Feeds

back to article OpRobinHood more likely to stiff punters than bankers

Charities are unlikely to benefit from an Anonymous-led operation attempting to use stolen credit card details to make donations to worthwhile causes. OpRobinHood aims to defraud banks for the benefit of the majority and comes as a response by hacktivists to the crackdown on the Occupy movement. Anonymous has joined forces with …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

The rule with banks is...

...the bank always wins. Other people pay.

4
0
Anonymous Coward

...the bank always wins. Other people pay.

Figuring out ways to leech an ever-increasing percentage by bending over and rogering as many people as they can as often as they can get away with it is SOP in the banking world. How else can bank bigwigs justify their squillion-dollars-a-year pay packets, Veyrons, Bentleys, private jets, $75,000 bottles of wine, etc.

0
2

Obvious answer

Was obvious.

Any fool could have seen this stupid idea would only do more harm to the general public than the banks.

5
0
Silver badge

PIty those striking in London couldn't see the same argument for their "cause" either.

3
3
Anonymous Coward

Screws over consumers and retailers, results in increased fees?

So, dodgy as it is, not much worse than the banks themselves?

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Goes to show....

what a brain dead buch of fuckwits much of anon are.

hey kids, real world actions lead to real world consequencies. Don't come crying when you go to jail for a decade for credit card fraud, handling of stolen good and theft.

3
1
Meh

What should the bank bosses get for giving themselves multi-million pound bonuses of tax payer bailout money? A new Mercedes SLK Black every 6 months?<br><br>I don't agree with anon's actions here, but I'm willing to bet that the total amount fraudulently traded by anon won't come anywhere near the bonus cheque of any of the big bank bosses.

0
6
Thumb Down

So what?

Indulging in credit card fraud doesn't alter this, in fact it doesn't even affect the banking bosses. They will just raise the fees they charge to US, pat themselves on the back for a good job done and get an even higher bonus.

If you want to affect the bank bosses directly, target THEM directly, not screw over the bank's customers.

6
0
Gold badge

Hardly suprising

A bank is a repository for money. Most of what they have actually belongs to other people.

Where did the fucktards of Anonymous think this "extra" money was going to come from? Thin air? As it is, with the opportunity to levy chargeback fees and hike rates presented here, the banks'll probably end up turning a profit on the whole deal.

The only banks that *can* actually create money out of nothing (i.e. print it) are the Central Banks. Now the ECB could probably do with a right kicking about now[1], but it'd take rather more than a few s'kiddies and some bent credit card details to rip it off.

[1] Ideally one with "Ignore the germans and do your bloody job, shitwits" attached to it.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Someone else using Robin Hood's name in vain!

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Not to mention the inconvenience of customers having to get a replacement card sent out. Oh and of course the cost of that can be added to the bill that we will all have to pay.

As I replied once before:If I came up with that idea I'd want to be anonymous as well.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Not just that the banks will reclaim the money ... it can significantly inconvenience totally unconnected people as it appears that MasterCard and Visa are obtaining lists of credit card numbers that may have been accessed in the recent high profile hacks and marking them as potentially compromised with the result that transactions get declined, this get flagged to the card issuing bank who then block the cards and issue new numbers - no direct monetary cost but as someone who's had Christmas shopping put on hold for a week until my new CC turns up (as I assume MasterCard see my old one as "at risk" as I bought some stuff from Steam with it) it can be very inconvenient.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

it's easy

quit making excuses for why you "can't" do it. Remove the power from the banks by not giving them power. Do not use them. WE enable the banks. WE take on debt that gives them control.

But you want your "interest", you want so-called "security". you really want your little retirement contribution to magically be worth twice what you put in. You want ATM's and credit cards and check payments and mortgages so you can buy houses and cars and bling. So you say you "can't avoid using banks in modern society".

Bollocks. "Modern Society" is created by and for banks. It works off of personal feelings of greed, entitlement, lust and most of the "7 deadly sins". So defending your use of banks is simply refusing to give up those conveniences. You're trading your freedom for that.

But that isn't as "fun" or cool or whatever so hacktivists want their simple quick action they can brag about instead of the boring slog of self sacrifice. They want Hollywood action films instead of the reality of trench warfare. Which simply doesn't work as proven time and time again.

In other words, don't whinge about the banks and the System when YOU are the one feeding them.

0
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Anyone else find this offensive?

"However what TeaMp0isoN may find is that because real fraudsters"

TeaMp0isoN ARE real fraudsters.

You use someone else's credit-card to make a transaction without permission you are a real fraudster. NO EXCEPTIONS.

1
0
Bronze badge

@BoldMan: "If you want to affect the bank bosses directly, target THEM directly, not screw over the bank's customers."

That doesn't work either. If someone injures the CEO of a bank, then the bank will have to provide more security for said CEO. The money to hire extra security guards is ultimately paid for by, you guessed it, the customers of the bank.

The only way to hurt a company, bank or otherwise, is to take their profits away by sending their customer(s) to a competitor. How long would *any* business last if their customers simply refused to buy the business' product(s) ?

The Anony-tards won't do anything like that because that would involve, you know, actual effort on their part. They seem to find it easier to throw a rock through someone's window, regardless of whether doing so achieves their intended aim, and then go back to their self-congratulatory masturbating about how much of a "difference" they've made.

1
0
Big Brother

and what did you do to change the situation?

other than bitch about banks in the pub? go "kiddies"...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Grime doesn't pay

These script-kiddies need a damn good wash and then to bed with no supper.

0
0
FAIL

Misdirected nobility

As the article points out, ultimately this will only hurt consumers and charities. While the ideology behind their motives is somewhat respectable, it's most certainly misplaced. This makes Anonymous no better than the rest of the cyber criminals who steal credit card numbers to sell on the black market thus negating any nobility that could have been derived by their actions.

0
0
FAIL

Who'd have thunk it?

WanK3rS.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I still support good old vandalism

If Anon wanted to mess with the banks, IMO, it would be better to actually vandalize the banks offices themselves. How much money would be lost if a bank had to close its branch office for a day or two because someone vandalized it and the ATM machines? What if say 5 or so branches were vandalized?

In regards to the costs being passed onto the customer, well, it seems as if that's what happens regardless of who committed the fraud, even when it's the banks themselves.

Maybe what needs to happen is to make using credit cards and banks so cost prohibitive and a hassle, that people just decide that its easier to go with out.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.