BS: Legalities of creating but not using

Subject: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 01:26 AM

I don’t understand. WHY is it legal to create and sell some things that, in turn, are illegal to use?

Today I’m thinking specifically of credit/debit card skimming. The ability to ‘skim’ a card (from up to 10 feet away!) can have no legal purpose so why is it legal to create it?
A friend is in the wrap up phase of fixing the damage: a card that the friend had never used, had bought only as an emergency backup while traveling, and which had never left her wallet, had the card skimmed and used in nine different instances literally all over the world

The friend has no idea of how or when the card was accessed. The bank has erased the debt and all is well now, but the damage is done.

There are other examples but this will do for a start. I'm thinking seriously of returning to check-based purchases.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 02:33 AM

”I'm thinking seriously of returning to check-based purchases.”

Might be different in the US to the UK, but I’ve recently had cheque payments refused by tradesmen doing work for me on a couple of occasions, and payment by cash or direct bank transfer demanded. Not huge amounts, but more than I had in the house in cash, so I switched my laptop on and paid by direct bank transfer (which is my preferred payment method anyway - all done and dusted in one fell swoop).

I do know that the US banking system is rather old-fashioned in its practices compared to the European system, so it may not be a problem in Alaska, but here in the UK and Europe, cheques are rapidly becoming a thing of the past - I haven’t written a cheque in over a year, and my son’s partner burst into fits of laughter when I offered her a cheque for her birthday, and asked me “What on earth do I do with that?”. I was gobsmacked!

I recently sold a high-end guitar for a substantial amount of money and, having inspected and tried it out, the buyer used his phone to pay me by direct transfer before I handed the guitar over to him. Seems the way to go to me, and I suspect it’s the future of non-cash transactions.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Senoufou
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 02:57 AM

My bank sent me a new debit card when my last one's date expired. It was one of those contactless ones. I rang the bank and asked them to send me a 'normal' one, which they did, and I shredded the other evil thing. Apparently, the contactless ones can send a signal out to pay at a checkout for someone else's purchases. How crazy.
Nowadays, I tell the cashier "I can't wave it about, I have to stick it in!" One check-out lady laughed and replied, "Said the bishop to the actress!" I giggled all day after that.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:06 AM

Irrelevant to the question you ask, but how does your friend know that her card was 'skimmed' at a distance? It's relatively rare for contactless cards, and in the UK at least a never-used contactless card would have to be authorised by a PIN the first time. Authorisation by signature has died out completely.

How To Spot A Credit Card Skimmer (US)
Contactless Cards (US)

I can think of legal uses for devices that read contactless (NFC) devices, which would include cards, at a distance. And something that is legal in one country can be illegal in another - guns for instance,

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:14 AM

I have a card-wallet for my cards which has RFID-blocking (I think that’s what it’s called) built-in, precisely to prevent any chance of my contactless cards (I have two - one debit, one credit card) - being ‘read’ at a distance or when not in actual use. As a double precaution, I also have an RFID-blocking card in the wallet.

Belt and braces, me. (Braces are what Americans call ‘suspenders’. In the UK, suspenders are something far more interesting).

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:20 AM

Backwoodsman wrote: my son’s partner partner burst into fits of laughter when I offered her a cheque for her birthday, and asked me “What on earth do I do with that?”.

Our bank's app allows us to pay in a check by photographing it with the (smart) phone. But only up to £500 - above that we have to feed them into a machine at the bank. So assure her that you'll make it less than £500 to make it easy for her ;)

Much easier to write a check, and get them to photograph it, than setting up a new payee with online banking.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:32 AM

I seem ti have started soelling cheque 'check'.

I blame the Guardian.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:35 AM

Ha! Haven’t heard of that, Dave, but I receive so few cheques (I genuinely don’t recall the last time I received one) it’s not really a problem for me to call in to our local PO to pay-in.

My wife received a cheque a few weeks ago for a very nice tax-refund, but she doesn’t recall any others within the past year or so.

Cheques are becoming something of a Dead Duck here in the UK (and, I guess, in Europe) - the American-owned company I worked for until I retired, and which my wife still works for, hasn’t paid wages and salaries by cheque for at least the past 25 years - all paid by BACS Transfer direct into employees’ bank accounts - and they discontinued using cheques to pay suppliers just before I retired, about 11 years ago, they only pay by BACS or other forms of bank transfer.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:36 AM

Sorry if I’m teaching granny to suck eggs with my last post, Dave, I thought you were American!

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: DaveRo
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 03:57 AM

My wife receives cheques from members of her U3A group, all of whom are elderley, many in their '80s. The U3A would prefer they pay by direct transfer and some are happy to do that. There are some very clued-up octagenarians with iPhones!

But it's more hassle for her - what with reconciling names, people using the wrong account, or saying they've paid when they haven't - that she prefers cheques. She puts a pile of them and a pay-in slip in the bank's machine (we still have banks here) and it produces a receipt and a photo of each cheque.

I understand RFID-shielding wallets, BTW, but not an RFID blocking card. A decoy?

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 04:43 AM

My friend has no idea of how the debit card could have been used without an initial PIN- and from what the bank says, neither does the bank.

Here in the USA, I believe that businesses still accept checks but some refuse cash. The only use I have had for checks in years is for my rent so I do keep checks on hand.

Backwoodsman at 27 Nov 22 - 02:33 AM mentioned direct bank transfers. Does that require one's presence at said bank?

I very much like the idea of an 'RFID blocking card'- I just looked it up. Evidently it has been around for quite awhile; as usual, I'm a couple of jumps behind. However, that doesn't protect online purchases and here in southeast Alaska with limited local stores, we do a lot of shopping online. sheesh. I dunno.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 05:40 AM

”Backwoodsman at 27 Nov 22 - 02:33 AM mentioned direct bank transfers. Does that require one's presence at said bank?”

No, Ebbie, it’s done through my Online-Banking App, either on my laptop or my iPad. Dead straightforward, and I have two-factor authentication set up as added security. My bank doesn’t even have a branch in my town.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 07:04 AM

> "I can't wave it about, I have to stick it in!"

I once went to (erm) insert my card in the reader, and happened to have the card in my hand as I turned the reader round. Bingo! one accidental swipe, which the till lassie followed through on by conditioned reflex. "Sorry, I can't give you cashback." *Grrr*.

.... Herself insisted on a contact-only card, and treats with scorn my suggestion that she get a chain-mail purse for her card, to prevent remote reading of the info. I've yet to tell her that I think they've yet again sent one that does contactless as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 08:13 AM

sometime BC (Before Covid) I found my old cheque book, the only butt in it dated 2018) so I started using it as a notebook beside my phone.

During lockdown muso friends started lockdown youtube concerts to get some income. As I still had a few cheques in the book, I sent 3, one for them & $20 each to their kids. Father said the girls were very pleased to have some money of their own to spend! Perhaps he had to explain what cheques were.

Speaking of explaining, earlier this century the "Overheard" column in the local paper reported a conversation between 2 young women on the train - "I've just finished jury duty & they sent me this nice bookmark."
"That's not a bookmark, it's a cheque & if you take it to your bank they will give you money for it" (here jurors get a daily payment for their time)

The "Overheard" column was very entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 10:44 AM

Criminology and law making is a continuing cat and mouse game.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 27 Nov 22 - 05:02 PM

You have it right, Donuel. The law has to be fixed at any one time, so Goedel's Undecidability Theorems guarantee that loopholes will exist. Try to plug one, and, well, you're playing whack-a-mole with m'learned friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Nov 22 - 03:31 AM

As soon as I saw keyless cars entry I knew how the criminals would bypass the false security. 2 Radios. You can buy pockets for the "keys".

As as soon as I saw contactless credit cards with my name on, I got a metalised pouch for each.

I don't think it needed my studying radio comms at uni to figure it out. But when I told people how a card could be read at a distance (1 metre predicted) they thought I was fanciful because they had been told by the banks. But at, say, a night club, people jossling, inedbriated, would you remember what drinks were ordered?

And the banks underwrite losses! Because the savings in not investigating outweighed the rarity of complaints.

Subject: RE: BS: Legalities of creating but not using
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Nov 22 - 03:39 AM

ever seen "yoof" with phones half hanging out of back pockets.

Swish multi-lens camera jobbies, with NFC & all their payment apps & banking accessible.

I have handed 2 phones to bus drivers in the last 4 years. How did the kids pay for their bus journey home? But I did get one message of thanks on the next trip.

I'm afraid these things are not thought through properly. We see the advantages and those of us who see the pitfalls (& solutions) are booed. Until......................

Who'dathoughtit?