Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

FTC Says Payment Processor Took Millions

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the give-me-your-money-or-give-me-your-time dept.

Security 120

coondoggie writes "The Federal Trade Commission and seven states have charged a payment processor with violating federal and state laws by debiting, or attempting to debit, from consumers' bank accounts on behalf of numerous fraudulent telemarketers and Internet-based merchants. Between June 2004 and March 2006, the payment processing company, Your Money Access, processed more than $200 million in debits and attempted debits to consumers' bank accounts. More than $69 million of the attempted debits were returned or rejected by consumers or their banks for various reasons, indicating the lack of consumer authorization, the FTC complaint alleges."

cancel ×

120 comments

This place is bad news. (1)

mind21_98 (18647) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668371)

With most merchant accounts offering 99% approval rates, if your company falls in the other 1%, it probably can't accept cards anyway (due to the type of business or other factors, or you're just plain shady). I feel bad for the people defrauded by the merchants who used this processor. :(

Re:This place is bad news. (2, Informative)

thebear05 (916315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668433)

The question I have is how do I know who is processing the charge even if I know I am being charged ?

Re:This place is bad news. (2, Insightful)

GwaihirBW (1155487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668461)

In general, I think the answer is that you don't . . . but the banks and the Feds do, and you can bet they keep records and track trends. Nearly 35% unauthorized charges implies that perhaps this processor is specifically courting fraudulent businesses, and is at the least not doing whatever vetting and verifying it's supposed to be.

This went on for nearly 2 years? (4, Insightful)

RattFink (93631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668447)

It shouldn't take that long to find out fraud is going on with a company with a charge-back rate higher then 25%. Why the heck wouldn't the credit cards cut off the tap and mitigate their damages? It seems sort of foolish to me.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (3, Informative)

GwaihirBW (1155487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668467)

Well, it is kinda tiny in credit-company terms . . . $100 mil in a year is a drop in the bucket. Size probably kept it off the priority list, even if the rate did blip their radar. Now with a two year record, it's a really solid case to bring, creating a nice precedent-hammer to expedite further such cases and scare similar operators out of the business.

What a load of bollocks (0, Flamebait)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668585)

a) Credit card companies close attention to merchant accounts. If your chargeback rate gets up above 1% you will have some explaining (and fixing) to do if you want to keep your account. (One reason Credit Card companies pay attention is because they charge merchants heavy fines for chargebacks, it's a good source of additional income for the card companies).
b) The article doesn't mention credit cards at all. The company may have been doing some other form of transfer (eg ACH [wikipedia.org] ).

If you don't know what you are talking about why not just shut the fuck up?

Re:What a load of bollocks (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668793)

>> If you don't know what you are talking about why not just shut the fuck up?

wow, you're just a big meanie... digg.com is calling you.

Mod parent up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670313)

I agree.

Re:What a load of bollocks (-1, Flamebait)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668879)

> If you don't know what you are talking about why not just shut the fuck up?

Don't you mean "shut the *bollocks* up" or perhaps "shut the *bugger* up" or one of those lame excuses for the word "fuck" that people with British accents use?

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669093)

Was that meant to be a joke? I've never heard anyone in the UK use those phrases, so shut the fuck up.

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669125)

Re:What a load of bollocks (0, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669155)

No, because it's a different context. Shut the fuck up is usually when speaking directly to someone, shut the bugger up is used when talking about something to do to someone else (sorry for not knowing the grammatical terms for the differences *shrug*). Technically you could refer to someone as a 'fuck' if you wanted to, but it's a bit OTT for most cases.

Re:What a load of bollocks (0)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669881)

"The fuck", in the imperative phrase "[You] shut the fuck up", is an adverbial phrase. "The bugger" is the subject of "Shut the bugger up", which is declarative. "Shut the fucking bugger the fuck up" could be either, but the bugger is still used as a noun. Or something like that.

Re:What a load of bollocks (0, Offtopic)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669945)

Yeah, fucker would be more appropriate. Shut the fucker up, y'know.

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670537)

Could we then say the equivalent is "shut the bug up"? Or is that only valid in non-Disney animated insect movies?

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671063)

Nope, still the wrong usage :p Face it, there's no beating STFU (so much so that I have a t-shirt proclaiming that I went to STFUniversity :P)

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674955)

Top hit ring a bell?
If you didn't understand from the other replies, let me explain very simply; "the bugger" refers to a person, (probably in a mildly insulting but humorous manner). It's akin to saying "shut the asshole up" or "someone shut that asshole up".

Bollocks isn't remotely a replacement for "fuck" anyway- it's much milder, doesn't mean the same thing and isn't interchangable with "fuck" in the majority of situations.

Oh, and in a nice case of the pot calling the not-very-black-kettle black (*), I believe it was your lot that invented (and seriously) use the euphemism "freaking". Use that word in this country and people would think you were freakin... uh, *fucking* stupid.

(*) Yeah, I'm a literary genius. :)

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21676721)

It was not my intention to start an American vs. Brit literary battle. Who would honestly suspect that anyone would believe the American literary tradition in any way compares to the British--outside of extension? I was trying to point to the fact that "shut the fuck up" is crass and meaningless in any sort of sensible discussion. I'll try to be less subtle next time.

Re:What a load of bollocks (0, Flamebait)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669033)

Slashdot on the day that people that don't know what they are talking about will shut the fuck up:

*sounds of crickets*

Re:What a load of bollocks (0, Offtopic)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669131)

Oh, what I wouldn't give for an +1/-1 "informative, but bloody rude" moderation option...

The moderator giveth for the info, but taketh away for the aggro...

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670215)

Yup. 35% chargebacks is the kind of thing that Visa/MC would shut down in a matter of hours.

It is such a royal bitch to launch a legit credit-card processor, thanks to all the irritating rules to cover up the flaws created by the cards themselves. The credit companies make a ton of money by defrauding both the client and the merchants, with a whole assortment of fees and fines, but they're in a position where it's near-impossible for a a retailer to refuse credit cards without losing most of your business. The only reason these companies thrive is because people suck at finances. If there were a non-credit payment system, usable worldwide (or almost) that can offer instant authorization and online processing, the entire internet would flock to it in a heartbeat.

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

GwaihirBW (1155487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672861)

Re: first statement: yes, sorry, see response to original.

Re: your last statement: I doubt it. It would be a good idea, yes . . . but consumers are easy prey for credit debt precisely because they like the illusion of free money and the ability to spend what they don't have. As you said, "The only reason these companies thrive is because people suck at finances." - A debit-based system would require them to be able to pay immediately for everything, which would in the long run save them tons of money, but they simply don't get that. They'd still want the credit card, and if necessary the credit card companies would throw out a few more carrots to convince users to continue to demand credit card acceptance, passing alon any costs to the merchants if possible.

Personally, I like my credit card 'cause it gives me a global discount and up to a month's float on an interest-free loan, because I pay it off in full consistently. (So they offer me fun incentives like "0% interest for a month!!" to help me build bad habits. Nice try.) Of course, they'll probably eventually figure out a way to trip me up if I don't do it myself.

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#21680057)

Buddy, I sell porn, and I hate the credit companies. If the porn industry (on all levels) stops accepting credit cards in favor of debit, people will switch to debit, and believe me, we want to! There are few things more insulting than paying fees to a credit processor who is constantly looking for excuses to ruin your business. It's not the merchants who are high-risk, it's the customers! A merchant could jump through a million hoops to ensure zero fraud, if a few of the buyers call in a fraudulent chargeback that merchant's getting slapped anyway.

We trade blacklists of fraudulent buyers. I've heard a story, that I believe as the truth, of one buyer who called in a pretty big chargeback (upwards of $1000). It was one of many merchants who had been burned by this one individual. The last guy to get screwed actually called in some thugs and had the squirmy fraudster beat the *@&# up.

Re:What a load of bollocks (1)

GwaihirBW (1155487) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672793)

Sorry, I mis-spoke. Clearly, as you say, it's not a credit card co. I'm just used to my debit and credit cards being handled by closely related companies (if I've read the fine print correctly), and so I lump them mentally and occasionally interchange them when it's really inappropriate. What I was intending by using the term "credit companies" was to include not just banks but any other (debit, but that got lost in the mental shuffle) card issuing financial services, and that's just what came out without further thinking. I did, in fact, RTFA.
However, once corrected for the [blatantly wrong, yes] terminology, I believe that my point stands - $100 mil is certainly a drop in the bucket for banks, etc. (As evidenced by the fact that this *did* go on for 2 years, as so many have pointed out that it would not have for credit.)

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (3, Insightful)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668483)

Well, the summary seems to say that the merchants in this case were scammers. The feds may have wanted to back-trace / follow the money. It probably also took time to collect enough evidence for the case to proceed while not tipping off the accused.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668485)

You mean the credit card companys that scammed us all for the last 10 years on forigen exchange rates and finally got caught on that themselves?

(Oh yeah... www.ccfsettlement.com Get your share of the settlement. at least $25 of it anyway. the lawyers will get most of it.)

So these people scamming us didn't shut down some other companys scamming us too? No way! I'm hmm... less than shocked..

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (4, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668509)

Because the credit card company doesn't actually have damages. They don't even get bad PR. Here's what happens:

1. Bad Man, Inc. charges you through his CC processor, Bad CC Processor, LLC
2. Bad CC Processor, LLC forwards the charge to your CC company.
3. You notice and dispute the charge with your CC company.
4. Your CC company gladly removes the charge from your account.
5. Your CC company refuses to pay Bad CC Processor, LLC.
6. Bad CC Processor, LLC refuses to pay Bad Man, Inc.

Now, if the CC processor wasn't dirty, they'd eventually refuse to process charges from Bad Man, Inc., because he's obviously a fraud. But they are dirty, so they don't do anything. And if Bad Man, Inc. wasn't dirty he'd probably provide evidence to support his charges and try to get payment. But is his dirty, so he doesn't do anything.

At no point in that process does the CC company lose any money, other than a few minutes of telephone support time. They probably know that Bad CC Processor, LLC is dirty too, they just don't care. Obviously it would be good for their customers if they refused to accept charges from Bad CC Processor, LLC, but they aren't very motivated because, while they have to deal with some fraud reporting, they don't lose any money, don't really risk their reputation, and still get to process the successful 65% of charges that come in. If you've ever worked in a sales-oriented company, you'll know that it's essentially impossible to get sales to walk away from existing revenue streams, even if you could sustain a better profit margin on other types of business.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668803)

Your CC processor company might have an incentive to report Bad CC company to regulatory structures though - because they would have one less competitor.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669381)

The CC company (Visa, Mastercard, American Express, etc) isn't bad (or at least, they're not the bad ones in this example).

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668843)

Except that in your example above, you orignal vendor has the cash already, before the dispute gets returned. THEN the processor can try to take it back, but if it's not in the account or get's rejected (think stop payment) then the processor is out the cash. If this happens too much the processor drops the merchant. But then again, they're both shady, and therefore probably just splitting the fees they do collect and the costs incurred.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (3, Informative)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670251)

There is a problem with your list at step 5. You are missing step 2(a), where CC company pays bad CC Processor, LLC. Bad guy has his money at the end of the day in most cases. Since they have already been paid, step 5 is more like:

5. Your CC company requests proof of transaction

6. Bad CC company provides tainted proof

[decision tree]

6(a). Your CC company calls the lawyers

6(b). Your CC company makes you prove that the charges are false

6(c). Your CC company decides (a) and (b) will cost more than just eating the cost

Guess what two they do the most? B and C. In credit cards, almost all of the risk is on the card issuer. The vendor has some slight risk, but only if they don't follow procedures. The card holder has very little risk since Visa and Mastercard force the issuers to pay if there is a dispute. The processor has zero risk.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Repton (60818) | more than 6 years ago | (#21678229)

Huh?

For card-not-present fraud (such as internet purchases), the merchant wears the cost: if the cardholder complains of fraud, the issuing bank will issue a chargeback (assuming they believe the cardholder). The merchant will end up out of pocket, and will probably have to pay a penalty fee as well. That's why issuing banks don't care about online card fraud: they just pass the costs on to the merchants.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (3, Informative)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668839)

Because this was not credit card fraud. It was debit card fraud. Given that regular debit cards need a pin to access the account, it means that this was 'check card' fraud. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by this since Visa advertises that these cards are easy to commit fraud with. This was inevitable, and will only get worse until people start to raise a stink with their bank for trying to screw them by issuing 'check cards' instead of regular atm cards.

It always amazes me how many people think it's a good idea to carry a card that give access to their checking account with no pin, no id, and not even a signature.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670937)

Check cards require a PIN to get cash out of an ATM. They require a signature for purchases over $25 in most places. Most check cards are also now actually VISA or Mastercard backed... ie you can dispute the charge just like a credit card. In some respects they are really just credit cards secured by your bank account... you post a transaction via credit and it gets processed by VISA et al whom draws from your bank account to cover the charge.

IMHO it's much better than cash if you like to have a paper trail to help do your taxes later.... receipts always fade and are difficult to store.. logging on to your bank website and downloading your transaction data is much more convenient and easier to run reports on.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674707)

"Check cards require a PIN to get cash out of an ATM. They require a signature for purchases over $25 in most places."

The problem isn't that the good guys can use a secure method to access there money. The problem is that the bad guys can use an insecure method.

"ie you can dispute the charge just like a credit card."

The difference is that you are trying to get your money back, instead of refusing to pay for someone else's charges. You also recieve no protection from the cost that cascade from the original fraud. Neither Visa nor your bank are going to pay the increased interest charges on other loans when they triple in cost due to their insecure card.

"In some respects they are really just credit cards secured by your bank account... you post a transaction via credit and it gets processed by VISA et al whom draws from your bank account to cover the charge."

No, it is a credit card that is secured by *you* that can later be disputed with your bank. This is fundamentally different.

"IMHO it's much better than cash if you like to have a paper trail to help do your taxes later.... receipts always fade and are difficult to store.. logging on to your bank website and downloading your transaction data is much more convenient and easier to run reports on."

No, carrying a credit card is better than carrying cash, as you get all of the same benefits without the increased risk. About the only people that a 'check card' makes sense for is people with credit so bad that they just cannot get a credit card. These people are few and far between.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671127)

I'm not sure what you've been given by your bank.. but I've always been under the impression that there is no such card in existence (one that requires neither a pin nor a signature).

A "debit card" (as issued by US banks at least) is merely an ATM card bearing a Visa or MasterCard logo. It can be used as a regular ATM card (with a pin), as a "check card" (again, by using a pin at the POS), and thirdly as a credit card (by signing the receipt).

As with all credit cards, though, if you chose that option, no signature is required for small purchases (less than $15?). Of course, at card-not-present merchants (internet, phone), electronic authorization (the "click here to agree" box) is used in lieu of signature.

If that's what you're getting at-- the internet transactions that of course can't be "signed" -- then you're missing the point: If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671507)

And also, according to TFA, these were electronic debits. That means the consumer used the "Pay by check" option (Amazon and loads of merchants offer this now) and they ponied-up their routing number and account number.

It had nothing to do with a "check card."

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671649)

If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.

Not so. Debit cards have different pricing structures associated with their processing. Credit cards have federal banking laws which guide what can and can not be done. Debit cards do not fall under these same guide lines.

The reason debit cards are so popular with merchants is they tend to cost a lot less to process. The reason being, they tend to offer far less liability for the merchant and processor. Why do they have less liability? Because the card holder, in many cases, is assuming much of that liability. Furthermore, you have zero charge back authority as a debit card user; unless explicitly granted by agreement with you bank. Meaning, you often only have the same protection as any other check writer. This is not the same protection afforded to credit card users.

After saying all that, many banks do extend credit card-like protection for debit card users; often with caveats. But you need to check your bank. Assuming you have the same protection is beyond foolish. To make matters even worse, the fraud picture is completely different for debit card users versus credit card users.

A merchant committing fraud with a debit card can cause no end of problems for debit card users. This is not true for credit card users. If I'm a fraudulent merchant and I wipe out your checking account via your debit card, bluntly stated, you're fucked. It may take you months, IF EVER, for you to recover that money. If a fraudulent merchant does the same thing with my credit card, who cares. I still have cash in my account to make ends meet and there is no pressure to dispute because my next meal doesn't depend on dispute resolution. Worse, all the checks you wrote no bound and you owe hundreds, if not thousands, in bounced check and late payment fees. Plus, your credit score just took a serious ding. You're now a dead beat as far as your creditors are concerned.

Long story short, only fools, unless they know otherwise, use their debit card when a credit card is available. And even then, from a fraud protection perspective, only idiots use their debit cards anywhere other than their bank.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (2, Informative)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672643)

Actually, you should check your facts.

Any bank that issues a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo has agreed to meet or exceed the consumer protection policies of Visa or MasterCard. This is how it's ALWAYS been, debit card horror stories notwithstanding.

Visa:
"Debit cards have the same security protections as credit cards. Just like credit card cards, debit cards have Zero Liability* fraud protection and dispute resolution options."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/personal_finance/debit.html [visa.com]

MasterCard:
"With your debit card, you'll enjoy great features such as worldwide acceptance at millions of locations, MasterCard Global Service, and Zero Liability* protection from unauthorized purchases."
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/aboutourcards/debit/standard_card.html [mastercard.com]

No, this protection is not mandated by LAW as it is with Credit Cards, but it is mandated by Visa and MasterCard who have ZERO INTEREST in seeing their good name tarnished.

Everyone has heard Debit Card Horror Stories. My suggestion is to have a critical ear and check the facts, instead of just passing-on the FUD.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674259)

Either you did not read what you linked to, or you did not understand what it said. Yes, they gave their policy a secure sounding name, but if you read the policy, it is not even close to being "Zero Liability". The Astrix next to the name should have given you a clue that you should read the details a little more critically.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675829)

No, it's not "zero liability" for all transactions. In fact, that only applies to a few select types of fraud. For all other signature-based transactions, there's a $50 cap on liability. Last time I checked, that's the same liability cap on my Visa and MasterCard branded Credit Cards.

Perhaps YOU should've read the links and the linked-to liability policy?

I never said there was "zero liability." I said (twice, in fact) that the liability exposure was simply no greater than that of a credit card.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21677029)

Of course you are STILL wrong. The peripheral liability caused by having insufficient funds in your in your checking account is dramatically greater than that of having a credit card maxed out. So, no there is not a $50 cap on liability. Saying that there is a $50 cap on liability is marketing speak. In fact what they mean is that there is a $50 cap on liability to your bank. The liability to other entities caused by insufficient funds does not have any cap at all.

If you can point me to the spot where they agree to pay any and all bounced check fees/penalties, and all interest that is added to an account due to increased rates from a bounced check, I will concede defeat in this debate.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0, Flamebait)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675957)

I just posted this below, but rather than make you actually scroll down, I figured I'd repost here for your convenience:


More FUD without anything to back it up.

Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.

" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.

he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "


OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21676891)

Which is NOT all of the liability that is associated with fraudulent use of a 'check card'. What part of money not being in your checking account causing all sorts of peripheral liability don't you get?

This isn't a case of some people spreading FUD. It is a case of other people buying into marketing lies hook line and sinker.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21677357)

Do tell.. what is this "peripheral liability?" I mean, there are 3 things people could do with your checking account info..

1. Deposit into it
2. Withdrawal from it
3. Give the info to somebody else, who can recurse those 3 options.

I personally wouldn't mind #1, their policy covers #2, and federal criminal law covers #3.

So... what, exactly, are you talking about?

Your lack of specifics in both your posts communicate the fact that you're talking out your ass.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21678059)

I believe that Belial is attempting to point out the following series of actions:

1. You have $10K in your day to day account (to which a Visa or Mastercard Debit card is attached).
2. Your debit card number is used in a series of fraudulent transactions totalling $32,450.
3. Your account is overdrawn, netting you a $30 fee from your bank.
4. You dispute all the charges.
5. You cannot pay your mortgage (and your salary is only beginning to make a dent on your debt to the bank). This costs you an extra $2000 in interest charges each month, along with fees for failure to pay. The bank graciously extends your mortgage rather than foreclosing. The debit from your account is declined, netting you a $50 fee from your bank each month.
6. You cannot pay your electricity bill. You get charged penalties. The debit from your account is declined, netting you a $50 fee from your bank each month.
7. You cannot pay your water bill. You get charged penalties. The debit from your account is declined, netting you a $50 fee from your bank each month.
8. You cannot pay phone, gas, and other bills. You get charged penalties. The debits from your account are declined, netting you $150 fees from your bank each month.
9. Visa/Mastercard and your bank send you a letter requiring a statutory declaration (or equivalent in your country) saying you didn't auth the charges, even though they have no signature.
10. You cannot buy food. The debit from your account is declined, netting you a $50 fee from your bank each month.
11. You die from starvation. The debit from your account for your funeral is declined, netting you a $50 fee from your bank.
12. The $32,450 is refunded to your account. It pays off part of the debt caused by the recurring overdraft charges, interest charges, payment declined fees, and the extra interest on your mortgage.
13. Your wife is forced to sell the house to pay off the mortgage. She and your kids live in poverty after she is forced to declare bankruptcy.

Total cost for 2 years of disputed charges that were never yours: $55,200 (24 months of $2000 mortgage interest and $300 fees/overdraft charges, ignoring any other costs incurred as a result of the fraud).
Total refund from Visa/Mastercard/Bank: $32,450.

Total cost to you: $22,750.

(Note: Some items above may have been slightly dramatized to increase their impact)

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 6 years ago | (#21678163)

Oh, notice I'm not saying he's correct, or wrong. I suspect it will depend entirely on your own specific circumstances.

But I think I have explained what he meant.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21679661)

Yes. That is a dramatic version of what I meant. The biggest hit many people would take would be in that it is very common for credit cards to raise their interest rates from a very good 20% if you have a bounced payment. For all of those people that carry credit card debt, this can be a very expensive problem. But the numerous overdrafts and penalties from those that got the bad checks can easily add up to hundreds of dollars that is not covered by the zero liability*.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0, Flamebait)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21677535)

Again, here's a cross-post. I want you to feel stupid as soon as possible, and by cross-posting I can ensure you feel stupid a couple seconds earlier than you otherwise would...


"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html [visa.com]

It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675051)

LOL.

Please remember that when you checking account has zero dollars and you're working to get it back...all the while your other checks are bouncing and you credit is going to crap.

But hey...if you want to ignore facts, please go ahead.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0, Flamebait)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675899)

More FUD without anything to back it up.

Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.

" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.

he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "


OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21677199)

Really? You think? What are you on? Do you honestly believe the BS you're saying or are you just stupid?

First of all, there are LOTS of bank issued *check cards* which have no affiliation with Visa or Mastercard. This is actually the majority as they are far more profitable. Second of all, go read what I said.

The only person looking silly here is you. And that's reinforced by your position as it's clear you're trying to ding me for speaking in absolutes where I clearly did not. I specifically did not. Even further proving your low IQ, is the fact that I specifically said to contact your fucking bank to find out what coverage you do have...because **gasp** some do a pretty good job.

Regardless, even if they provide superior protection than credit cards, as I already explained, you're still a fucking moron for using a check card. Zero cash in your account is still zero fucking cash. And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned. Are you really that fucking stupid? We'll obviously the answer is yes...because I'm already repeating my self.

Good luck. I sincerely hope you get targeted by a scam so you can see just how stupid you are.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0, Flamebait)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21677505)

God, this is so much fun.

1. I specifically said "a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo."

2. I know you're not speaking in absolutes. That's because people like you who have no clue what they're talking about use language that's as general as possible to try to hide the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.

3. And HERE'S where you look stupid again...


You talked out your ass and said...
". And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned."

But the FACTS are...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html [visa.com]

It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.

I really hope you reply because I'm having a really great time over here rubbing your nose in it. Just put your tinfoil hat back on and carry on with your normal business. It'll save you both time and embarrassment.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675103)

BTW, I used to be in the credit card industry. Specifically, transaction and clearing house processing.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

coyote-san (38515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673827)

You seem to be confusing true debit cards (where you must enter a PIN, can get cash back, etc.) with the credit cards with immediate automatic payment. They're the same piece of plastic and appear to have the same behavior, but are actually very different things.

In fact, that's why you'll often find modest fees associated with 'pin use'. If you use it as a credit card, normal credit card processing fees apply and (iirc) the bank gets a small cut as issuer. If you use it as a debit card, the bank has to take a small hit. That's why you're usually out some cash if you use your ATM card at a 'foreign' bank. (Nicked a buck or two by your bank -and- by the ATM's bank.) The banks want to encourage credit card use over debit card use, so they'll add a small charge to the latter. Merchants want to encourage debit card use (since they'll get the full amount, iirc) so you might get a small promotion to use it as a debit card.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675081)

You seem to be confusing true debit cards

Wrong. I clearly said debit cards. Debit check cards are different but still do not provide credit card protection.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21672203)

It's actually a good idea, because you can reverse charges within 6 weeks, no questions asked. Actually, the bank does ask for a reason for the reversal, but they don't really care, and any reason will do. At least that's the law for such transactions over here in the EU. The processors for these charges don't need to ever touch your debit card, all they need is your name, account number and bank routing number, the same you have on every check, which is also stored on the magnetiv strip of your ATM card.

Does not appear to be CC related. RTFA (5, Informative)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669421)

They keep refering to "bank accounts" which implies to me that they have the routing number and account number. Most likely preying on people with bad credit who could not get Credit Cards

Defendants withdrew funds from consumers' bank accounts in one of two ways: by electronically debiting consumer bank accounts through the Automated Clearing House Network or by submitting checks and falsely representing that the consumers had approved them.

See http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48738769_illinois-ag-madigan-joins-six-states-ftc-suit-stop-florida-company-fraudulent-debits [allamericanpatriots.com]

So this is a case of direct taking from accounts or use of fradulenet checks. That is why no Credit Card company raised an alarm, they were not even in the loop

Re:Does not appear to be CC related. RTFA (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672999)

Yeah, and wire fraud or check fraud is a PITA too, since unlike credit or debit cards there is very little protection beyond what your bank feels like giving you. That's also why it took 2 years to get these guys I suspect.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670795)

The problem is that they were probably issuing refunds for those consumers who called. This avoids having a charge-back and keeps them under the radar of the normal CC charge-back fraud detection.

I wonder if WLIReservations was one of those involved, we had a card charged from them without authorization. They refunded several months of "service" with zero fuss. If they hadn't, I would have complained and tried to get chargebacks on all of it. They got my CC number from another merchant for part of a "want to save $10?" offer on their web site, even though the "offer" was declined. This is probably in complete violation of the merchant rules, too, but there isn't really anything the CC companies can easily detect currently.

It seems the CC companies need to evaluate refund ratios as well in order to determine fraudulent merchants.

Re:This went on for nearly 2 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21674505)

"Why the heck wouldn't the credit cards cut off the tap and mitigate their damages?"

Because fraud is a profit center at the bank that issues the credit card.

The bank makes money from each and every transaction. For the original charge, it's around $0.35 per transaction. Then for fraud transaction, called a merchant charge back, they make about $8.00.

And the bank doesn't eat the amount of the fraud transaction, they just helpfully deduct the full amount of the original charge from the merchant's next payment. Oh they deduct their charge back fee of $8.00 too. To help out the merchant. IF the merchant wants to contest the charge back they can, but there is a fee for that too. Even if they win the charge. And if they win the charge back dispute (let's say they can prove they shipped and the customer did in fact order whatever it was), the charge back still counts as a charge back in calculating the percentage of charge back transactions. In the case of some credit card issuers, the customer's charge back and merchant's dispute of the charge back count as TWO charge backs.

I think that the FTC and these seven states should additionally charge (sick pun) each and every credit card issuer for conspiracy to commit fraud on top of the processor and the merchants.

Ironically my captcha word was 'sinfully' which pretty much describes how banks operate.

took [OT] (2, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668513)

The title of this article made me, for the first time in my entire life, notice that "took" is a really weird word.

Re:took [OT] (-1, Offtopic)

vistic (556838) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668727)

like whoah man

Re:took [OT] (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21668869)

You sound like an old roommate. It was about 4am and he was really drunk, he thought the word "bagel" was weird so he kept repeating it over and over.

Re:took [OT] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21672057)

Have a look at the cook book from the nook with the hooks.

"jamais vu" (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673129)

Probably an incident of jamais vu [wikipedia.org] .

(Note that by linking to that article I am not endorsing it. There's some stuff there that sounds very much like it's nonsense somebody made up.)

ouch, reject fees? (2, Interesting)

marcushnk (90744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668655)

I'm not sure about in America but here in Australia if someone tried to debit money from your account and it fails YOU the account holder get slugged a fee.
I wonder if this was the case for all the failed unauthorized attempts...?

Re:ouch, reject fees? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668721)

you wouldn't think so because what your talking about are dishonor fee's, and only get applied if there isn't enough money in your account.They can't charge you a fee for a fraudulent transaction, or if they did i'd be screaming blue murder all the way to the accc.

Is that like an NSF fee? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670377)

Around here, we have NSF (Non-sufficient-funds) fees, which basically say that if you write a bad cheque etc that gets rejected due to lack'o'cash, you get hit with an extra penalty. In this case, the transaction was perfectly legit on behave of the party requesting money, but the money just wasn't there to pay them.

The same does not apply to debits that have been rejected due to the requesting party having insufficient authority to make a withdrawal.

Charges? Probably Not. (-1, Redundant)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668777)

This is a money company. It has money to give to politicians. We will not know who got greased, but don't look for charges any time soon.

That's why credit cards are better (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668937)

That's why credit cards are better than debit cards for cardholders.

With debit cards when stuff happens, the money is gone from YOUR account.
You then spend a lot of time and resources trying to get the money back.

With credit cards when stuff happens, the money is gone from someone else's account.
You then contact the card company and say "Nope, I didn't buy that".

See how much the banks and FTC etc care about those fraudulent debits? Yes they care, but obviously not that much.

But if you're a merchant when stuff happens with credit cards, ouch. Good luck getting money for the stuff you sold. Sometimes the chargebacks can happen months later.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669001)

You're sort of right, but credit cards can be a bad thing if you share one with someone and the relationship is ending. At least with a debit card the worst they can do is empty your current account.

My neighbor of a few years back had his wife walk out having spent tens of thousands on credit cards in the weeks before, *and* emptied his bank account for good measure (then demanded alimony, nice lady..). He never managed to get her to pay the card bills directly, but took all the money back as a 'shared expense' from the house sale, on which he made a handsome profit, as in 100k.

Plastic money of all kinds scares me to be honest. It's an evil I have to cope with, but credit cards are a bad idea.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669415)

I agree, a debit card is a direct extension of cash, which means if it isn't on the account, it can't go anywhere. I even have a separate account from where I move money to the account connected to the card, just to avoid having all my savings in one stealable basket.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21669565)

well, my bank gives me an automatic overdraft facility - if someone gets my credit card they can run me up to me £500 credit limit, if someone gets my debit card, they can empty my account and run me a further £1000 into debt. Maybe that's just peculiar to my situation.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671823)

I can set that limit on my card to anything, up to some amount. Also, it's a Visa Electron, so not a regular card because there's no credit at all: funds are drawn from the account on the spot.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675851)

well, my bank gives me an automatic overdraft facility

I have always refused to have an overdraft. I've had bank peoples get quite annoyed with me over the years about this, after all they like punters to be in debt, selling debt has always been a big money thing. One even issued me with a credit card once. I went to see the bank manager, gave him the card cut up into pieces, and said that if it happened again I'd close my account.

I am unique among the people I know in that I am the only person to go through undergraduate university and then a four year phd without once going overdrawn.

Ok, a few weeks of living on toenails and tapwater from time to time, but I see it as a win overall.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21670823)

This might sound strange, but my parents* each have individual credit cards, not a group account.

They both have excellent credit, so there's no problem with one not being able to get a card. From watching court tv, joint credit cards is a big way to get in trouble. Person A of reasonable financial management and income hooks up with person B of no financial management and no income. Person A lends, cosigns loans and credit cards because B can't get them, then wonders why B gets in trouble, overspends, and otherwise doesn't pay anything. My thought is that 'Credit card companies and lenders obviously know something if they're not going to give B any credit'.

About all they share is a joint checking account, though they also have individual accounts.

*both accountants, which might explain why I'm screwed up.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (2, Informative)

Markus Landgren (50350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669273)

When Apple Computer made a fraudulent charge to my debit card, it only took a phonecall to the bank and a mailing in of the form they sent me (postage already paid on the response envelope they sent me by the way). Sure enough, the money was gone from my account but it was back within 48 hours from picking up the phone, and of those 48 hours I spent 10 minutes actively working on the case. Not a lot of time spent, and no other resources spent except the ink for the form and the saliva for the envelope.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673645)

Careful [usatoday.com] who you give [nytimes.com]
that saliva [shotsacrossthebow.com] to...

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669609)

Whilst it's true to a small extent, it's not entirely.

You simply call the bank and tell them that the charge you are disputing was not authorised. The same rules apply. You may have to wait a few days, but that's it.

Or do things work differently in the great US of A?

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21673041)

No, people just think they work differently because they've never read the documentation that comes with their debit cards. Really, debit cards generally have the same liability policies that credit cards have, although it's a little cheaper for the merchant because it's assumed that if you require someone to punch in a PIN to make the transaction then it's less likely to be fraudulent (the signatures on Credit Cards really don't offer much protection at all).

Re:That's why credit cards are better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21674887)

Credit cards have protection required by law. Debit cards might have protection and might not. To me that's a huge difference.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675119)

I'm fairly sure debit cards have the same protections here in the UK. That's why I asked if things worked differently.

On that topic I'm constantly amused by this one credit card firm that markets online fraud protection as one of their major features. I'm amused because all consumers are protected from that by law. As the gp said - people don't realise these things.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#21674677)

And what about the money that isn't in your account? Also, bounced check and overdraft charges suck.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21675095)

The money that isn't in your account comes back to you after a short delay. Maybe a couple of days, which is an inconvenience but not usually the end of the world.

It comes back because the bank are legally bound to give it back the moment you tell them that you didn't authorise that transaction. The bank also remove the bounced check and overdraft charges because what happened was their fault, not yours.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 6 years ago | (#21676545)

they do this after much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Much better to avoid the problem, since it doesn't save me money anyway.

Re:That's why credit cards are better (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#21679575)

With credit cards the money is still in your account while you "wait".
With debit cards the money is gone while you _wait_.

Very big difference to me :).

"Alleged IOU" in somebody else's pocket vs my money in somebody else's pocket.

Maybe most people think that's practically the same thing, but I don't.

erm (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21668961)

yeah, nice family friendly tagging there..

On topic though, who on earth doesn't check to see whether what they are being billed for is what they actually owe? Ok some did, which is how they got caught, but obviously not everyone did.

I check all my bills every month, especially ones prone to change, like amazon/Audible/other online shopping orders and suchlike. I didn't always have to be so thorough, but there's this thing called the internet, and apparently not everyone on it is a cuddly bundle of trustworthiness.

Can't be bothered (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669629)

If the bill's about what I'm expecting then why check every single item?
I could be doing something fun instead.

And I sure as hell don't keep receipts to check what I think I've spent against what the bank think, I'd be drowning in paperwork.

It's all a hassle and largely unnecessary.

Re:Can't be bothered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670499)

Well spoken. And now...

You're fired.

-- Donald Trump

all your money are access by us (0, Offtopic)

SpectralDesign (921309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669301)

sorry, had to do it.

Re:all your money are access by us (1)

psysjal (1083969) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669397)

No really you didn't.

Re:all your money are access by us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21672335)

Yes, he did. I have his family locked up in a shipping container. And do it again! This time in a nice Verdana.

Even if they paid me to use it... (-1, Offtopic)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669577)

I would not take it. And I'm currently developing (Java) on Windows XP. Either tells you something about me or Microsoft products. You choose which one.

Re:Even if they paid me to use it... (1)

MLease (652529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669619)

Well, I can tell you weren't paying attention to the topic you were replying to.... :)

-Mike

Yeah.... (0, Offtopic)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21669899)

Note to self. Don't post before finishing coffee :D

You FAIL it!? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21670169)

the hard drive to Progress. In 1992, ba3y...don't fear the developer need 7our help! worthwhile. So I

Lil' background info (3, Informative)

quietwalker (969769) | more than 6 years ago | (#21671097)

It seems some people are confused about the nature of the Automated Clearing House, and making very odd assumptions. Since some of this is due to a conflict in terminology, hopefully I can clear this up. ACH is a big network. You might say it's really a collection of protocols and legal policies that allow banks and credit card companies to talk to each other. Every time you use your debit card in a non-branch office (like a Wells Fargo card in a Bank of America ATM), you're using ACH. Now, I'm going to skip the in-depth network topology and give you the highlights. In short, the entire setup consists of Vendors attached to a Payment Processor , which are attached to ACH, which is responsible for routing a transaction from one ACH member to a Financial Institution (like a bank or credit card company). Vendor->Payment processor->ACH->Financial Institution. Now, why not have the Vendor connect to the FI directly? Well, each vendor would need a connection for every card. As in physical lines. That makes it expensive for everyone, and hit-or-miss for the consumer - what if they don't support YOUR card? Okay, so, why not have the vendor connect to the ACH directly? Well, when you make a transaction on the ACH, there's no additional security. Basically, it's assumed that you have the authority to make the transaction, or you wouldn't be doing it. Imagine getting a credit card scanner and service for like 300$, quickly making several hundred thousand in fraudulent charges, and skipping the country. Generally speaking, you need to be an established business with accountability to be allowed to connect to the ACH - and that's where payment processors come in. Oh, and quick terminology lesson. In ACH parlance: A debit means "take money from an account" A credit means "put money into an account" They have nothing to do with credit cards, or debit cards, or anything of the sort. Payment Processors, usually make money per transaction, or per connection time. Either way though, they profit from vendor transactions whether valid or not, so there's a good incentive to 'look the other way' with problem vendors. So, this payment processor was following all the rules, but they're charging it as sort of an accessory to criminal acts by their customers. The states are saying that they knew these were invalid debits, but they processed them anyway, just to make money. Technically it would be the vendors that have to suffer here, but the states are trying to hit every target they can, especially when busting a little work-out-of-your-house-2000$-laptop-scammer is not worth the money spent sending them to trial.

Mod Parent Up. Totally Accurate. (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672031)

This is one of the few times an accurate comment has been posted on debit/credit stories. Learn well.

Re:Lil' background info (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21672959)

I'd love to read your post, but the lack of line breaks makes it impossible. Please format your posts!
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...