Fraud on debit card - NatWest dragging their heels

Terry_Towelling

scott_lithgows wrote: »

well you will lose it.do you think a postie is gonna !!!! away a 22k job for some pizza.?

Well I can be thankful to have you as my wise counsellor and will do a small each-way bet.

Anyway, you (and I) don't know what else he/she may have stolen and be misusing and you don't know that he/she hasn't sold-on the card details to someone else for misuse. Like I said, the number of postmen arrested for theft of cards/card information (apologies I said card fraud before) staggered me. I have no intention of upsetting postmen, I am merely relaying information that was given to me from the fraud department of the card company I worked for, and the postie is another common denominator in this.

Terry_Towelling

ValiantSon wrote: »

No they can't: not online. Online payments are made over a 128-bit secure connection that does not involve a human handling your payment data.

Hopefully that will always be true and, yes, scope will be limited online for genuine, above-board online sales platforms but how does your average consumer know everything is being correctly encrypted or not being unencrypted along the line?

In the past I have received invoices with goods and all of my data is revealed - sometimes including the CVV2 value which no retailer is permitted to store after taking a transaction.

If I were a dodgy individual (no comments please) I'd set up a fake website selling highly-desirable stuff at tremendous prices. I'd have no card processing infrastructure and nothing to sell. I'd simply capture all of the card data added to the little boxes on the web page. I'd not charge any of my 'customers' a thing; instead I'd contact them to say 'sorry, out of stock and not likely to be coming in anytime soon'. I'd then go and use their data to make purchases elsewhere.

I might even treat the postman to a pizza!

Remember, I don't know what's gone on here any more than you do, I'm just bouncing ideas around to explore the possibilities.

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Hopefully that will always be true and, yes, scope will be limited online for genuine, above-board online sales platforms but how does your average consumer know everything is being correctly encrypted or not being unencrypted along the line?

It's really simple: modern browsers tell you. Each shows it in their own way, but a common icon is a padlock symbol in the address bar. If you see that, then you have an encrypted connection. Additionally this can be double checked by looking at whether the url displayed begins with "https://". If it does show this, then you have a secure connection; if it only shows "http://" then you don't.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

In the past I have received invoices with goods and all of my data is revealed - sometimes including the CVV2 value which no retailer is permitted to store after taking a transaction.

I can't account for the dodgy websites you seem to frequent.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

If I were a dodgy individual (no comments please) I'd set up a fake website selling highly-desirable stuff at tremendous prices. I'd have no card processing infrastructure and nothing to sell. I'd simply capture all of the card data added to the little boxes on the web page. I'd not charge any of my 'customers' a thing; instead I'd contact them to say 'sorry, out of stock and not likely to be coming in anytime soon'. I'd then go and use their data to make purchases elsewhere.

Your site wouldn't be able to show a secure connection, so anyone with their wits about them wouldn't input any payment details. Those who don't have their wits about them will always fall for scams. We can't legislate for ignorance.

My point stands, therefore, that what you wrote was incorrect. There are enough myths about online transactions without them being reinforced on here.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Remember, I don't know what's gone on here any more than you do, I'm just bouncing ideas around to explore the possibilities.

I only corrected you on a factual error.

eskbanker

ValiantSon wrote: »

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

If I were a dodgy individual (no comments please) I'd set up a fake website selling highly-desirable stuff at tremendous prices. I'd have no card processing infrastructure and nothing to sell. I'd simply capture all of the card data added to the little boxes on the web page. I'd not charge any of my 'customers' a thing; instead I'd contact them to say 'sorry, out of stock and not likely to be coming in anytime soon'. I'd then go and use their data to make purchases elsewhere.

Your site wouldn't be able to show a secure connection, so anyone with their wits about them wouldn't input any payment details.

I could be wrong but don't believe that a site being technically secure (in the sense of using HTTPS for encryption) is any guarantee that data captured therein is protected from subsequent abuse?

In other words, fraudsters could indeed set up an HTTPS site and harvest card details from any punter careless enough to disclose them - the HTTPS protocol merely reduces the chance of the data being intercepted en route from browser to server....

It's primarily PCI-DSS compliance that really offers protection against misuse of card data rather than encrypted protocols being used.

Terry_Towelling

Sometimes it seems that bouncing ideas around on this forum is almost as heinous a crime as passing the salt the wrong way at the dining table.:doh:

I know what I have to do. I must get my old service revolver and go out side and... you know the rest.:)

scott_lithgows

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Well I can be thankful to have you as my wise counsellor and will do a small each-way bet.

Anyway, you (and I) don't know what else he/she may have stolen and be misusing and you don't know that he/she hasn't sold-on the card details to someone else for misuse. Like I said, the number of postmen arrested for theft of cards/card information (apologies I said card fraud before) staggered me. I have no intention of upsetting postmen, I am merely relaying information that was given to me from the fraud department of the card company I worked for, and the postie is another common denominator in this.

thieving is as low as it goes in posties eyes,but have you thought that it's just convenient to use postman as an excuse.?if this was true you would all be receiving your cards by special delivery.
If cards go missing then I would suspect communal mail pickup areas or clowns that live up a block of flats and are too stupid to put their name on the door.

Terry_Towelling

scott_lithgows wrote: »

thieving is as low as it goes in posties eyes,but have you thought that it's just convenient to use postman as an excuse.?if this was true you would all be receiving your cards by special delivery.
If cards go missing then I would suspect communal mail pickup areas or clowns that live up a block of flats and are too stupid to put their name on the door.

Are you a postie by any chance? Is that why you are taking such umbrage to the thought that there may be some dishonest ones? Thieving is just as low in my eyes too and it is good to hear that postie feels that way too. And don't forget it doesn't look like we are talking about the theft of a card here, just the card details and potentially (I'm guessing) the name and address information in order to perpetrate fraud. At this stage we don't know whether it is online/telephone fraud, retailer fraud, first party fraud or what. If we knew what method was used to complete the transactions things might become clearer.

Do certain occupations preclude certain types of crime? Is it impossible for a doctor to be a murderer (Harold Shipman) or for a financier to commit fraud (too many to name) or for a carer to inflict harm? People commit crimes regardless of their occupation and the irony involved.

Like I said, information that came my way (in the 1990s so things may have changed) pointed to a significant number of postie's (I don't know the numbers) being arrested for theft.

We are bouncing ideas around here, please try to maintain some balance instead of taking personal offence.

Looks like I've now passed the port the wrong way too. I must find some more bullets..

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Are you a postie by any chance? Is that why you are taking such umbrage to the thought that there may be some dishonest ones? Thieving is just as low in my eyes too and it is good to hear that postie feels that way too. And don't forget it doesn't look like we are talking about the theft of a card here, just the card details and potentially (I'm guessing) the name and address information in order to perpetrate fraud. At this stage we don't know whether it is online/telephone fraud, retailer fraud, first party fraud or what. If we knew what method was used to complete the transactions things might become clearer.

Do certain occupations preclude certain types of crime? Is it impossible for a doctor to be a murderer (Harold Shipman) or for a financier to commit fraud (too many to name) or for a carer to inflict harm? People commit crimes regardless of their occupation and the irony involved.

Like I said, information that came my way (in the 1990s so things may have changed) pointed to a significant number of postie's (I don't know the numbers) being arrested for theft.

We are bouncing ideas around here, please try to maintain some balance instead of taking personal offence.

Looks like I've now passed the port the wrong way too. I must find some more bullets..

Honestly, I think your near accusation of the postman was pretty inflammatory, so you shouldn't be surprised that some have taken offence.

It is also highly unlikely that it was a postman, as the cards were delivered, with no evidence of tampering to the envelope. When, and how, exactly, do you envisage the errant postman to have steamed open the envelope, copied the card details and then perfectly resealed the envelope? Perhaps you think that this postman also works for MI5?

You might feel that you are just, "bouncing ideas around", but your comments were offensive towards postmen. Of course dishonest people end up in a variety of jobs, but postmen - as a group - are no less honest than any other group of workers.

At this stage it would actually be better for you to admit that your comment was ill-considered, rather than keep trying to defend it, and implying - through your mocking tone - that anyone who is offended or irritated by it is being unreasonable or over-sensitive.

Terry_Towelling

ValiantSon wrote: »

Honestly, I think your near accusation of the postman was pretty inflammatory, so you shouldn't be surprised that some have taken offence.

It is also highly unlikely that it was a postman, as the cards were delivered, with no evidence of tampering to the envelope. When, and how, exactly, do you envisage the errant postman to have steamed open the envelope, copied the card details and then perfectly resealed the envelope? Perhaps you think that this postman also works for MI5?

You might feel that you are just, "bouncing ideas around", but your comments were offensive towards postmen. Of course dishonest people end up in a variety of jobs, but postmen - as a group - are no less honest than any other group of workers.

At this stage it would actually be better for you to admit that your comment was ill-considered, rather than keep trying to defend it, and implying - through your mocking tone - that anyone who is offended or irritated by it is being unreasonable or over-sensitive.

Well if anyone knows about mocking tones it is you, ValiantSon.

How have you come to the conclusion that the cards were delivered with no evidence of tampering? You have simply made that up to enable you to make a feeble joke - or are you just bouncing around ideas? Do you have no imagination at all? Envelopes can be ripped open and the contents can then be resealed in a new envelope. And how did you know one of the tests to work for MI5 was advanced envelope-tampering skills? I thought that was classified.

If any of our excellent postmen (ours is brilliant, by the way) are offended by my suggestion that there may be some dishonest ones, then I am truly sorry. And how dare you suggest that, as a group, they are no less honest than any other group of workers. That could be seen as extremely inflammatory by those who believe they are more trustworthy than other professions. So, clearly you also believe that there are dishonest individuals working for the postal service.

My intention was to point out common denominators - and you know that. You are quite simply doing your usual trick of taking offence so you can derail another thread and argue pointlessly.

To begin with, my comment was, to some extent, tongue in cheek (which you should have been able to detect) and I am happy to admit that it should have been made in a more sombre tone and perhaps with a little more doubt attached, but I can't undo it now. As for defending it, I put it out there as an idea. If people want to criticise it that is fine and to be encouraged but you shouldn't expect anyone to not try and answer those criticisms. If you don't like it, then I will have to live with the guilt I now feel and I notice you didn't bother to make your point until Scott Lithgows had come back against me.

There are those whose narrow constrained view of the world is all that exists and anyone who dares to suggest anything that doesn't fit within those constraints or that wasn't thought of by them first is to be vilified and ridiculed (and I'm not aiming any of this at Scott Lithgows, by the way). Anything these individuals haven't considered isn't worth considering and anyone who comes up with something before they do must be put down. Individuals like that should realise that light cannot penetrate the colon let alone the small intestine, but keep going and eventually you will see the light. Now that's what I call inflammatory!

Happy now, are we? Now that you've goaded me into venting my spleen against my better judgement.

ValiantSon

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Well if anyone knows about mocking tones it is you, ValiantSon.

What a shame that you have chosen to make a personal attack. Your efforts to be the wise-old man of the forum - patronising others - is grating.

You have caused upset through ill-considered comments based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever (your anecdote about something somebody said over 20 years ago is not evidence). You have then continued to argue this and make mocking and dismissive comments, inflaming the situation.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

How have you come to the conclusion that the cards were delivered with no evidence of tampering? You have simply made that up to enable you to make a feeble joke - or are you just bouncing around ideas?

I have't made any joke, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Neither have I made anything up (unlike you). As the OP has not reported any issue with envelopes having been tampered with, it is a reasonable assumption to have made (unlike your assumption that their postman is a criminal).

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Do you have no imagination at all?

What a rude man you are showing yourself to be when challenged.

Yes, I do have an imagination, but I don't choose to let it run wild, unlike you seem to.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Envelopes can be ripped open and the contents can then be resealed in a new envelope.

Indeed they can. So are you now suggesting that the postman is carrying around a supply of NatWest envelopes with him to cover his tracks? (Banks put their return address on the rear of the envelope).

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

And how did you know one of the tests to work for MI5 was advanced envelope-tampering skills? I thought that was classified.

Are you suggesting that MI5 don't know how to tamper with an envelope?

No, it isn't secret. There are plenty of documented accounts of espionage by the intelligence services, both written by former officers and authors with access to former officers and de-classified files.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

If any of our excellent postmen (ours is brilliant, by the way) are offended by my suggestion that there may be some dishonest ones, then I am truly sorry.

At least you have finally shown some humility.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

And how dare you suggest that, as a group, they are no less honest than any other group of workers. That could be seen as extremely inflammatory by those who believe they are more trustworthy than other professions.

What a ludicrous statement.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

So, clearly you also believe that there are dishonest individuals working for the postal service.

Your attempts to twist my words and to bait me are truly revealing about how you deal with challenge. Unable to substantiate any of your wild allegations you try to undermine others by manipulating their words.

I said that it is possible for dishonest people to get into any walk of life, but that Royal Mail was no more prone to this than any other organisation or profession. In your desperate attempt to "win" you are twisting my words.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

My intention was to point out common denominators - and you know that.

I don't know anything of the sort. Have you now developed mind-reading powers?

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

You are quite simply doing your usual trick of taking offence so you can derail another thread and argue pointlessly.

What a load of nonsense. It is you who was arguing pointlessly, and making flippant comments about passing the port in the wrong direction etc.

I haven't taken offence, and neither did I say that I had. You, however, were causing offence to others - notably scott_lithgows.

I haven't tried to derail the thread at all, but rather point out that you are being provocative. Your last post, however, is a clear derailment.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

To begin with, my comment was, to some extent, tongue in cheek (which you should have been able to detect) and I am happy to admit that it should have been made in a more sombre tone and perhaps with a little more doubt attached, but I can't undo it now. As for defending it, I put it out there as an idea. If people want to criticise it that is fine and to be encouraged but you shouldn't expect anyone to not try and answer those criticisms. If you don't like it, then I will have to live with the guilt I now feel and I notice you didn't bother to make your point until Scott Lithgows had come back against me.

What are you on about?

I made my post because you continued to make flippant comments, rather than accepting that you had made an ill-advised and ill-informed comment. If you had simply chosen not to reply, even, I wouldn't have commented. I would have taken your silence as tacit acceptance that you had gone too far.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

There are those whose narrow constrained view of the world is all that exists and anyone who dares to suggest anything that doesn't fit within those constraints or that wasn't thought of by them first is to be vilified and ridiculed (and I'm not aiming any of this at Scott Lithgows, by the way).

So you are accusing me of being narrow-minded. I can't defend myself against a thinly veiled attack like that (as nobody could). It isn't that I can't envisage other viewpoints, but that I object to baseless accusations. There is a huge difference.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Anything these individuals haven't considered isn't worth considering and anyone who comes up with something before they do must be put down. Individuals like that should realise that light cannot penetrate the colon let alone the small intestine, but keep going and eventually you will see the light. Now that's what I call inflammatory!

Do you feel better having got that rant off your chest?

Unfortunately what you describe doesn't describe my behaviour in this thread.

Terry_Towelling wrote: »

Happy now, are we? Now that you've goaded me into venting my spleen against my better judgement.

No. That was never my intent, and you are perfectly capable of stopping yourself if you wish. I didn't make you do anything. My intent was to encourage you take a second look at how you were behaving. It seems that I haven't been successful.