobblick.com] And a quick search should turn up software solutions, or you could write one yourself since the tones are standard. Wiki lists all the tones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTMF#Keypad [wikipedia.org]

Re:Billing department infiltration (1)

nbert (785663) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508169)

Reminds me of the early 90's when the Chaos Computer Club [www.ccc.de] had its own radio show (I don't know if are still on air). They had this game were you could win a price if you were the first to call a number which was given to the listeners in DTMF tones. Since this show was in the late evening I don't want to know how many people got it wrong and woke someone with a similar number. But usually it only took a minute for someone to figure out the real number with the help of an Amiga (sound cards were not that common in the PC world back then and the Amiga came with all the software you needed for this purpose)

IIRC the game was inspired by a prior show in which they called someone of relative hacker fame and forgot to silence the mic while dialing, thereby disclosing his number unintentionally...

Slashdot is days behind the news (5, Insightful)

Xenna (37238) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507383)

There used to be a time when you read tech-news first on slashdot. Nowadays I read it in my (Dutch) newspaper first (yep, the paper one that they actually have to print and deliver first) end a few days later it appears in /.

What the hell is wrong?

Re:Slashdot is days behind the news (1)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507463)

When exactly did you read it in the paper? Slashdot previously posted this story on the 5th, the day it was annoucned. See: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/05/1916237 [slashdot.org]

Re:Slashdot is days behind the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507585)

Obviously he means that it used to be that the dupes were on Slashdot before it ended up in the paper newspapers.

mod D0wn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507583)

you nned to suuceed knows that ever Smith only serve continues toChew

Who foots the bill? (2, Interesting)

brucmack (572780) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507637)

So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?

Re:Who foots the bill? (5, Funny)

Bravoc (771258) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507859)

So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?

The credit card company raises my rates to cover their expenses, the government uses my taxes to pay for the investigation and prosecution, looks like I'm paying for it!

Drinks for everyone! Here, use my card!

Re:Who foots the bill? (3, Insightful)

Stanislav_J (947290) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508399)

So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?

The credit card company raises my rates to cover their expenses, the government uses my taxes to pay for the investigation and prosecution, looks like I'm paying for it!

Dude, the customer pays for everything one way or another -- haven't you figured that out by now?

Re:Who foots the bill? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24509099)

Whichever one isn't a jew.

Defendant worked for the Secret Service (5, Interesting)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507697)

The main defendant in this case, Albert Gonzalez, used to be a informant for the Secret Service and cooperated in the Operation: Firewall [usdoj.gov] case 4 years ago. Apparently they didn't keep a very good eye on him while he was working for them or after they were done with him. He became an informant after he was arrested around mid-2003 and the case lasted until the end of October, 2004. So according to this Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com] (which got the informantion from the indictment [usdoj.gov] someone linked above) he was actively committing crimes at the same time he was an informant:

-- In about 2003, Gonzalez and others found an unencrypted wireless access point at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. BJ's reported a breach of its computer networks in early 2004.

-- In 2004, other members of the ID theft ring compromised an OfficeMax wireless access point in Miami, and they were able to steal credit card data. After law enforcement officials in 2006 identified OfficeMax as the victim of a data breach, the company said it hired an outside auditor to conduct an investigation and found no evidence of a security breach. An OfficeMax spokesman didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.

So either the Secret Service was letting this go on just so they could make one bust, or they had no idea that their own informant was committing major breaches while under their supervision. Also, how stupid is this guy that he didn't even stop breaking the law after getting busted and becoming an informant? Some people are just begging to be sent to prison, and it looks like the prosecuters are going to grant his wish. For the rest of his life if they have their way.

P.S.: The Threat Level post [wired.com] with the info about him being an informant also contains a link [wired.com] to another case about another informant who was stealing social security numbers while working on a computer inside the Secret Service offices.

The usdoj.gov website seems to be down for me at the moment but should come back up eventually.

Re:Defendant worked for the Secret Service (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507983)

I'm not really getting the thrust of your argument. Informants are, by definition, most likely to be criminals or criminal accessories. What's your point?

Re:Defendant worked for the Secret Service (4, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508125)

I'm not really getting the thrust of your argument. Informants are, by definition, most likely to be criminals or criminal accessories. What's your point?

I believe his point is, they were supposed to be former criminals, in the past tense. Law enforcement's job is to see that they stay that way, not to go run amok with 40+ million credit cards.

In the case of the other informant he linked, the guy stole information directly from the Secret Service office's computers while the agents are on duty (though probably off viewing porn while the informant conducts non-authorized criminal activity). Mind you, they had a huge monitor displaying whatever the informant was doing on there aside from keylogging. Seriously, that's a huge lax on monitoring, if they can't even watch an informant in their own office. Makes you wonder if they are even capable of doing their jobs.

He's basically saying that this bust is just a front for the US government cleaning up a mess they created in 2003 by not initially locking this guy up or restricting his computer access/monitoring him more closely.

One other thing, the informant did absolutely no time for all previous criminal activity he conducted before turning informant, after his initial arrest in 2003 (which according to the FBOP inmate tracker [bop.gov] , he is 27). Thus, he could have been doing this for some time. Basically, he got a free pass on whatever crime he did before his intial arrest, plus almost five more years of reeking havoc on the banking system. This is in sharp contrast to what most people would assume "informing" is, where a criminal cuts a deal for reduced time or perhaps probation/house arrest, but still gets charged. This guy however has not been charged, until now.

Re:Defendant worked for the Secret Service (2, Interesting)

phayes (202222) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509239)

Time to wakey wakey young one, the world is more complicated than your parents told you...

In order to catch a thief, law enforcement officials will use people who are criminals themselves. When, in the course of an investigation, they have enough evidence to put away suspect A, A will often turn over information on other people the government wants to put away more. As the leaders of criminal organizations usually protect themselves by passing orders on to underlings & often do not commit overtly illegal acts themselves, this is the only way to collect enough evidence to put them behind bars.

However, turning states evidence, will not protect A a second time if he continues to break the law unless he can once again deliver on someone that the DA wants more than A.

I see nothing abnormal in putting in prison a criminal who was too dumb to stop committing crimes.

priceless (4, Funny)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 5 years ago | (#24507705)

hacking ring responsible for stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from retail organizations in the US have been caught and charged.

To which they replied.. "put it on the card"

mod aup (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507913)

and the bo7tom about Outside

Hacking Ring Nabbed By US Authorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24507989)

Hacking Ring Nabbed By US Authorities

Slashdot americans are so cute. In one article you complain about the "spin" authorities and the president campaigns use to fool the population. Next, you swallow it all, even the feet and ears, when the spin is that the authorities are in control. You're so gullible it's endearing.

one time CC numbers (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508109)

ALL of this could be ended if visa and mastercard changed to single use CC numbers. if they gave me a token that created a new CC number with each transaction it might actually justify that annual fee the assholes charge me.

Re:one time CC numbers (4, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508361)

If you don't feel you are getting your money's worth from the annual fee, you should consider switching to one of the hundreds (thousands?) of cards available without an annual fee.

Re:one time CC numbers (2, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508523)

Maybe he/she was referring to the merchant fees (the part that actually goes to VISA). These are (for me) $0.50 transaction and 2% of gross.

Don't worry though, it's the customers, credit cards or no, that pay these fees in the end. SInce profits are low enough and it is a competitive business, without the fees, prices would be lower.

Re:one time CC numbers (0, Flamebait)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508789)

It is pretty clear from the context that he is talking about the annual fee he pays to use a credit card, not a merchant account.

Clearly you think you make more money by doing business with the CC companies (or you would stop!), so why bother complaining about it?

Wow, Ring of Hacking +3 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508451)

Is this something I can buy in World of Whorecraft?

(I hope this isn't about golf hackers...)

Deja Vu (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508609)

I feel like I read this somewhere before. Oh, that's right, on Tuesday [slashdot.org] . I think it was plainly obvious that the 11 charged were in a hacking ring whether the verbage was included previously or not. Why don't we start tagging these as repeat news?

Sort of Frightening (3, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#24508843)

The people arrested were in several nations. What is unusual and a bit frightening is that it seems like they were able to get arrest warrants or whatever was needed crossing international lines really quickly. It almost seems like some uber government organization was at work on this affair.

Innocent until proven guilty? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24508879)

The members of a hacking ring responsible for stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from retail organizations in the US have been caught and charged.

You wouldn't think so from the summary. So much for the presumption of innocence.

This is entirely for show (1)

jskline (301574) | more than 5 years ago | (#24509249)

This really is entirely for show politically. There are too many strategic positions up for grabs in November that just spoke volumes of "We need to look good"... Yea, I'm speaking to some republicans out there! You know who you are. Who's eyes are you trying to pull wool over??

Fact is there is too much of this out there and these guys are not the only fish out there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...