SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
You may have heard of civil asset forfeiture.
That's where police can seize your property and cash without first proving you committed a crime; without a warrant and without arresting you, as long as they suspect that your property is somehow tied to a crime.
Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards.
It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.
Here's how it works. If a trooper suspects you may have money tied to some type of crime, the highway patrol can scan any cards you have and seize the money.
"We're gonna look for different factors in the way that you're acting," Oklahoma Highway Patrol Lt. John Vincent said. "We're gonna look for if there's a difference in your story. If there's some way that we can prove that you're falsifying information to us about your business."
...
News 9 obtained a copy of the contract with the state.
It shows the state is paying ERAD Group Inc., $5,000 for the software and scanners, then 7.7 percent of all the cash the highway patrol seizes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @03:55PM
You think anyone looks at the signature or compares it to the back of the card? I have literally never seen that done. PIN is way more secure than sig. It can be changed as often as you want. You are a moron.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @05:42PM
The issue at hand is the presumption of dispute validity. With the older card-and-signature system, any dispute is presumed to be a valid one in the absence of vendor evidence to the contrary. With chip-and-pin (along with the horribly insecure cross-site "verified by visa"-like schemes), I understand the burden is attempted to be shifted onto the backs of the cardholder under the false premise that since chp-and-ping et al is secure, the cardholder MUST have authorized the transaction.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday June 09 2016, @07:16PM
BINGO
This is why you should refuse to identify yourselves to bankers with your card & pin number. It sounds more secure, but isn't. The reality is that the banker has completely and utterly abdicated their responsibility to authenticate you, and instead will treat anyone who can obtain the pin number as the valid account owner.
Who's fault is it when authentication fails?
PIN: Well, it's the customers fault obviously. They should be more careful with their pins.
BANKER: Well, I thought it was Bob, I mean it looked a like a Bob. Uhhh, no I didn't ask for two forms of ID, uhhh no I didn't ask for the last transaction against the account.....
They've been attempting to entirely shift the burden of authentication away from themselves and to the customer for some time now.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 10 2016, @12:39PM
Whenever I see a teller at my bank I always have to swipe, enter pin, and then show ID. Maybe its the type of account I have or something, but they always check my ID, and usually type the number into the computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09 2016, @10:12PM
You think anyone looks at the signature or compares it to the back of the card? I have literally never seen that done. PIN is way more secure than sig. It can be changed as often as you want. You are a moron.
A number of years ago I went in to a liquor store at my mother's behest to purchase wine with her credit card.
Not only didn't the clerk look at the card, when I asked her "which dead president's name should I sign on the receipt?" she answered "Benjamin Franklin." That was oh so amusing.
Multi-factor authentication should be required for all credit/debit transactions and, if they aren't used, the parties (the retailer -- or in this case the police -- the card processor and the bank) should all be fined treble the amount of the charge and that be given to the card holder.
Okay, that's enough crack smoking for me for one day. I'm clearly off in la la land.