On Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:26:10 +0000, Chris Green wrote:
There was a Guardian journalist a couple of years ago who wrote a *very*
long article about a "sophisticated scam" (which they had,
coincidentally, fallen victim to).
It required a bit of sleuthing, but (as I suspected) buried in the
verbiage was the admission that the journalist had given their PIN to the
scamsters. (it was the phone call, collect card, ask for PIN "to check
the card" scam).
90% of the text appeared to be devoted to telling the reader how savvy
the journalist believed themselves to be.
It's not *just* the Guardian, you can find descriptions of this
happening in many places:-
Contactless payment cards that have been cancelled by consumers can
still be exploited by thieves for several days, it has emerged.
The "tap and go" cards, which can be used for purchases under £30
without the need to enter a four-digit PIN or signature, do not
require automatic authorisation from banks.
Purchases therefore may not appear on a customer's account for some
time after a card has been reported lost or stolen, leaving thieves
free to keep using them at will.
The onus is then on the customer to check their statements and report
any subsequent fraudulent activity to their bank in order to apply for
Emma Hartley, 45, from east London, said that when her handbag was
stolen earlier this year, a thief used her cards for several days
after she cancelled them.
A quick Google will find many, many reports like this from many
diffferent sources. Now I know that the internet isn't a perfect
source of facts but I've seen enough reports like this one to suggest
that *is* a problem.
Just because some fool claims something...
I can prove any time that I can block my cards using
my phone and they stop working when I do that.
Just because some fool claims something...
Even you can prove anytime that if the account doesn’t have
enough money in it, the transaction is refused. So the terminal
must have asked the bank if there are sufficient funds in the account.
The words MAY NOT are there for a reason. Yes, some
terminals can operate offline for a while, but not for long.
And when that happens, THE BANK gets to wear those transactions.
And most of us have had their bank detect a suspicious transaction
and had the bank ask us if that was us doing the transaction, so that
statement is only half of the real story.
And it remains to be seen if there actually is an Emma Hartley,
45, from east London and whether she managed to cancel
the cards properly even if there is such a person.
Plenty of reports of sightings of aliens landing in the
back yard, biting cows bums, being captured by aliens
and being experimented on in their space ships too.
On the other hand, since NONE of us has actually seen
that problem ourselves, or even knowing someone who
has, its MUCH more likely that the real story has been
utterly mangled from reality.
And even you can prove for yourself that your contactless
card wont allow you to do a transaction when there are
insufficient funds in the account and there must be damned
few of us who havent had that happen at times. Which
proves that the terminal must be contacting the bank to
be able to deny the transaction, and that proves that the
claim that there is no check for a cancelled card and that
it can be used until the card expires is a bare faced lie or at
most complete pig ignorance about how the system works.
And all of my contactless transactions show up in the phone
app for that bank as a pending transaction as soon as its
done too, so the terminal must be communicating with the
bank at the time the transaction is done to get that result.
Yeah, what I though, just another shit
rag that lets people post tripe online.
The terminal has to check if there are sufficient funds
in the account to pay for the transaction and so can
check if the card has been blocked at the same time.
Yes, terminals can operate offline to handle the situation
where the comms are down temporarily, but that is not
how they operate all the time. And the proof of that is
that everyone has had the situation where a transaction
is refused because there arent enough funds in the account.
Wrong. There's a counter in the card for how many "off-line" transactions
it's allowed to do before it *must* contact the bank for verification. That
count used to be 4, although it may have changed. Once that count is reached,
if the card cannot contact the bank, the transaction will be declined. If
the card has been cancelled, it will *always* be declined from that point
The banks may (debateably) be venal, but they're not stupid.
Today is Boomtime, the 57th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
So just how does the terminal tell your bank to pay the store the agreed
amount? Even if not done at that actual time, there has to be a
communication at some point. Say every day. So at that time it can be
informed that card number is blocked.
Or do you think your actual card does that bit?
Just think about it. You legally obtain a contact less card - which won't
expire for a few years. You them close that bank account, but continue to
use that card for purchases up to £30 with never having to ultimately pay
for them. As would happen if the bank couldn't cancel the card.
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.
Dave Plowman firstname.lastname@example.org London SW
So what's to stop me from going on a spree with my card and then
claiming that it has been stolen in order to get the bank to pay for my
Or, if my card has genuinely been stolen, how do I prove that the
purchases weren't made by me?
Not true of transactions done with a contactless card by a thief.
Like hell they would with transactions done
with a stolen contactless card by a thief.
And if they were actually stupid enough to try
that in a court, the court would tell them to go
and fuck themselves in appropriate legal language.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.