Beta
×

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!

Anonymous Threatens Robin Hood Attacks Against Banks

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the forced-charity dept.

Crime 529

gManZboy writes "Just in time for the holidays, hacktivist collective Anonymous has announced that it has teamed up with like-minded group TeaMp0isoN to donate to charity. The catch: they're using stolen credit data from big banks to make donations, in a campaign they're calling Operation Robin Hood. Is the #OpRobinHood campaign for real, or like previous threats against Wall Street and Facebook, just another hoax? Aesthetically, at least, the OpRobinHood video ticks all of the traditional Anonymous aesthetic requirements: a mashed-up 'p0isoaNoN' logo (green on black), a liberal dose of swelling choral music (via that movie trailer staple 'Europa,' by Globus), together with selected clips of Kevin Costner as Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ready, fire, aim (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222730)

OK, so banks get screwed, but charities get screwed too. Unless they're "donating" to the RIAA charity fund, this seems pretty evil in itself.

Re:Ready, fire, aim (5, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223004)

This is fucking great, now anon is going to get some awesome new laws passed to hurt us even further.

Re:Ready, fire, aim (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223222)

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

Of course spineless always passive losers like you, with their crab mentality, will never know that, since you would never dare to endure a short period of bigger pain, but, in your cowardly short-sightedness, choose to live in the usual pain forever.

TL;DR: No pain, no gain, you sissy!

Re:Ready, fire, aim (5, Funny)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223254)

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you get the attention of Fox News,
then you get incinerated by a Predator drone.

Re:Ready, fire, aim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223226)

This would be the excuse, not the reason.

Those laws were coming anyway, because the people who buy and sell laws, want them.

If you could prevent them without Anonymous making a fuss, then you would be able to prevent them now. But you can't.

Re:Ready, fire, aim (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223228)

The words "frame job" spring instantly to mind. What better way to gin up public support for insane new laws than have the FBI/NSA come up with something like this?

Re:Ready, fire, aim (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223102)

These groups of hackers are idiots, like most hackers, this is "attack" is going to do nothing, a lot like these idiot protesters. The only way to make an impact is by numbers and ousting the idiot politicians, and or by violence like the military uses. Only problem with that kind of attack, the government can use military force to stop you, because they have greater numbers. And because we (U.S citizens) gave up our civil liberties for the Patriot Act, we would be terrorists for doing so. So I am not sure why this hacker group would even entertain a pathetic thought of calling themselves Robin Hoods.

I dont see any issues with them. (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222746)

People who frauded entire world by selling water vapor through deriving assets to 60x their value and then lending 10 times nonexistent cash over them are still sitting pretty and posting record bonuses and profits. Thats 599 times nonexistent cash lent as loans to governments, megacorps, factories, organizations, whereas there was only 1 unit of asset to back them. the correct amount of lending should have been 10x at maximum.

To simply put it in streetspeak - these people engaged in cash fraud. And they are drinking champagne in wall street. world suffers through their fraud. at this state noone can persuade me that what anonymous doing is wrong.

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (-1, Troll)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223086)

You can't lend non existent cash. Learn math.

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223138)

Actually, you can. Learn banking math.

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (4, Informative)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223288)

No, you really can't. However, certain institutions (the Federal Reserve Bank and other equivalents) can effectively create cash by creating an equal amount of debt, which works much like cash but with a negative value. Then that institution can issue both the cash and the debt to a bank, effectively giving a value of zero. If a bank wants to lend out the new cash it just received, it's still stuck with the equivalent amount of debt to pay back at some point. The bank could make arrangements with other banks to pay back the debt for them, and raise fees to cover the debt, but the debt still exists. There is no non-existent cash, and there is no free money, either.

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (4, Informative)

Prune (557140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223338)

It's good to see at least few slashdotters are aware of MMT principles. The only beef I have with your post is using the word debt, because even though it is debt in name, it's quite different from microeconomic debt in the way most people understand it. http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=11218 [economicoutlook.net]

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223204)

No sir, it's you who needs to learn. You can start with canadian banking here:

http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/ [ohcanadamovie.com]

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (5, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223348)

You can't lend non existent cash. Learn math.

In banking terms, you can. You just overstate your "assets" to say that you have all this valuable stuff lying around that you can liquidate at any time - which means that you can then lend against those assets - which actually gives you more assets.

Where the bankers got caught though was that their overvalued assets started to literally fall apart. By having to write off those assets, the cash pool started drying up. In a effort to curb losses, many bankers and investors started to dump their assets that they knew were shaky at best - which then caused a flood into a market further devaluing anything due to supply and demand.

Where the world got caught though was when the bankers had screwed their own business up to a point where it was going to (and did in some instances) cause entire nations to become effectively bankrupt. The world (governments that is, not the ordinary folk) then had to bail out the banks under the theory of mitigation - where bailing out (through nationalization, or stupendous loans at next to nix interest) a bunch of banks, securities (oh, the irony of that) and fund groups was going to cause less harm then to allow them to crash and kill off retirements, investments and allow that cancer to spread at full speed into the everyday lives of pretty much everyone.

tl;dr - You most certainly can lend cash that you don't have.

Re:I dont see any issues with them. (-1, Flamebait)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223224)

So you have inspected the list of credit cards which will be defrauded, and you are certain that each and every individual person who owns one of those credit cards are employed by the banking industry and engaged in unscrupulous, abusive, or deceptive activities? Furthermore you believe that the Anonymous people are behaving ethically when they act as judge, jury, and executioner, implementing mob justice and flouting the rule of law?

Well okay then, I guess you should be fine with it, except that the charities who receive these donations will have to deal with the implications of chargebacks (which will be substantial). Maybe someone will actually develop a secure credit card system as a response. That would be lovely.

It would also be lovely if the leftist thugs actually took over and you, personally, got a good look at the ugliness of the regime that your advocacy brought about - before your life turned nasty, brutish and short. Of course, there would be other negative consequences to that, so I won't be cheering for that particular outcome.

They're not really stealing from bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222754)

They're stealing from tax payers.

Re:They're not really stealing from bank (4, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223100)

They're stealing from everyone, which is unacceptable. Anon has finally gone batshit insane.

Re:They're not really stealing from bank (1, Offtopic)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223134)

They aren't stealing from me.

I'm smart enough to not have credit (minus pre-secured credit,) and resourceful enough to be cash-only otherwise.

Great (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222760)

They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?

98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222802)

"They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor?"

The wealth disparity has gotten WAY out of hand, and measures like this are what is needed. When some people have no food or medical care, and others have two cars and a nice house, it's time to balance things a little as common HUMAN DECENCY.

Re:Great (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222854)

When some people have no food or medical care, and others have two cars and a nice house, it's time to balance things a little as common HUMAN DECENCY.

Because most of those people don't own that house and those cars, they pay them off with the money they get from their jobs. fool.

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222864)

The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else. Stealing from the middle class just creates new poor.

Re:Great (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222898)

"The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else"

No, it's both. The middle class have MASSIVELY more than the truly poor, and it's high time to remedy that just as it's high time to remedy the top 1% being so out of proportion to the middle class.

The difference between the very top and the very bottom has become unethical. That needs to be fixed on BOTH ends, not just the one end that might benefit you personally. This isn't about YOU, it's about what needs to be done for the good of society, because things are just way out of hand right now.

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222958)

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you think taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor fixes anything. Corporations and the upper-class have more than enough to be able to bring the poor out of the danger zone and still remain wealthy. The middle class, by and large, did not get there by doing anything other than working their asses off and getting paid salaries proportionate to their work. Whereas the upper class more often than not are getting paid money that is vastly beyond what the rest of society considers appropriate for the work they do. CEO of a company that fired 10,000 people last year and lost $5 billion? Earn a severance package of $100 million. Gamble with other people's money on the market and send $500 billion up in smoke? Get a $2 million bonus.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223080)

"I'm sorry, I don't understand how you think taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor fixes anything"

I'm sorry, I don't understand how you think it won't.

I don't think you have any idea just how little some people have.

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222990)

Most of anonymous is in the middle class (if they own a computer and can spend time hanging out at forums then they're not the super poor). So they should just donate their own cash to charities. Think they'll go for this idea, or they'd rather just steal someone else's money and then brag about it on their ipads?

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223250)

They might be middle class, but they are only a few people and can't themselves directly make a huge dent in the problem. But the number of middle class people overall is HUGE, so if anonymous can leverage those millions upon millions of people to help, then a dent CAN be made in the problem.

Anonymous = dozens or hundreds of people
Middle class = hundreds of millions of people.

Re:Great (2)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222996)

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. The middle class by and large got where they are through hard work, and the last thing they need is to be driven into poverty by terribly thought out "robin hood" campaigns.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223042)

"The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else"

No, it's both. The middle class have MASSIVELY more than the truly poor, and it's high time to remedy that just as it's high time to remedy the top 1% being so out of proportion to the middle class.

The difference between the very top and the very bottom has become unethical. That needs to be fixed on BOTH ends, not just the one end that might benefit you personally. This isn't about YOU, it's about what needs to be done for the good of society, because things are just way out of hand right now.

And so you think that simply handing poor people money is going to encourage them to spend better, get an education, and otherwise take steps (which they may not even be aware of) to rise from their poverty?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223130)

"And so you think that simply handing poor people money is going to encourage them to spend better, get an education, and otherwise take steps (which they may not even be aware of) to rise from their poverty?"

It just might, yes. Many times people get trapped in a cycle of poverty, and something like that can let them escape it. They don't have the basic resources to get a clean set of clothes so that they can go to a job interview and look halfway presentable. Things you apparently take for granted.

You appear to be engaging in classic "blaming the victim" behavior.

Re:Great (5, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223124)

No, you're factually and provably wrong. I suspect that you know this, and are lying in hopes of scaring members of the middle class away from any policies that might fix the distribution of wealth in this country.

The bottom 80% of Americans, a group that includes both the poor and the middle class, owns just 7% of the wealth in the country. Redistributing that 7% evenly among the 250 million people that make up the bottom 80% won't do a damn thing.

Re:Great (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223336)

Of course it will do a damn thing. It'll make the bottom end of that 80% significantly better off than they are now.

Re:Great (0)

zrakoplovom (1938894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223166)

This has already been accomplished, with great success. Cuba. Check it out, I'm sure you will be on the next flight to Havana and living the good life...

Re:Great (0)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223194)

There are no truly poor in America.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223330)

That's because America sold itself out (much of the first world did that too), execs made more profit by outsourcing to other countries because all the people gave a shit about was that they could get their ipod a bit cheaper if it's made in china, then they realized they had no jobs because none of them wanted to pay for 'Made in USA', they'd rather scrounge an extra couple of bucks by buying 'Made in China'. And now that you're in the shit and that's come back to bite you you want someone to bail you out for your mistake, maybe you should have supported your country!

Re:Great (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223180)

Technically, I'm in the lower middle class by American standards in terms of household income. I do live within my means and manage to squirrel away the remaining paycheck into savings. It's not a lot, but I manage. Specifically for a better future as I get older. Hopefully. Sometime in the future, I'd like to get an advanced degree to improve my earning potential and feel rewarded with the knowledge I've gained among peers. But not in this economy and certainly not with the tuition bubble as high as it is. Screw that! But seriously, these hacktivist should think extremely long and hard about whom they target. There are many professionals among the IT industry that are likely to retaliate. Piss off the wrong people, and something bad could happen in meat space. This is not a game. Unfortunately for them, the reality of the situation will not sink in until it's too late.

Oh, and think about this. Among all the members of these hacktivist groups, many are already in the top 1% income bracket. I have no way to be certain of the ratio, but statistically, there has to be some. If that wouldn't piss you off, I don't know what would.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223242)

Seriously?! Now it's the middle class to blame? It's hard enough for me to pay my goddamn mortgage and feed myself... now I'm going to have to chase BoA with fraud complaints and hope I don't get hammered over it?

That's just what I need right now. Fuck them and fuck you to.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222826)

"And this is going to affect the people at the top,,,,exactly how?"

The point is to help the people at the bottom. You know, the ones who are homeless, living on scraps they fish out of the trash of idiots like you who don't give a damn about anybody but yourself.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222932)

I used to be like that, but then I got off my ass and got a job.

This is why I don't like Occupy (5, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222976)

The point is to help the people at the bottom. You know, the ones who are homeless, living on scraps they fish out of the trash of idiots like you who don't give a damn about anybody but yourself.

What the fuck are you on about? I pay my taxes and I donate to charity when I feel like it. I assure you I'm far from the 1% the Occupy people are always talking about (otherwise I wouldn't have a one and a half hour commute, both ways, every day).

This operation is talking about taking money from stolen credit cards and donating it to charity. Let's disect that a bit.

First, you're stealing people's livelihoods. Credit cards are often attached to bank accounts. You could be bankrupting people, or putting them in a state where they can't pay their bills. I have a problem with that from the get-go. But it gets worse.

When the fraudulent transaction goes through, the banks will take an interchange fee [wikipedia.org] averaging about 2% of the transaction value straight from the top before the charity even gets it. So the banks are already laughing their asses off at this plan, since what Occupy thinks is going to hurt them is going to GIVE THEM MONEY.

So when the unfortunate person owning the credit card sees that they've had their money stolen, they're going to try a chargeback. Their bank may refuse this, but especially if it's a credit card, they'll likely get their money back. In the middle of this, the bank will likely take a chargeback fee [wikipedia.org] from the charity since they'd have a hard time taking it from the person who's had their money stolen.

Now, in this circumstance there are likely to be a large number of chargebacks against the charity, which may further increase their liability:

Currently both Visa and Mastercard require all merchants to maintain no more than 1% of dollar volume processed to be chargebacks. If the percentage goes above, there are fines starting at $5000 – $25,000 to the merchant's processing bank and ultimately passed on to the merchant.

All of that money goes to the banks and the credit card companies.

So what's the final score here?

Victim: Either has their money back after losing it for potentially several days, or if they're unfortunate, has simply lost their money entirely.
Charity: Probably doesn't have much extra money after most people chargeback their fraudulent transactions.
Banks: Got around 2% of every single transaction involved here, more in the cases of chargebacks. Stole money from both the target and the charity without being culpable for any of it.

I'd say I was shocked that nobody thought of this, but it completely matches with everything else Occupy has done: sitting on their asses, breaking the law when convenient to them, proposing no actual solutions, and splitting their focus in a million different directions without putting any real effort into a single one.

Re:This is why I don't like Occupy (2)

nwf (25607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223010)

Well said. I was thinking the exact same thing. The banks will actually MAKE money of this stupid attempt at activism. I think this proves that smart people aren't smart in every area. This ranks right up there with PETA's recent activities, well, they are actually getting attention and this is so dumb on many levels it leads one to believe anonymous is a 12-year old script-kiddie.

Banks and Credit cards (5, Insightful)

mbkennel (97636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223322)

a) In the USA credit card issuers (issuing bank, not the interchange network) are liable for fraudulent transactions, losing 100% of the amount (as the customer will not pay, usually) is a loss to the bank even if they win 2-3% interchange.

b) They will chargeback to charities many of the fraudulent transactions which occur card-not-present (i.e. internet payments), so the charities won't get much or any of it. I don't know if there are any additional fees which may actually hurt the charity.

c) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, the issuing banks may start to notice it and block payments from all cardholders, hurting the charity's normal fundraising.

d) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, then that charity's bank (acquirer) is likely to drop its credit-card processing agreement, disrupting the charity's normal fundraising. There may even be some penalties if they do not have a sufficiently up-to-date website and on-line fraud detection software/procedures.

I work professionally in some aspect of credit card software (at a tech company and not a bank).

In sum, this proposed action is likely to create some extra work for bank employees, though it will probably not cause financially significant losses as many online transactions (not processing with "Secured by Visa" or MC's similar procedure) can be charged back. Charities are unlikely to benefit. They may be harmed.

Re:Great (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223072)

99% of the people at the bottom are there because of their own choices. If someone flunks out of high school and doesn't bother to train themselves with some skill to get a decent job that's their bad.

Re:Great (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223088)

Well.. they are not stealing from the middle class. That's an assumption. Credit data is going to be used which can possibly cover all the demographics.

Stealing is not going to occur anyways. Anybody with a debit card is highly likely to be protected from unauthorized charges with no damage being done to them, other than the inconvenience of filing a claim. Most banks will issue a provisional credit, especially if they notice it is a large pattern of fraud.

A huge number of charge backs are going to occur, which would create a operational cost burden to the financial institutions. If it is a large scale pattern of fraud too, the charities will not be affected by the charge backs with respect to account suspensions, reputation, etc. Giving the money back will happen obviously. Which, if I recall correctly, most money from merchant accounts is held for a period of time. So those charities will not actually see any of that money in all likelihood.

Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Anonymous will not try large donations on any debit cards. From looking at the bin numbers you should be able to tell the difference and act accordingly. So any middle class person might lose 10-50$. Not likely to push them over the edge. Credit cards will probably be hit for larger amounts, but that is going to be even more protected by fraud prevention and have a much quicker resolution time to the consumer.

The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.

Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.

That being said, FUCK THE BANKS. Those are the same people that killed the economy with their bullshit, got bailed out from government, failed to live up to their own obligations with the money (namely home loan modifications), and recklessly and ruthlessly sold financial instruments multiple times so home owners had one or more banks after them for foreclosure, used Deeds of Trust to bypass due process, and generally have been ass raping the American Public to the tune of a trillion plus dollars.

Ohhhhh, and not to mention are engaged in a conspiracy to accelerate foreclosures and not work with homeowners because they can make more money with wealthy investors (themselves and their friends) by picking up the properties cheap with government assistance. Do they pay HOA fees or property taxes? Of course not. Fuck that shit. Not only do they refuse to work with people, they fuck over their local communities by failing to pay these fees which local government needs for police, fire, etc.

They are a blight on humanity, and in that regard, I fully support Anonymous sentiment regarding the fact these people need to pay and suffer in some way. I applaud the ends here, but not the means.

My heart bleeds for them in their protected gated communities and luxury yachts. Poor little fucking bankers.

I suspect they're bluffing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222768)

I seriously doubt they're going to do much damage stealing from banks. They will attract a lot more attention from people who have no problem locking them up without trial however.

Sounds Great! (2)

somebodee (2485114) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222772)

Lets screw up the system that the US dollar is based off of! It's not like the dollar is the global standard for currency in international trading or this would have deep impact on the global economy or anything like that. I'm personally kinda tired of crap like this. Yes, its fine to have a mission or a goal, but at least consider the ramifications of what you're attempting to do. Seriously.

Shit or get off the pot (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222782)

Making threats doesn't really mean anything. If they do do it, good for them. However making useless threats just means potential attack vectors will close up.

Re:Shit or get off the pot (2)

cyachallenge (2521604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222812)

Actually, threats like these may persuade tens of thousands to move to credit unions and causing measurable losses in already hurting big banks. Sometimes anticipation of an attack is more important than the follow-through.

Re:Shit or get off the pot (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223106)

OWS! OWS! Watch out, we might do something!

Re:Shit or get off the pot (1)

CanEHdian (1098955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223110)

Anonymous would have done better by releasing a couple of informational videos as to why to move to a credit union including a name-and-shame of Big Banks. They have a large audience. Hurting banks by hurting their "regular folk" customers is not going to work. Anonymous will be perceived as "the enemy" (with a little help from the Banking Clan and their friends). It appears they have forgotten the outrage that was caused by the PSN outage; whoever did that was not seen the David slaying the Evil Sony Goliath, but the a**holes who kept people's games and Netflix from working.

Probably not that smart (4, Informative)

Improv (2467) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222784)

I'm sure the big donation targets won't mind the hassle of dealing with angry people trying to get their money back... and likely police involvement. That's just what charities need.

Re:Probably not that smart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222992)

Obviously they need to start donating to the church of scientology and rep/dem candidates then

Worse than that (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223274)

They'll be not getting the money and dealing with banks and payment processors. In some cases they may deal with angry individuals who don't watch what happens. However more than likely these things will get noticed fairly fast, since it is easy to see what your CC is doing online, and the banks will be informed, and they'll stop payment. So the charity will think they are getting money, then not get it.

Then of course because of the level of fraudulent transactions, flags will go up on them as a merchant, so it'll get to the point where if someone makes a donation of any sizable amount, it'll generate a call immediately from the bank to verify. If that keeps up, the payment processors may get angry and shut down the account.

This kind of shit will work not at all. Having had my CC information stolen a couple times I can say that while it is a little inconvenient, it is nothing more. Call the bank, they stop the charges, fill out a little form on things and that it that. A new card shows up in the mail in about 3 days.

It's also not like you could give the charities all that much from a single source. Never mind CC limits, even if you find a really high limit CC, do too high a transaction to a place that doesn't usually get it and that'll have it stopped right there and then.

This plan has so much fail written all over it.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222788)

From a consequentialist view, this would be useful if it incentivized big banks to finally get their act together in terms of security. This would only happen, though, if the people whose credit were used were influential enough to change the laws or have the banks change their policies (i.e. they would have to be the very high value clientele).

From a moral standpoint, it strikes me as a little too equal-opportunity to be morally legitimate, even assuming that robbery is not a per se problem. To my mind, someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, or others less rich who have donated heavily, have no business being pilfered by Robin Hood.

The Real Crime (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222806)

is bringing up that terrible Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves movie. That's unforgivable.

Re:The Real Crime (4, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222998)

They should have used Men in Tights!

Re:The Real Crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223304)

Yeah I was barracking for Alan Rickman in that one.

I don't see a problem with it. (1)

axlr8or (889713) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222808)

If you haven't been watching the market, all this stuff is pretty well practiced. With the super high highs and the low lows there is a lot of speculation going on and. By golly doesn't it seem as if its planned. I say let em. It's better than breaking into a bank and shooting people. Furthermore, no body gets to see inside the brothel until you either pay up, or burn the house down. I will say this, as someone who classifies himself as poor, I'm not really affected (yet) by all this grandstanding, so I'm not worried.

Not the way to do this (5, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222814)

So, they want to steal peoples' credit card info and use that to donate those peoples' money to charities. Then the banks have to reimburse the people whose info was stolen. There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, for those people whose info gets stolen, they are out money until the banks go through the process of reimbursing them. With the numbers of people that would be affected by this, that could take a while. So, people will be short of cash at a time when they need it most: the holidays. This is not going to endear people to their cause. Also, what is going to happen to this data? I really doubt it's going to be deleted. Remember, Anonymous can be anyone. This information will end up for sale on black market sites. You should not be breaking the law and endangering innocent people/invading their privacy just because you don't like the bank. They are really showing themselves to be no better than the banks themselves; they are taking other peoples' money and doing whatever they want with it that servers their purpose, regardless of the consequences.

Re:Not the way to do this (2)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222886)

There are a lot of things wrong with this. First off, for those people whose info gets stolen, they are out money until the banks go through the process of reimbursing them. With the numbers of people that would be affected by this, that could take a while. So, people will be short of cash at a time when they need it most: the holidays.

This is a brilliant plan if they can actually pull it off at a high enough scale. This forces people to NOT spend for the holidays. Big banks (Visa gets a cut everytime you use your credit card!) and retailers like Walmart take a hit.

Re:Not the way to do this (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222948)

This is a brilliant plan if they can actually pull it off at a high enough scale. This forces people to NOT spend for the holidays. Big banks (Visa gets a cut everytime you use your credit card!) and retailers like Walmart take a hit.

Yes, but people should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. People talk about "voting with your wallet" a lot on Slashdot (usually aimed at companies like Sony or music labels), but voting with your wallet only works when the election isn't rigged. If this happens and the banks don't get their cut, they aren't going to change their ways, because they know their depositors weren't the cause of this; they were forced into it. Essentially, this is like the opposition party posting armed thugs outside voting booths; they might win the election, but the incumbent party isn't going to recognize the results, and rightly so. The ends should never justify the means. If you have to rationalize your actions, they are probably wrong.

Re:Not the way to do this (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223022)

And the economy gets screwed up royally. People use credit cards at small retailers too, many of whom are in the red until the holidays. Yes it's sad that the economy depends on the holiday spurt in spending but shooting the horse doesn't cure its limp.

Re:Not the way to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223154)

Credit cards work on credit, not on bank accounts. They would be short on credit before being fixed, not any actual cash.

Re:Not the way to do this (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223210)

This is Anonymous we're talking about. The same group of pissed-off adolescent-minded individuals who think it's perfectly reasonable to kill the livelihood of thousands of online retailers because MasterCard and PayPal didn't want to risk dealing with WikiLeaks.

The kind of people who participate in Anonymous's activities don't often care about silly things like "consequences". They care about making news, so they can feel like they're a part of something bigger than themselves. They want the good feeling of doing something to improve the world, without any of the hassle involved in actually contributing to improving society.

Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.

Re:Not the way to do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223362)

I honestly do not think they are interested in endearing people to their cause. That projection is the result of a politically charged society we're living in right now, where it's been decided (somehow) that it matters what people think of a certain action.

To a group of self-righteous hackers, it's not about sending a message to gain political support from you or anyone. It's about actually helping charities (if it were to actually work, which it seems like it might not).

Robin Hood wasn't running for President, in case you forgot the story.

Stolen credit cards? (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222828)

So, given the demographic that most often uses credit, they're going to steal from the poor to give to the poor? Except they're not even going to give to the poor, but rather they'll give the stolen funds to people who normally help the poor, thus causing trouble for them. So really, they're going to steal from the poor to harass the people who help the poor. This seems poorly thought out.

If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them. But somehow I suspect that none of those three criteria will be met.

Re:Stolen credit cards? (1)

veldon (171514) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223090)

If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them.

So in your perfect world any person who has managed to accumulate 1 million dollars or more deserves to be stolen from. They have too much money in your view. If you had spent decades working, saving, taking risks so that you could retire I suspect your myopic view would be a little different.

This is the problem with socialistic thinking. Where is the cutoff point? By whose judgement are we to determine what is enough wealth? Where is the incentive to be a productive member of society when too much success by someone's arbitrary measure warrants government fines? And don't give me any of Alfie Khan's academic "intrinsic motivation" BS. This is the real world and without tangible incentives to individuals society will cease to progress.

I'll step down from my soapbox now.

Re:Stolen credit cards? (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223158)

No, in my perfect world, they would give up their excess money voluntarily, so that the following generation can enjoy the same privileges that helped them reach their current heights.

In my near perfect world, the government would collect taxes in a sane manner, so that wealthy bankers pay a higher percentage than their secretaries and multi-billion dollar corporations pay at least something.

But in our current world, most of the rich choose to hoard their money, and they have purchased enough senators to ensure that their taxes are next to nothing. So non-violent theft becomes an acceptable option.

It has been said that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. The robber barons and their bribed congressmen who have been driving down taxes for decades apparently need to learn that lesson first-hand. I'd rather they learn it through theft than through violence. And make no mistake, if we continue our march back to the Gilded Age, it will come to violence.

Re:Stolen credit cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223162)

"Where is the cutoff point?"

I don't know, but by ANY reasonable measure, a million dollars is beyond it.

Guess what? Some of us work 60 hour weeks to scrape by, and have an average end-of-month balance in our bank accounts of around $300. We work to get by, to eat. So yeah, the people with a million bucks, I'm not feeling too sorry for those 1%-er assholes.

It's high time to tilt the playing field back towards the rest of us, and away from the rich who have tilted it to themselves for too long. And guess what? Anybody with a million dollars is RICH.

Re:Stolen credit cards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223306)

Where is the cutoff point?

When you have more money then you or your heirs can spend in multiple lifetimes?

Oh, this'll be lovely: (5, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222832)

Someone needs a lesson in credit card merchant agreements.

Wait till the charities they give to start getting their transaction fees raised or processing frozen for astoundingly high chargeback and fraudulent transaction rates. I'm sure they'll really enjoy that.

Big win.

Re:Oh, this'll be lovely: (1)

Valcrus (1242564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222918)

I was wondering if someone would point this out. All the banks will do is chargeback the money. Then the charities will get nothing but trouble and fees for the chargebacks.

What sucks about this idea... (5, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222856)

If they send the money to honest charities like Oxfam, Unicef or Médecins Sans Frontières, they will probably just re-credit the transferred money back to the bank. And if they use some less scrupulous charity, well, that charity shouldn't be getting money in the first place. In any case, there's no real win here.

What would be really cool, though, is if Visa (to demonstrate their unbreachable security) set out a Hack-for-Oxfam challenge, in which any money that hackers manage to route to Oxfam would be stay with them and be considered a charitable donation from Visa. It would be great free publicity if the hackers failed, and a very good deed would be done if the hackers succeeded - plus, they could patch the exploited security holes.

Re:What sucks about this idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222920)

I came to post this, but you took care of it from every angle.
smart.

Catastrophically stupid (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222860)

Robin stole from the rich and gave to the poor.

Who, exactly, are they proposing to give anything to?

Bear in mind that knowingly receiving stolen goods is a crime.

And the fact that they've announced their intent preempts almost any excuse that a person who accepts something from them in the future didn't know it was stolen.... even at best, recipients who get funds electronically without knowing where it came from might just believe it to be a bank error, which account holders are fully responsible for anyways (that is, if a bank makes an error in your favor you cannot freely utilize any extra funds you might appear to have).

This isn't stealing from the rich to give to the poor. It is ensnaring poor people who don't know any better into doing something that is just going to land them in deeper financial trouble than they are in right now.

Ready, Fire, Aim (3, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222866)

I've often wondered if a lot of these Anonymous posts are really Department of Homeland Security officials looking to justify their massive overspending for imaginary threats. These are the guys that coordinated sending in 1400 police to round up 50 protesters (and the media had little or nothing to say about the excessive display of force, instead focusing on how much it's costing taxpayers). Given the current climate of committing acts of excessive violence against its own citizens, using military weapons on a peaceful populace, and recent actions about entrapping average people and setting them up to be paper terrorists...

I think there's ample evidence to conclude that this could very well be an attempt by the DHS or the FBI to create more paper terrorists. You can expect some arrests around the holidays. They're almost stalinist in their punctuality of the trials, whether public or secret.

What about chargebacks? (5, Insightful)

bigonese (1606593) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222872)

All of the charities will end up paying out big bucks in chargeback fees. It is the merchants that are on the hook for credit card fraud. They'll be forced to return the money and pay a chargeback fee ($30 or more). They will end up doing more damage than any potential (and misguided) good.

Re:What about chargebacks? (1)

Memroid (898199) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223150)

So... they could in theory select a target, 'donate' money to them, and force them to pay chargeback fees. What if they donated money to a single bank? Would the banks start charging each other charge back fees?

I have seen this movie (1)

warp_kez (711090) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222882)

It was called Sneakers.

But in the end, this sort of activism proves pointless as some govts guarantee the initial investment of bank customers.

All it would do in the end is destabilise the government and send some countries broke.

Unless that is the eventual goal.

dumbest. idea. ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38222896)

So basically, steal money from the working class, give it to the "poor" or "charities", leave us without our savings through the winter season while we wait to get reimbursed from the CC company (those of us who actually read every transaction on our statements every month and catch it), get the feds involved, "poor" and "charities" forced to give the money back...nobody profits and everyone gets pissed.

I have yet to see anything resembling a reasonable argument that "anonymous" is anything more than a bunch of douches and criminals, in it for nothing but lulz and personal gain (rationalized by appealing to the mass' sense of hope and idealism), attributing their exploits to a faceless collective so as to (hopefully) not to get caught.

Nobody's blameless: CC companies, "anonymous" hackers, government, businesses, even your average person, but these people are no heroes.

Perhaps I'm just assuming the worst of everyone, but remember, the cynics are right 9 times out of 10.

Re:dumbest. idea. ever (3, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223034)

Maybe. If they ever did it. How many Anonymous operations have they announced that simply never happened over the last year? Look, I hate to be the one to say it, but Anonymous has nothing to do with hacking. It has everything to do with PR.

While they're at it (3, Funny)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222964)

Send the home addresses of stay-at-home wives of bankers to sexual predators getting out of jail. Since obviously 2 wrongs make a right, might as well go all out.

I guess it's safer than tackling the Zetas eh? (0)

frist (1441971) | more than 2 years ago | (#38222984)

I guess stealing from regular people is easier than taking on the Zetas, eh Anonymoustards? Someone just needs to go to one of those conventions and just start mowing down any retard with a Fawkes mask on.

The problem with being Anonymous (1)

eagee (1308589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223008)

is that pretty much anyone can pretend to represent you...

Re:The problem with being Anonymous (1)

eagee (1308589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223152)

Specifically, what I'm saying is that it's very easy to discredit a group of people if they lose control of their own narrative. This is just one place where I don't agree with the approach anonymous is taking (if this is even "officially" them). I'm glad someone is standing up to the banks, but the banks have bullying and stealing down to a science already. Ghandi made a far far bigger difference than someone like Robin Hood could have. I mean, RH was a fictional character, no? So, if he stole money from the rich and gave it to the poor I don't see how on earth they would be able to spend it. I mean, this was a time when trial by water was considered a wholly accurate system of justice. I think OWS was pretty effective at changing the narrative of the entire nation, and all of the terrible things that have happened to the protesters is just making that narrative stronger (and the injustice more pronounced). However, whoever is doing this, just looks like they didn't do their homework - which doesn't strike me as legitimate.

Use there credit cards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223016)

Just switch the credit card numbers out for the numbers of there own personal cards . Then they can make there Christmas donations to the charity or there choosing.

Robin Hood stole from the Government (3, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223032)

Let's see Anonymous try that one. Only politicians are legally permitted to do that.

mod Do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223038)

money talks (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223050)

unlike the former games they have been playing where they take down services which take potential money, they are taking real quantifiable money. when you take real money and assets are lost, law enforcement gets very serious. this is going to be a zillion counts of credit card fraud and damn some people are getting a shitton of years in jail.

Well, if they're worried about being caught... (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223108)

It should be difficult enough for anybody in a Big Bank to separate out whatever pennies Anonymous diverts to someplace they weren't supposed to go from the real money the Big Banks are routinely found to be diverting - but if Anonymous is still concerned about being caught, just tell 'em to put "U.S. Congress" in the transaction comment block.

Incredibly Stupid (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223116)

What else can I say that hasn't already been said, Anon's self delusion has gone completely nuts (nu7z?) the banks will not get screwed they get the money back, charities get teased and the Internet squeeze gets tighter, politicians get more fuel to fuck us with.

At least have the brains to wait until there is some sort of useful Internet Freedom legislation in place otherwise people like Senator Lieberman or MPAA/RIAA can go on and on about how hackers are the danger and we need more controls and laws and judges that pass laws without really knowing what they are doing (and admitting it).

Christ it's wrong on so many levels...rip off the banks and hire a decent publicist FFS, you may be great hackers but you suck at strategy.

This Has Been Another Pinot Noir Blather.

Rich People Dont Need Credit Cards (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223136)

they have the money to buy shit dumb fucks.

Crossing the line! (0)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223208)

As much as I like their intention, I think this is crossing the line.

They're clever people - surely they can come up with a campaign that would be more respectful and probably more successful. I'd like to see the power of anonymous used in a clever/funny/positive way. Remember when 4chan thanked a 90 year old war veteran [slashdot.org] ?
Personally I'd be looking into doing something to communicate the message that "99% can effectively support the 99% by being open, considerate and sharing". Why should they steal from the 1% when they really don't have to?

This campaign is also pointless on a practical level. They're not stealing gold which can only be in one place at a time they're stealing credit. The banks can just re-credit the rich bastards!

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223236)

So...they will be responsible for a ton of charge backs from illegal charges to thevcharities....thus not helping anyone....sounds like the tards at anon...

Like I've Said (1)

RaiIGunner (1973954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223278)

"Don't steal, the government hates competition"

Hoax, not going to happen. (0)

ron-l-j (1725874) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223300)

The idea is absurd. It's to risky that innocent people will be hurt. ANON should just go to the banks and collect the donations for the poor. or maybe travel to some poor countries to help the needy.

Pissing into an ocean of piss (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223302)

First, there is the question of whether or not this is even real and not a "TERRISTS COMIN' TA STEAL YER FREEDOMS" event.

Second, there are much better funded and staffed operations that steal credit card information en masse. Even if this group (assuming it actually exists) snags a couple, it will be a drop in the bucket compared to what organized crime pulls off every day. People who work in fraud prevention won't even feel a speed bump.

Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38223326)

Anonymous go away. No one wants you around. If you are so eager to give to charity, set an example by doing it yourself. The disparity between how cool you think you are and how stupid you actually are is amazing. Oh, and think something through once in a while. Don't just imagine headlines and use that to decide what to do next.

FDIC Insurance (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | more than 2 years ago | (#38223340)

I have the feeling if this actually goes off the FDICI is going to be on the hook for most of it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?