Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #46692 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-20 17:03 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-03-22 13:10 +0000 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 173 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad
Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-20 17:03 -0700
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-20 20:28 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 14:38 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 13:55 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-20 20:59 -0700
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 16:51 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-21 07:53 -0700
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:19 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-21 09:57 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-21 09:06 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:51 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-21 15:10 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 06:24 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-21 17:49 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-21 21:10 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:18 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-21 10:57 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-21 15:01 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-21 16:20 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-21 12:38 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2015-03-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:55 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-21 17:15 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:04 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 10:11 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 14:16 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-22 22:29 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-21 13:40 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:32 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-03-21 15:08 -0700
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:02 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-21 17:46 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:19 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-22 09:52 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 05:00 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-22 18:58 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 23:32 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 20:30 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 21:10 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-23 09:47 -0500
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-22 22:48 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 02:50 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 13:54 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 03:31 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 14:20 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 05:53 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 19:05 +0000
Apple Watch Kills; was: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2015-03-24 10:20 -0700
Re: Apple Watch Kills; was: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-24 19:06 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 02:35 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:22 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-21 17:15 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 12:17 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-21 13:03 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 05:44 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-03-21 21:57 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:14 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 13:54 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 05:14 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 14:38 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 05:54 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 15:09 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 06:24 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 17:15 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 09:00 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 20:06 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 11:24 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 21:10 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:43 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 02:33 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 23:26 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 20:28 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-22 20:30 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 21:06 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:40 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 01:12 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 21:23 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-22 21:26 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 01:46 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:52 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 22:22 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 13:49 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 03:25 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 13:33 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-23 14:08 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-23 14:09 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 18:33 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 05:49 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:37 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 22:15 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 02:29 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 13:43 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 03:18 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 13:30 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 05:44 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 15:04 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-23 15:16 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 19:33 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-23 15:51 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 19:59 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 07:07 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-23 16:36 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 08:37 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 21:45 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2015-03-24 10:51 +1300
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-23 18:43 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 22:56 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 10:29 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-24 05:36 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-24 01:47 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 19:44 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-24 15:04 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-24 05:35 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-24 07:02 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 23:05 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 20:19 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 00:36 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 21:18 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 01:36 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 22:12 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-22 22:20 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 02:30 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 02:24 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 13:39 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-03-22 20:05 -0700
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 23:46 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 15:00 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 14:52 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-23 00:10 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 18:58 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-23 13:41 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 18:52 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:48 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:33 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 03:13 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 02:29 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:59 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies News <News@Group.Post> - 2015-03-23 13:14 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-22 01:39 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 00:52 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 02:11 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 17:44 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-22 06:22 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 02:40 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-22 22:17 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 17:28 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 02:47 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 17:56 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 04:09 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 19:14 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 04:47 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 20:40 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-22 08:49 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:38 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 04:38 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-22 22:23 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 20:13 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 12:30 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 03:11 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-22 08:43 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:36 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 04:31 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:24 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-03-22 14:04 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-03-23 05:25 +1100
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 23:15 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-03-23 02:40 +0000
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> - 2015-03-21 09:02 -0400
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2015-03-21 11:43 -0500
Re: Apple Pay Exposes Insecure Bank Policies Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-03-22 13:10 +0000
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 12:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <cn98njF7rggU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46814 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote > Lewis wrote >> Because there is no *need* to supply more than credit card info. > And this is plain wrong. A bank cannot "green lane" a card before it > gets the request to activate card on Apple Pay, and it cannot gauge how > authentic that request is with only credit card number, name on credit > card and expiration date. It needs more info to validate that the person > is who they say they are instead of some thief. It always gets more info. > At the end of the day, if Apple Pay represents > an inferior security with higher fraud, It doesn’t. > it doesn't matter if it the bank's, Apple's or > shared fault. The system yields lower security. No it does not when the banks that do it properly get a very secure result. > And since this is an Apple branded service, > it is to Apple's advantage to fix it. Not when 'fixing' it is done by requiring a lot more information from the customer than the customer is willing to provide to Apple. The last thing I am going to do is give an operation like apple any of my personal information. Even the bank gets fuck all of my personal information. > (And I assume it is being done). Stupid assumption. ALL we know is that Apple is providing MORE information than they did originally. It isn't even clear if that will see the fraud rate drop to the best levels yet. I bet it won't if only because there is no physical card needed to add a card to applepay and few of the banks tell all their customers when a card has been added to applepay so that if fraud has happened the customer can have the card cancelled. > If news of ramnpant fraud on Apple Pay spread, > the system will lose trust of the public. I don’t believe that WITH THE REGISTRATION PROCESS. The fact that some do fraudulently add cards to applepay isn't going to see more than a few stupid loons return to using cash now when there is no liability for the customer if fraud occurs. > Remember that a LOT of the public has distrust of such transactions > done by a phone, to a large extent because they do not understand > what really goes on and that the transaction is as safe of not safer > than a regular transaction. (especually in USA where regular > magstripe transactions have basically 0 security). That last is even sillier than you usually manage. AND CUSTOMERS KEEP USING MAGSTRIPE CARDS ANYWAY. Essentially because it’s the banks that wear the fraud that does occur. > So at this stage of launching mobile payments, it is important > to have the image that it is a very secure system. And Apple has achieved that. > This is an issue for all those setting up mobile payment > systems, from banks with their own apps on Android/ > Blackberry, or those who particiapte in Apple Pay. Apple has dealt with that issue very effectively indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmgv140.v69.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #46814 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like: > On 15-03-22 18:23, Lewis wrote: >> Because there is no *need* to supply more than credit card info. > And this is plain wrong. A bank cannot "green lane" a card You don't even knwo what that means, do you? > before it > gets the request to activate card on Apple Pay, and it cannot gauge how > authentic that request is with only credit card number, name on credit > card and expiration date. You are the only moron claiming that is all the information that Apple gives the bank. > It needs more info to validate that the person > is who they say they are instead of some thief. And for a "greenlane" they get more information. Can you not read? > At the end of the day, if And there you go again, preceding a lie with "if". -- http://2blog.kreme.com Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 08:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rd2dnQ5jcbFAJZPInZ2dnUU7-dGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #46749 |
In article <550e4a73$0$25110$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-03-21 21:39, Lewis wrote:
>
> > Fact: ONLY the bank can decide if a card is added to Apple Pay. ONLY the
> > bank can decide if the card is valid or risky. ONLY the bank can decide
> > how much verification is needed. ONLY. The. Bank.
>
> In an ideal environment where the bank controls the full system, you are
> entirely correct.
The bank controls its own credit cards and the decision to go with
Apple Pay and whether the authentication procedures were enough. If (a
very big 'if') they allowed themselves to be bullied by Apple they got
what they deserved. The CC companies going in decided that the gain for
going with Apple Pay was less than the losses. THEY made the decision.
> The post office doesn't advertise how credit cards work. Apple announced
> to billions of people in its keynote (ok, Bones tells me it is thousands
> :-) how Apple Pay worked and this is meddling with "banking" and makes
> it harder for an individual bank to work differently than what Apple
> announced.
For that to be true, Apple would have had to announce Apple Pay
before the contracts for the service were in place. You aren't really
suggesting that happened? Even if it did, I doubt that many banks (and
especially the bigger ones like Chase, et al.) would feel any guilt
about making Apple look bad for trying to coerce them into the program.
> Bottom line is that the bank retains responsability for evaluating the
> fraud risk fo Apple's service. But it is not so easy to go against the
> 10,000 kg gorilla (Apple) that has extremely strong marketing force.
Yeah, and the credit card companies have no marketing of their own
and Apple Pay would be such a great success if the credit card companies
did not go along meaning the CC companies had no say in the matter.
(Note sarcasm).
--
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.”
— Aaron Levenstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 13:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cn7urqFpul6U14@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46770 |
On 2015-03-22, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <550e4a73$0$25110$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > >> On 15-03-21 21:39, Lewis wrote: >> >> > Fact: ONLY the bank can decide if a card is added to Apple Pay. ONLY the >> > bank can decide if the card is valid or risky. ONLY the bank can decide >> > how much verification is needed. ONLY. The. Bank. >> >> In an ideal environment where the bank controls the full system, you are >> entirely correct. > The bank controls its own credit cards and the decision to go with > Apple Pay and whether the authentication procedures were enough. If (a > very big 'if') they allowed themselves to be bullied by Apple they got > what they deserved. They weren't bullied by Apple. All banks participating in Apple Pay agreed to contact customers whose information did not match what was on record (Yellow Path) and ask for more personal information to verify their identities. Some banks did this well and have low fraud rates. Others did a bad job of it and allowed fraud to happen. > The CC companies going in decided that the gain for > going with Apple Pay was less than the losses. THEY made the decision. They also defined their own methods for handling Yellow Path cards, as documented by many Apple Pay users who have reported such different methods. Some banks only ask for the last four digits of the card holder's social, which is often easily available to people who have account numbers from compromised online databases! Horribly bad idea! -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 04:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <cn8clcFnlhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46770 |
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote >> Lewis wrote >>> Fact: ONLY the bank can decide if a card is added to Apple Pay. >>> ONLY the bank can decide if the card is valid or risky. ONLY the >>> bank can decide how much verification is needed. ONLY. The. Bank. >> In an ideal environment where the bank controls >> the full system, you are entirely correct. > The bank controls its own credit cards Not really, in practice it gets to wear what the majors like Visa and MasterCard choose to do on the detail like chip and pin etc. > and the decision to go with Apple Pay Not really when Apple has already turned entire industries on their heads and may well be about to do that again and if a particular bank decides to ignore ApplePay until its clear that it is going to take off, they may well lose a lot more customers than they would lose due to fraud when Apple doesn’t provide them with enough information about who is adding the card to ApplePay to check that automatically and cheaply, particularly if Apple initially just says take it or leave it to the banks. > and whether the authentication procedures were enough. Trouble is that that will always be an area where the cost of potential fraud has to be considered against the cost of the authentication procedures and the risk that the customer will just go to another bank that doesn’t jerk them around on that when they want to use ApplePay. > If (a very big 'if') they allowed themselves to be bullied by Apple Its not a very big if at all. Its just not feasible for Apple to negotiate with each bank individually just what information Apple will be providing to allow the bank to cheaply check who is actually adding the card to ApplePay. And we do know that Apple now provides more information than they did initially. The banks must have known all along what it would cost them to check who was adding the card to ApplePay. > they got what they deserved. Its nothing like that black and white with an operation like Apple. > The CC companies going in decided that the gain for going > with Apple Pay was less than the losses. THEY made the decision. Yes, but it was Apple that put them in the position that if they couldn’t just ignore ApplePay and hope it would go away without significant risk that they would lose a lot more customers than they would lose due to fraud because Apple didn’t provide them with enough information that they could use cheaply to check that it was the card holder that was adding the card to ApplePay. >> The post office doesn't advertise how credit cards work. Apple announced >> to billions of people in its keynote (ok, Bones tells me it is thousands >> :-) how Apple Pay worked and this is meddling with "banking" and makes >> it harder for an individual bank to work differently than what Apple >> announced. > For that to be true, Apple would have had to announce > Apple Pay before the contracts for the service were in place. Nope, just have decided that they would be doing a take it or leave it with the banks. There is no other feasible approach with so many banks as the US system has. They can't have individual contracts with them all. > You aren't really suggesting that happened? Corse it did. > Even if it did, I doubt that many banks (and especially the bigger > ones like Chase, et al.) would feel any guilt about making Apple > look bad for trying to coerce them into the program. Apple is never going to look bad while ever the banks get to wear the cost of fraud or piss the customers off by requiring them to prove that it was them that added the card to ApplePay. >> Bottom line is that the bank retains responsability for evaluating the >> fraud risk fo Apple's service. But it is not so easy to go against the >> 10,000 kg gorilla (Apple) that has extremely strong marketing force. > Yeah, and the credit card companies have no marketing of their own Its got nothing to do with marketing in this situation. Its just not possible to market making their customers prove it was them adding the card to ApplePay when customers can just use a bank that doesn’t fuck them over on something like that after Apple has made a big deal about how easy it is to add a card to ApplePay. They don’t get within a bulls roar of Apple marketing wise. > and Apple Pay would be such a great success if the credit card companies > did not go along meaning the CC companies had no say in the matter. > (Note sarcasm). Even sillier than you usually manage. Banks start off behind the 8 ball with almost everyone except bank employees and ex employees believing they shaft their customers every chance they get. Those with iDevices feel very differently about Apple and many of them actually believe that Apple can do no wrong and that the sun shines out of Apple's arse. The banks haven't got a hope in hell of convincing Apple customers that Apple is at fault.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cn7u4dFpul6U13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46749 |
On 2015-03-22, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 15-03-21 21:39, Lewis wrote: > >> Fact: ONLY the bank can decide if a card is added to Apple Pay. ONLY the >> bank can decide if the card is valid or risky. ONLY the bank can decide >> how much verification is needed. ONLY. The. Bank. > > In an ideal environment where the bank controls the full system, you are > entirely correct. No, he's entirely correct entirely. : ) The cards in question have *already* been stolen, but the banks have chosen *not* to deactivate the accounts. The cards in question also fall into the Yellow Path because information provided by the person attempting to provision these cards provided either conflicting or incomplete information to the banks. Banks are responsible for contacting those people to verify their identity. Based on the outcome banks control whether these accounts are provisioned in the Apple Pay system. Banks are in full control. Apple has little involvement once the card is flagged as Yellow Path. > So banks dont control what information the Apple supplied app will > provide them as they would if it were their own app. Irrelevant. The cards in question have already been flagged Yellow Path, so that banks already know the information is not trustworthy and should be verified with more scrutiny. Their next action is to contact the customer to verify identity. Some banks are doing this well, and have low fraud rates. Other banks are doing a piss-poor job of it and allowing fraud to happen. It's that simple. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 14:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <550f042d$0$39495$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #46778 |
On 15-03-22 09:24, Jolly Roger wrote: > No, he's entirely correct entirely. : ) The cards in question have > *already* been stolen, but the banks have chosen *not* to deactivate the > accounts. Focusing only on Target issue is wrong. It is possible that thieves knew that bank X decided to not replace compromised cards so they sifted through their database and extract all of bank X's cards and loaded them on Apple Pay. While this particular specific fraud is the bank's fault for not deactivating the cards, you have to consider the bigger picture: cards stolen from computer databases can be "materialised" very easily on Apple Pay (or other mobile payment systems) and thus those new systems are at high risk. The example I posted earlier showed the payment system being compromised for 11 months before it noticed and a week later stopped. Such breaches allow thieves to levereage mobile payments to load virtual credit cxards onto phones and use them as real credit cards. So, the activation process to load the card onto the phone really needs to be very secure. The current Apple-supplied method is inadequate, at least as advertised. > The cards in question also fall into the Yellow Path because > information provided by the person attempting to provision these cards > provided either conflicting or incomplete information to the banks. So, if phone user is told to contact bank, how come the bank wasn't able to realise the guy was a fruad and didn't have the customer's personal info ? Or did the bank not bother asking ? Are there banks that put 100% of transactions on "yellow path" since the "green" one is totally inadequate ? If you only send credit card number and name on credit card/expiry date, how can the bank flag that activation request as "dubious" while another similar transaction is green-lighted ? > Irrelevant. The cards in question have already been flagged Yellow Path, Does this mean that the bank decided to not cancel those cards compromised by Target, but flagged them as high risk, but when some thief calls in to activate, the bank didn't clue in ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 05:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <cn8fsnF1k18U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46793 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote > Jolly Roger wrote >> No, he's entirely correct entirely. : ) The cards >> in question have *already* been stolen, but the >> banks have chosen *not* to deactivate the accounts. > Focusing only on Target issue is wrong. No one is doing that. And Target isn't the only operation that has had their database looted, just the most well know example of that apart from Sony. > It is possible that thieves knew that bank X decided > to not replace compromised cards so they sifted > through their database and extract all of bank X's > cards and loaded them on Apple Pay. I just don’t believe that it is possible to know that. And if that had happened, the bank would have gone bust. > While this particular specific fraud is the bank's fault for not > deactivating the cards, you have to consider the bigger picture: > cards stolen from computer databases can be "materialised" > very easily on Apple Pay (or other mobile payment systems) > and thus those new systems are at high risk. And the banks are free to notify all their customers who add a card to ApplePay very cheaply indeed that that has happened so they can have the card cancelled if that was not done by them. > The example I posted earlier showed the payment system being > compromised for 11 months before it noticed and a week later stopped. That isn't what happened with Target. With Target it took just a day. > Such breaches allow thieves to levereage mobile payments to load > virtual credit cxards onto phones and use them as real credit cards. And the banks are free to notify all their customers who add a card to ApplePay very cheaply indeed that that has happened so they can have the card cancelled if that was not done by them. > So, the activation process to load the card onto > the phone really needs to be very secure. The banks are free to notify all their customers who add a card to ApplePay very cheaply indeed that that has happened so they can have the card cancelled if that was not done by them. > The current Apple-supplied method is inadequate, at least as advertised. No it is not. The banks are free to notify all their customers who add a card to ApplePay very cheaply indeed that that has happened so they can have the card cancelled if that was not done by them. >> The cards in question also fall into the Yellow Path because >> information provided by the person attempting to provision these cards >> provided either conflicting or incomplete information to the banks. > So, if phone user is told to contact bank, how come the bank > wasn't able to realise the guy was a fruad and didn't have the > customer's personal info ? Or did the bank not bother asking ? > Are there banks that put 100% of transactions on > "yellow path" since the "green" one is totally inadequate ? Nope. And the green path isn't. > If you only send credit card number and name on credit card/expiry date, The bank has always got more than just that. > how can the bank flag that activation request as "dubious" > while another similar transaction is green-lighted ? >> Irrelevant. The cards in question have already been flagged Yellow Path, > Does this mean that the bank decided to not > cancel those cards compromised by Target, Clearly that didn’t happen with 3 MILLION cards even if you believe what the banks claim. > but flagged them as high risk, You don’t know that either. > but when some thief calls in to activate, You don’t call in to put the card on ApplePay. > the bank didn't clue in ? Clearly they didn’t given the 6% fraud rate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 23:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cn90peF5ssnU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46793 |
On 2015-03-22, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 15-03-22 09:24, Jolly Roger wrote: > >> No, he's entirely correct entirely. : ) The cards in question have >> *already* been stolen, but the banks have chosen *not* to deactivate the >> accounts. > > Focusing only on Target issue is wrong. I didn't mention Target at all, and what I said applies across to lots of cards other than those. > It is possible that thieves knew > that bank X decided to not replace compromised cards so they sifted > through their database and extract all of bank X's cards and loaded them > on Apple Pay. While this particular specific fraud is the bank's fault > for not deactivating the cards, you have to consider the bigger picture: > cards stolen from computer databases can be "materialised" very easily > on Apple Pay (or other mobile payment systems) and thus those new > systems are at high risk. Not when the banks in question properly vet the accounts, which explains why some banks haven't seen high fraud rates, while others that did not properly vet them see high fraud rates. Apple Pay users have reported that some banks only asked for the last four digits of the account holder's social security number, which is grossly inadequate. > The example I posted earlier showed the payment system being compromised > for 11 months before it noticed and a week later stopped. Irrelevant. What matters is the procedure the bank defines to handle Yellow Path provisioning. If it is deficient, fraud will happen. Simple as that. > Such breaches allow thieves to levereage mobile payments to load virtual > credit cxards onto phones and use them as real credit cards. No, the banks allow it when they fail to adequately vet those accounts through the Yellow Path procedures they defined. > So, the activation process to load the card onto the phone really needs > to be very secure. The current Apple-supplied method is inadequate, at > least as advertised. Wrong. Apple doesn't define Yellow Path processes. Those are defined by individual banks. Apple Pay users have reported that the procedures used differ between banks. You so desperately want to blame this on Apple, because you are an Apple-hating troll. But you couldn't be more wrong. Keep trying if it helps you feel better about your world though. I can play this game with you indefinitely. >> The cards in question also fall into the Yellow Path because >> information provided by the person attempting to provision these cards >> provided either conflicting or incomplete information to the banks. > > So, if phone user is told to contact bank, how come the bank wasn't able > to realise the guy was a fruad and didn't have the customer's personal > info ? Or did the bank not bother asking ? Again, Apple Pay users have reported hat different banks use different procedures and ask for different types of information during Yellow Path screening. Some banks reportedly only asked for the last four digits of the account holder's social, while other banks were much more rigorous. > Are there banks that put 100% of transactions on "yellow path" since the > "green" one is totally inadequate ? Irrelevant. If the Yellow Path process defined by a bank is insufficient to effectively prevent fraud, fraud will happen. > If you only send credit card number and name on credit card/expiry date, You keep claiming this to be the case, but haven't provided a shred of evidence to prove it. Apple's own documentation says they send more than that. Put up, or shut up. > how can the bank flag that activation request as "dubious" while another > similar transaction is green-lighted ? Accounts are flagged when the information provided doesn't match the bank's information, or some other information exists that the bank uses flags it. The bank is in charge of that - not Apple. >> Irrelevant. The cards in question have already been flagged Yellow Path, > > Does this mean that the bank decided to not cancel those cards > compromised by Target, but flagged them as high risk, but when some > thief calls in to activate, the bank didn't clue in ? Possibly. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-23 02:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmguvav.v69.g.kreme@kreme.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #46793 |
Okay, so one time? In band camp? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> was all, like: > So, the activation process to load the card onto the phone really needs > to be very secure. The current Apple-supplied method is inadequate, at > least as advertised. Stop lying. This is a lie. This is not anything but a lie. You are a liar. There is *nothing* wrong with the process, at all. > Are there banks that put 100% of transactions on "yellow path" since the > "green" one is totally inadequate ? The green path is not at all inadequate in any way. STOP LYING. > If you only send credit card number and name on credit card/expiry date, Stop making things up. Putting an "If" in front of a lie doesn't make it less of a lie. > Does this mean that the bank decided to not cancel those cards > compromised by Target, but flagged them as high risk, but when some > thief calls in to activate, the bank didn't clue in ? You wuld have to ask the banks why they did not cancel cards they knew were stolen. -- http://2blog.kreme.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchvideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 09:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mLydnVKIEptT9pDInZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #46692 |
On 2015-03-20 20:03, Michelle Steiner wrote: > <http://tidbits.com/article/15504> > An Apple cheer piece with factual errors about fraud liability. At the very end: "Apple is working ..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 11:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <D13309D2.B5D86%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #46692 |
On 3/20/15 7:03 PM, in article 200320151703579843%michelle@michelle.org, "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > <http://tidbits.com/article/15504> I find it interesting that Discover will not work with ApplePay...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-22 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cn7tahFpul6U9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #46721 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.system.] On 2015-03-21, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 3/20/15 7:03 PM, in article 200320151703579843%michelle@michelle.org, > "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > >> <http://tidbits.com/article/15504> > > I find it interesting that Discover will not work with ApplePay... It looks like they are hesitant but will eventually get there: <http://www.nfcworld.com/2014/10/24/332239/discover-ceo-outlines-plan-join-apple-pay/> -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad
csiph-web