Credit and Debit card security

One of the largest challenges facing the credit card industry today is the proliferation of technology and the ubiquitous nature of the credit and debit card. The nature of the technology used yields significant effects around the associated data security and the ability to protect the consumer’s data from fraudulent activity. The industry has created a standard known as the Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance standard which mandates that any merchant who accepts credit cards must meet a minimum standard of compliance or face fines. Visa, MasterCard and American Express all have published their individual specifications. The PCI program is an overall reaction to the theft and hacking of credit card data. A recent example of hacking is found in the theft of 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers from Hannaford’s of Maine. As can be seen in the article from the Lincoln County News on Hannaford the trust is eroded for the customer in the credit card company as well as in the organization who had their data compromised. Hannaford also has a statement that clearly identifies its compliance to the PCI standards.

A new piece of technology that is being introduced by many of the credit and debit card companies is the built in RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tag. This technology allows the user to be in proximity of a scanner and eliminates the need to ‘swipe’ the card and sign on a receipt or pin pad. MasterCard has some fairly common commercials on the use of this type of technology which they call “Paypass”. This technology is being hacked fairly easily with the purchase of a credit card RFID reader on EBay for $8.00 and then using a simple terminal program to begin reading credit card information without actually viewing the card. This NY Times article shows how easy it is to read credit card data by being in proximity of the card and the Engadget / BoingBoing article shows how a hacker has done this and suggests stainless steel wallets for everyone.

Consumers value the convenience offered by vendors who accept credit and debit cards and they are here to stay. The technology and data security issues will have to be addressed and the credit card issuing companies are taking steps to ensure the protection of consumer. RFID is fraught with privacy challenges that are only just beginning to surface. More marketing attention should be placed on the PCI and privacy compliance. Unfortunately most companies’ privacy statements are buried at the websites reviewed by this author. Vendors and credit card companies need to take a more proactive stance with consumers before confidence is completely eroded.

-End of Ramble

Canadian's view of the political canidates in the US

Someone forwarded this post to me which was written by Canadian Theo Caldwell of the National Post. I find it quite telling for several reasons...

1. Someone from Canada, the closest socialist health care nation to us is actually making disparaging remarks about the Democrats.
2. The comments are right on by Mr. Caldwell... I recommend the read

Unfortunately the article was written when others were still in the race (12/26/2007). It's a good article, one that all American voters should read... and it comes from a Canadian!

-End of Ramble

Illegal Immigration Is No Problem: "We all look alike" - Geraldo Rivera

I was unfortunate enough to catch some of Geraldo on Fox & Friends a couple of days ago. As usual, Geraldo was pontificating on illegal immigration as if it is really not against the law but rather some kind of American hatred of Mexicans. Geraldo, you have to give us a break on this mis-characterization of a seriously dangerous issue. It is illegal immigration - not immigration.

If you didn't follow the Fox & Friends link, Geraldo's main boast was that he had questioned then Republican candidate Mitt Romney on his stance on "immigration". He said that Mitt was using "anti-immigration rhetoric" to which Mitt responded that he always made it clear that he as talking about illegal immigration. Geraldo warned him that since "we all look alike" the Spanish community was not going to vote for him, but would instead vote for McCain. "All look alike", give me a break. It's not about looks or being Mexican Geraldo. It's about someone walking or swimming a nuclear weapon across the southern border. And Geraldo, it's not rhetroic when it's true. Your romantizing of Mexican social and economic conditions to explain away the breaking of federal law and placing our country at risk is rhetoric.

Michelle Malkin has posted some very insightful information on McCain's illegal immigration position, which Geraldo seems to prefer. She also describers Geraldo very effectively as "the ethnocentric cable TV host who can’t string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in emotional demagoguery". Well done Michelle.

Anyone elected to be President of the United States will have to take an oath that swears them to, amoung other things, protect the Republic from invasion and to uphold the rule of law. Both of these charges are being completely ignored by all branches of our government (both parties) concerning illegal immigration. It's time we wake up and do something about this extreme threat to our culture, our freedom, and our country before it's too late - and I pray we are not already too late.

I'm a devoted Fox News viewer and I would prefer that they allow Geraldo to find alternative employment.

##That's my opinion##

Whatever Doesn't Kill Mike Huckabee Makes Him Stronger

That's the quote from ABC's The Note and clearly indicates that what the press reports on the Primary race may not necessarily be the real opinion of the people. I am a Huckabee supporter based upon his position on the Fair Tax, Immigration, and Alternative Fuel sources - but I'm also a realist. Mike's chance's of achieving the Republican nomination are slim, but as long as he keeps getting back up off the mat, I'm sticking with him as my choice.

And speaking of nominations and choice, I've become even more aware of the inadequacies of our Presidential candidate selection process. Even after Super Tuesday, how many states have had an opportunity to voice their opinion? Exactly 32. Even before Super Tuesday when only 8 states had made their opinions known, many of the candidates had already made their decisions to either continue or to drop out of the race - like Rudy. How is that possible? If you live in any state that holds it's primary after Super Tuesday, what's the point in even going to the poll?

I believe that we should hold a national primary with all states voting on the same day. Why should anyone that does not live in Iowa or New Hampshire be swayed by their opinion? This should not be a popularity contest and we should accept "group think" as a legitimate selection criteria. It's difficult enough to get Americans to the polls without creating a bias from early primary states.

##That's my opinion##

Taxation - A Real Life Example

So, I'm an avid Fair Tax supporter and really enjoy this real life example of our tax system, which was shared with me via email. Take the time to read it. It's both entertaining and educational.

Best explanation to share with your congressman, who clearly does not understand this complex principle. Our Tax System Explained: Bar Stool Economics.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with thearrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce thecost of your daily beer by $20."

Drinks for the ten now cost just $8 0.The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each endup being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to comparetheir savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20", declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!'' "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I"! ''That's true!", shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" ''Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers withouthim. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is howour tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might startdrinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.Professor of EconomicsUniversity of Georgia. For those who understand, no explanation is needed.For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Amen Dr. Kamerschen! This is not a difficult concept to understand. Becoming financially secure or even independently wealty is part of the American dream, but our current tax system is setup to punish achievement and success. If you think that a tax system that forces investment and factories to other countries is a good idea, then we have the right tax system for you. If you believe that the United States should be the leading economic power and the world's greatest tax haven, then the Fair Tax is right for you.

I believe in the Fair Tax. And by the way, in the drinking scenario above, under the Fair Tax, each patron would pay the exact same amount in tax on their beer - which is the way it should be when buying beer.

##That's my opinion##

The Assault on Reason - An open letter to Al Gore

I recently read Al Gore's, The Assault on Reason. If you have visited our blog before, you know me to be a conservative, so you may be asking why I would read Al's book. The answer is that I do take information from a wide range of sources in order to remain, well, the Lucid Guy.

Mr. Gore, I found your book to be surprisingly informative and revealing. To grossly over-simplify your premise, you make the point that the American people are no longer engaged with our government due to the lack of a two-way conversation, as was common place in our early history. You make the point that when the printed word was the main source of information and communication, that the American people had an opportunity to engage in a debate and to provide feedback through the written word. I agree that today the majority of Americans are not engaged and do not take the active role in our government the way our founding fathers intended. The checks and balances simply do not work if the American people are not heard - whether they choose to be silent or are forced into silence.

Leaping forward you make the point that the advent of radio and television destroyed the public's access to the debate and that they are only a one-way medium.

Our Founders could never have imagined that the marketplace of ideas would change so profoundly that the consent of the governed - the very source of legitimate political power in a democracy - could become a commodity.

You point out that individuals could receive information from radio and television but could not send. How is this different from the late 1700's when and the printed word when the reader was consuming the information days, weeks, and months after the printing and had no way to submit feedback? Is radio and television not the same interaction only with more immediate result? I am a bit confused about the "open exchange of ideas" theory with newspapers being distributed on horseback.

You go on to explain how the Bush administration has used television to mislead the American people on many issues and that television ads played a part in your lost election in 2000. The mainstream media has a well documented bias against the Bush administration, so I don't believe Bush had any sort of special access to the American people that was not constantly challenged and argued openly. I think I remember one or two ads from you during that time period as well. Why do you believe the Bush ads were more effective than yours? Television is not the problem. If anything it greatly accelerates the communication process.

You do make excellent observations concerning the lower literacy rates in America and how that is having a significant impact on how well the citizenry is connected - or not connected. One good example is on page 256 where you point out that 72.8 percent of college students in a 2005 study could not correctly identify the source of the idea of 'a wall of separation' between church and state. Of course you make this point right after a statement concerning the Declaration of Independence, which rather insinuates that the Declaration is the source of the separation statement. Actually the wall of separation idea can not be found in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution. It comes from a political statement that Thomas Jefferson made to a Baptist organization, which has been misused as Constitutional law. You failed to educate your readers on the origins of the separation idea so I thought I would help out.

I agree with your assertion that the Internet represents an opportunity for the American people to once again become more engaged and better informed. Hopefully people will choose to use the power of the Internet to spread truth and enlightenment.

You should notice that I have mostly ignored your constant obsession with bashing the Bush administration. Is this an example of the free exchange of ideas available through the printed word? You can not seriously make these statements about the Bush administration and pretend you were never involved in the executive branch participating in decisions that have led our country to where we are today. Mr. Gore, "MoveOn".

I believe the American people need to become much more involved in and much better informed on our government. Only with a connected citizenry will we be able to survive as a nation - so we agree on that point. However, radio and television are not the destroyers of civilization that you describe. It is the self-serving attitude of the entitlement generation that is killing our country.

I borrowed The Assault on Reason from a friend, to whom I loaned Horner's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. I think she will enjoy extending her sources of information as I have with your book. Don't you?

##That's my opinion##

The Real ID Card

Have you heard of the Real ID card proposed in the Real ID Act? The act was actually passed in 2005 and is now receiving lots of attention. What I don't understand is why anyone would oppose a law that would require all Americans to have a national ID card. As the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff put it, the only people that will be disappointed by this new ID card will be terrorists, illegal immigrants, and con-men.

There are a few people not in agreement with this plan that I would like to point out. First is Barry Steinhardt, an ACLU attorney who said,

What the Department of Homeland Security has done is to kick the can down the road to the next administration, and probably not just to the next administration, but conceivably two to three administrations from now.

In my opinion it is Mr. Steinhardt that should be kicked - right out of the country, which he obviously hates. Why is it so difficult to understand that after 9/11 we live in a different world and it will never - never the the way it was before. Maybe we were living in a fantasy of false security before 9/11, but now we have been awakened and we may never sleep soundly again. Is the requirement of a national ID card such a burden to pay to be a little bit more secure? Who exactly is it that Mr. Steinhardt is fighting for in his opposition to the Real ID Act?

Next is Senator Patrick Leahy, an elected public servant. He believes the Real ID Act should be repealed in favor of a more flexible and mutually beneficial approach. Mutually beneficial to who? Illegal aliens? How can a US Senator not be in favor of a law that requires all US citizens to be able to identify themselves? Could it be because he wants illegal aliens to be able to vote and keep the social program and income redistribution masters (the Democrats) in power?

Another attorney for the ACLU, Tim Sparapani, said that since the states would be required to set up their own security policies, that everyone would be at risk. He says that one weak State would put everyone's private information in jeapordy of being stolen. Hey Timmy, the increased security of the Real ID would far out weigh your weak data privacy argument.

On the topic of cost, the estimates range from a high of $23 billion to a low of $3.9 billion. Really, $3.9 billion? Okay, there are roughly 300 million Americans, so a database that would create and maintain say double that number, 600 million, is just not that hard of a nut to crack. I realize that there would be several thousand users of this system and that each state would need access in all of the drivers license offices. Also, there would be several government agencies that would need access for analysis and spying. I think that I could ask the government for half of the $3.9 billion, start a company, supply the Real ID solution, and that a tinnie-weenie profit for myself.

The bottom line is that we keep finding all these lame reasons for not protecting our country. If we don't secure our nation, there will soon be nothing left to secure.

##That's my opinion##