Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.telecom.mobile > #33524 > unrolled thread

Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.mobile

Contents

  Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:38 +0000
    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2018-12-01 11:55 +0000
      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-01 13:05 +0000
        Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2018-12-01 14:11 +0000
          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-01 16:40 +0000
            Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-12-01 17:31 +0000
              Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2018-12-01 20:20 +0000
                Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-01 21:57 +0000
                  Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-12-01 22:09 +0000
                    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 08:51 +0000
                    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-03 13:33 +0000
                      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-03 14:03 +0000
                        Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-03 15:18 +0000
                          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-12-03 16:44 +0000
                            Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-03 17:06 +0000
                              Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-03 17:22 +0000
                                Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-03 18:26 +0000
                                  Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-03 20:39 +0000
                                    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 17:35 +0000
                                Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2018-12-03 21:08 +0000
                                  Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-03 22:11 +0000
                                  Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> - 2018-12-04 14:47 +0000
                                    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-04 16:39 +0000
                                      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 17:38 +0000
                                  Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 17:36 +0000
                                Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Chronos <usenet@chronos.org.uk> - 2018-12-04 06:00 +0000
                      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Flop <Flop@flop.knot.me.uk> - 2018-12-03 16:59 +0000
                      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 13:45 +0000
                        Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-06 14:07 +0000
                          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 17:41 +0000
                    Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 13:41 +0000
                      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> - 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000
          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 05:53 -0800
            Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal MB <MB@nospam.net> - 2018-12-06 13:42 +0000
      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> - 2018-12-01 17:53 +0000
        Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-01 18:09 +0000
          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:19 +0000
      Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal brightside <brightside@sonnenkinder.org> - 2018-12-01 22:43 +0000
        Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:13 +0000
          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal "R. Mark Clayton" <notyalckram@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 05:54 -0800
          Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-12-03 11:33 +0800
            Re: Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal Mark Carver <invalid.invalid@gmx.net> - 2018-12-03 14:47 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#33524 — Want to shop online? Best have a mobile signal

"As millions start their Christmas shopping online, there's a warning 
that consumers may need to have a mobile phone, and a decent signal, to 
make sure their transactions go through.

...

If online shoppers spend more than about £27 (€30 under the EU 
directive) in one transaction, payment providers will be required to ask 
for an extra form of verification, usually sent as a one-time password 
by text to your mobile phone."

And we here have recently been debating how insecure the SMS system is 
in the thread "Mobile phone shop staff 'enabling SIM swap scams'" :-(

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#33526

On Sat 01/12/2018 11:38, Java Jive wrote:
> "As millions start their Christmas shopping online, there's a warning 
> that consumers may need to have a mobile phone, and a decent signal, to 
> make sure their transactions go through.
> 
> ...
> 
> If online shoppers spend more than about £27 (€30 under the EU 
> directive) in one transaction, payment providers will be required to ask 
> for an extra form of verification, usually sent as a one-time password 
> by text to your mobile phone."
> 
> And we here have recently been debating how insecure the SMS system is 
> in the thread "Mobile phone shop staff 'enabling SIM swap scams'" :-(

And it also applies when you single or cumulatively reach €100.

The suggestion is that if you don't have a mobile or a signal (the code 
is sent as a text so it will get through on even the poorest of signals) 
you ring your card provider and advise them in advance so it is 
pre-cleared, or you use PayPal.

-- 
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33528

On 01/12/2018 11:55, Woody wrote:

> The suggestion is that if you don't have a mobile or a signal (the code 
> is sent as a text so it will get through on even the poorest of signals) 
> you ring your card provider and advise them in advance so it is 
> pre-cleared, or you use PayPal.

What scares me is the way that high value transactions (thousands of 
pounds) can be authorised purely on a chip and pin card with no other 
checks.

I have more than once bought a used car on a debit card, with no 
callback from the bank or card issuer. Surely for that sort of money a 
phone call to check that the customer really is authorising a payment of 
anything up to £7000 is in order..?



-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33530

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:05:05 +0000, MissRiaElaine
<thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 01/12/2018 11:55, Woody wrote:
>
>> The suggestion is that if you don't have a mobile or a signal (the code 
>> is sent as a text so it will get through on even the poorest of signals) 
>> you ring your card provider and advise them in advance so it is 
>> pre-cleared, or you use PayPal.
>
>What scares me is the way that high value transactions (thousands of 
>pounds) can be authorised purely on a chip and pin card with no other 
>checks.
>
>I have more than once bought a used car on a debit card, with no 
>callback from the bank or card issuer. Surely for that sort of money a 
>phone call to check that the customer really is authorising a payment of 
>anything up to £7000 is in order..?

I bought a car using my debit card.  Wouldn't let me use contactless
for some reason :-) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33543

On 01/12/2018 14:11, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:05:05 +0000, MissRiaElaine
> <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/12/2018 11:55, Woody wrote:
>>
>>> The suggestion is that if you don't have a mobile or a signal (the code
>>> is sent as a text so it will get through on even the poorest of signals)
>>> you ring your card provider and advise them in advance so it is
>>> pre-cleared, or you use PayPal.
>>
>> What scares me is the way that high value transactions (thousands of
>> pounds) can be authorised purely on a chip and pin card with no other
>> checks.
>>
>> I have more than once bought a used car on a debit card, with no
>> callback from the bank or card issuer. Surely for that sort of money a
>> phone call to check that the customer really is authorising a payment of
>> anything up to £7000 is in order..?
> 
> I bought a car using my debit card.  Wouldn't let me use contactless
> for some reason :-)

Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil 
if you ask me...


-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33544

In message <g6frrnFtbv6U1@mid.individual.net>
          MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:

>Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil 
>if you ask me...

Why do you think it is?

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33550

On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:31:01 +0000, David Higton wrote:

> In message <g6frrnFtbv6U1@mid.individual.net>
>           MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>>Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil
>>if you ask me...
> 
> Why do you think it is?

We had all this earlier this week. Don't start her off again!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33552

On 01/12/2018 20:20, Bob Eager wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:31:01 +0000, David Higton wrote:
> 
>> In message <g6frrnFtbv6U1@mid.individual.net>
>>            MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil
>>> if you ask me...
>>
>> Why do you think it is?
> 
> We had all this earlier this week. Don't start her off again!

I did say don't get me started..! It's ok, I won't go off on one again 
(yet..!)



-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33553

In message <g6geedF2rqmU1@mid.individual.net>
          MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 01/12/2018 20:20, Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:31:01 +0000, David Higton wrote:
>> 
>>> In message <g6frrnFtbv6U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>            MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil
>>>> if you ask me...
>>>
>>> Why do you think it is?
>> 
>> We had all this earlier this week. Don't start her off again!
>
>I did say don't get me started..! It's ok, I won't go off on one again 
>(yet..!)

OK, my searches have failed to find [all this earlier this week].  Was
it in a different newsgroup?

A pointer would be appreciated.

(I like contactless.  It's much easier and quicker than inserting a
chip and PIN card and inputting the PIN.  It's as secure as chip and
PIN, as no-one can exfiltrate money without a merchant account.  So,
if there's some problem I've missed, I'd like to know.)

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33577

David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
> In message <g6geedF2rqmU1@mid.individual.net>
>           MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 01/12/2018 20:20, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2018 17:31:01 +0000, David Higton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In message <g6frrnFtbv6U1@mid.individual.net>
>>>> MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Don't get me started on [censored] contactless... Invention of the devil
>>>>> if you ask me...
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you think it is?
>>> 
>>> We had all this earlier this week. Don't start her off again!
>> 
>> I did say don't get me started..! It's ok, I won't go off on one again 
>> (yet..!)
> 
> OK, my searches have failed to find [all this earlier this week].  Was
> it in a different newsgroup?
> 
> A pointer would be appreciated.
> 
> (I like contactless.  It's much easier and quicker than inserting a
> chip and PIN card and inputting the PIN.  It's as secure as chip and
> PIN, as no-one can exfiltrate money without a merchant account.  So,
> if there's some problem I've missed, I'd like to know.)

You've not missed anything. Contactless isn't perfect, but nor is any
single other payment method. I also believe contactless is currently the
best method. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33579

On 01/12/2018 22:09, David Higton wrote:

> (I like contactless.  It's much easier and quicker than inserting a
> chip and PIN card and inputting the PIN.  It's as secure as chip and
> PIN, as no-one can exfiltrate money without a merchant account.  So,
> if there's some problem I've missed, I'd like to know.)

I'll just say this. On Rip Off Britain a few months ago, a security 
expert demonstrated how it *is* possible. He scanned the card of one of 
the presenters (Angela Rippon or Gloria Hunniford, can't remember which) 
then went online and purchased something using her card details.

It's *not* as secure as chip & PIN, and even that could be made better. 
Do you know why a PIN is only 4 digits, for example..? The inventor of 
the system wanted to make it 6 digits, but his wife said she could only 
remember 4, so 4 digits we are stuck with.



-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33581

MissRiaElaine wrote:

> On Rip Off Britain a few months ago, a security 
> expert demonstrated how it *is* possible. He scanned the card of one of 
> the presenters (Angela Rippon or Gloria Hunniford, can't remember which) 

Nobody has said that's impossible, indeed we've mentioned specific ways 
it *is* possible.

> then went online and purchased something using her card details.

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047z45q>

What he exploited was an Amazon problem, not a contactless problem, 
anyone who saw your card and has more than the memory of a goldfish 
could have done the same that he did ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33584

On 03/12/2018 14:03, Andy Burns wrote:
> MissRiaElaine wrote:
> 
>> On Rip Off Britain a few months ago, a security expert demonstrated 
>> how it *is* possible. He scanned the card of one of the presenters 
>> (Angela Rippon or Gloria Hunniford, can't remember which) 
> 
> Nobody has said that's impossible, indeed we've mentioned specific ways 
> it *is* possible.
> 
>> then went online and purchased something using her card details.
> 
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047z45q>
> 
> What he exploited was an Amazon problem, not a contactless problem, 
> anyone who saw your card and has more than the memory of a goldfish 
> could have done the same that he did ...

True, but contactless makes it a lot easier, and it's not just an Amazon 
problem. A few years ago, the large company I worked for put one of its 
call centres up for taking calls for donations to Red Nose Day.

I volunteered for the call taking team, and we took plenty of money that 
night. The two largest single donations were £900, which I took, and 
£1000 which a colleague sitting near me had.

The system that was used did NOT require the 3-digit code from the back 
of the card. I find it very scary that amounts of this size can be taken 
without this. I find it worrying that *any* amount can be taken in this way.



-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33586

In message <g6kvq8F2m0rU1@mid.individual.net>
          MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 03/12/2018 14:03, Andy Burns wrote:
>> MissRiaElaine wrote:
>> 
>>> On Rip Off Britain a few months ago, a security expert demonstrated 
>>> how it *is* possible. He scanned the card of one of the presenters 
>>> (Angela Rippon or Gloria Hunniford, can't remember which) 
>> 
>> Nobody has said that's impossible, indeed we've mentioned specific ways 
>> it *is* possible.
>> 
>>> then went online and purchased something using her card details.
>> 
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047z45q>
>> 
>> What he exploited was an Amazon problem, not a contactless problem, 
>> anyone who saw your card and has more than the memory of a goldfish 
>> could have done the same that he did ...
>
>True, but contactless makes it a lot easier, and it's not just an Amazon 
>problem. A few years ago, the large company I worked for put one of its 
>call centres up for taking calls for donations to Red Nose Day.
>
>I volunteered for the call taking team, and we took plenty of money that 
>night. The two largest single donations were £900, which I took, and 
>£1000 which a colleague sitting near me had.
>
>The system that was used did NOT require the 3-digit code from the back 
>of the card. I find it very scary that amounts of this size can be taken 
>without this. I find it worrying that *any* amount can be taken in this way.

OK, but please forgive me if I've misunderstood: contactless was not
involved in any way there, correct?

Contactless can only be used for small transactions, so it would be
difficult in most cases to exhaust one's credit.

Fraudulent transactions are at the very least a damned nuisance, but
they can happen to anyone.  The credit card company is obliged to
reimburse the account holder promptly.  And fraudulent transactions
can happen without contactless; the difference is that the non-
contactless ones have a much higher limit on value.

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33588

David Higton wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047z45q>
>>> What he exploited was an Amazon problem, not a contactless problem.
> 
> please forgive me if I've misunderstood: contactless was not
> involved in any way there, correct?

A freely available android app was used to do a contactless read of the 
16 digit number and expiry date, but not the cardholder name or CVV, so 
less info than is available by looking at the card.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33589

On 03/12/2018 17:06, Andy Burns wrote:
> David Higton wrote:
> 
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p047z45q>
>>>> What he exploited was an Amazon problem, not a contactless problem.
>>
>> please forgive me if I've misunderstood: contactless was not
>> involved in any way there, correct?
> 
> A freely available android app was used to do a contactless read of the 
> 16 digit number and expiry date, but not the cardholder name or CVV, so 
> less info than is available by looking at the card.

Ok, you win, contactless is absolutely wonderful, best thing since 
sliced bread. I still don't want it and I refuse to give my custom to 
any card provider who forces it on me.

-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33590

> Ok, you win, contactless is absolutely wonderful, best thing since 
> sliced bread. I still don't want it and I refuse to give my custom to 
> any card provider who forces it on me.

Entirely your choice, though you've already found it rules out some 
banks, quite likely if they consider it reduces fraud, more and more 
banks will insist on contactless.

I just don't like seeing FUD spread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33593

On 03/12/2018 18:26, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> Ok, you win, contactless is absolutely wonderful, best thing since 
>> sliced bread. I still don't want it and I refuse to give my custom to 
>> any card provider who forces it on me.
> 
> Entirely your choice, though you've already found it rules out some 
> banks, quite likely if they consider it reduces fraud, more and more 
> banks will insist on contactless.

I have so far only come across one card provider who is taking this 
route (Capital One) and I am no longer a customer of theirs. Currently, 
the banks we use here (Halifax and Bank of Scotland) say they have no 
plans to insist on contactless.

Quite how it *reduces* fraud is lost on me, but I'll leave it there.


-- 
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33664

On 03/12/2018 20:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
> On 03/12/2018 18:26, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, you win, contactless is absolutely wonderful, best thing since 
>>> sliced bread. I still don't want it and I refuse to give my custom to 
>>> any card provider who forces it on me.
>>
>> Entirely your choice, though you've already found it rules out some 
>> banks, quite likely if they consider it reduces fraud, more and more 
>> banks will insist on contactless.
> 
> I have so far only come across one card provider who is taking this 
> route (Capital One) and I am no longer a customer of theirs. Currently, 
> the banks we use here (Halifax and Bank of Scotland) say they have no 
> plans to insist on contactless.
> 
> Quite how it *reduces* fraud is lost on me, but I'll leave it there.
> 
> 

The banks have claimed the same with every new system and been very 
reluctant to admit their system has failed, always blaming the customer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#33594

In message <g6l71tF47pcU1@mid.individual.net>
          MissRiaElaine <thisaddressis@invalid.com> wrote:

>Ok, you win, contactless is absolutely wonderful, best thing since 
>sliced bread.

Some sensible points have been made in a sensible and well-mannered
discussion.

> I still don't want it and I refuse to give my custom to 
>any card provider who forces it on me.

Even if you are given a contactless card, no-one can force you to
use it contactless, AIUI.  And I still don't see a significant
risk to any cardholder by just carrying a contactless card around;
do you?  Or have I missed something again?

Dave

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.mobile

csiph-web