Anonymous and other hacktivists have joined together to launch an attack on banks in response to recent crackdowns against the Occupy protest movement. TeaMp0isoN and Anonymous are joining forces to run OpRobinHood, which will involve using stolen credit details to donate to charities and others, supposedly at the expense of …
Citation on the Credit Unions that were run by real criminals please.
As I recall, when the S&L crisis hit back in the 70s (what I think of as the First Mortgage crisis), the credit unions were in the best shape in terms of reserves. When The Fed dissolved the S&Ls they essentially threw the CUs in with the banks to mitigate the reserves hit the banks would otherwise have had to take. Up until that point the CUs were running the way people THINK banks should run - keeping sufficient reserves so they would never have to go into bankruptcy even if several of their large depositors did in a short period of time.
The chairperson (fixed it for you) of your bank views small shareholders at an AGM the way you would view a lump of dog shit on the sole of your shoe, how do I get rid of it without having to touch it.
You could get 5,000 people at an company’s X AGM, all of them critical of a companies directors, but when it comes to a shareholder vote, the number of voting shares held by the 5,000 are totally insignificant when compared the voting shares held by other companies (where some of the directors of company X are also directors).
So when the vote for the remuneration package for the directors of company X takes place the 5,000 vote against the package but all the OTHER companies vote for it, company X then issue a press release saying that the shareholders have confidence in the directors of company X.
As part of this incestuous relationship, the directors of company X then return the favour to the other companies at their AGMs.
Anybody who thinks that being a shareholder in a company somehow gives you a say in how a company is run us delusional, well not unless you own at least 30% of the company.
"the banks are not safe"
The banks are as safe as it gets - there is nothing safer at this time (safe being relative) Cash under the bed will get stolen. Credit Unions are a great concept, but unless they issue credit and debit cards you are back to carrying cash, and you can forget donating money online to groups like anonymous (or buying anything).
And if anonymous prove they can hurt the banks, they online succeeding in proving they can hurt anyone they choose, so who would be next on their whimsy list? Hitler had his ideologies...
If the 1% decide to shut up shop and live on their savings, the 99% are out of a job and will be truly fucked. Perhaps banks are the best of the evils for now - breaking banks only hurts the 99%
You obviously have no idea what a credit union is.
Mine is a small one in a rural area. It was started by employees of a local company who wanted better options than any of the local banks. Almost 25 years ago they issued me a credit card. And unlike the idiots from the retail banks who kept upping my credit limit, they kept it at the same amount for which they initially issued it: $500. They were also one of the first vendors in the area to issue debit cards.
After the true evil? Pah.
These guys are starting to get really tedious. Self appointed vigilanties who think that they understand how the world works, embracing credit card fraud to "donate" to charity while totally mis-understanding how the credit card system works.
It's actually likely that individuals, insurance companies and charities will lose more money than the banks because anyone accepting credit card payments will be insured against fraud. The insurers will put up the premiums if a merchant (ie: charity) claims against chargeback fees and there is a chance that individuals will either be massively inconvenienced by fraud on their cards, or in the case that they don't notice it loose money.
Furthermore it's not exactly hacking the banks is it? Credit card fraud is just that, un-authorised use of someone else's credit card. Why can't these guys see that hurting the general public, which pretty much everything they do these days seems to, is not exactly going to get people on side.
Waste of time?
"Standard practice in cases where banks identify a fraudulent transaction is to reverse transactions and levy a chargeback – a reversal of a prior outbound transfer of funds. So while customers with compromised credit cards might not lose out, charities who receive fraudulent donations might actually end up out of pocket."
So Anon then is going to go out of their way to obtain stolen credit card numbers from members of the public, and use them to commit fraudulent transaction to charities then the banks who can then reverse the transations once they have been identified as fraudulent and leave the charity out of pocket...
What a pointless excercise, the bank will get their money back regardless.
Oh and I hope they get busted for commiting fraud, idiots.
So... the victim who has their credit card details used suffers the anxiety and inconvenience of sorting out the charges, not to mention the possible knock on effects of having their card maxed out,
... And the victim charity who receives the money will have all the administrative hassle of the banks coming after them for their money back. You don't honestly think they'll be allowed to keep stolen money?
What an excellent idea, Anonymous. You will be able to regale all your fellow inmates of tales of your brilliance for a long time.
Obviously, the banks won't lose out...
...but the bank customers will. If the banks have to foot the bill for the fraudulent transactions, those costs will be passed on the the customers by way of increased interest and general bank charges. The bank bosses will still get their millions in bonuses. TeaMp0isoN and Anonymous need to step back and look at these things using a little more common sense. Also, as already stated, the taxpayer will suffer, so if you rob a bank, you are robbing the general public!
Would they not do better
Finding out where the Greek contingent hid all the EU millions they were given?
Merry Christmas from TeamPointless and the Anonyputzs!
So, what happens with all those innocent cardholders in the 99% that get stops put on their cards just before they can go shopping to buy pressies for their families and food for their Christmas dinners? Creditcard fraud has consequences to both the cardholder and the banks, but it's usually the banks that shrug it off and recoup their costs elsewhere. Ruining Christmas for thousands of innocent cardholders is not exactly a smart way to drum up support. Please, can someone just complete the lobotomies that must have been only partially effective on these muppets?
I'm not sure this is so naive
If I had recently hacked a load of networks (PSN etc.) gained millions of credit card details, and then wanted to maximise my returns on that, what would be a good tactic?
1) Using about 80% of the cards create a large amount of interference in the banks automated fraud detection, causing the systems to hopefully overload, almost certainly take a longer to freeze money, and claw it back. The receipients would be innocent, making it very hard to identify other non-innocent recipients.
2) use my remaining 20%, while the systems are down to a crawl, transfer money to a load of dodgy accounts, and quickly get that money moved on through various laundering techniques, before the banks can catch up and claw it back / follow the money.
Some of the biggest systems that banks run scan for that sort of operation and the volume you'd add by running lots of transactions on something like the PSN hack would be negligible. Furthermore, it's more than likely that the banks have all those numbers recorded to check for fraud, if they haven't canceled them already.
This sounds like the most stupid idea one of these groups has ever come up with.
You could understand a DDOS attack against them or their payment processing stuff, but making charges on stolen cards belonging to Joe Bloggs sounds like robbing the poor. The banks will cover their asses on this one, it won't effect their bottom line.
They can steal from my accounts
Maybe I'll get back to 0!
I agree with the sentiment, but this course of action crosses the line from distasteful to flat out wrong. I just lost some respect for Anonymous.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system