Stakeholders by Susan Burns, George R. S. Weir, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK
Although cardholders are usually the focus of concern in matters of card fraud, there
are other stakeholders in the establishment, use and maintenance of smartcards. These
stakeholders are (1) cardholders; (2) merchants; (3) Acquirers; and each of these has
roles, responsibilities and risks in operation of the card system.
Research indicates that we can all do more to defeat criminals, particularly where
basic security measures are involved. Statistics, such as the following [8], are particularly
alarming and highlight the need for cardholders to be aware of the risk and impact
if they fail to protect their PIN number and card details:
• 25% of all UK residents have disclosed their PIN to someone else, exposing them
to heightened risk of fraud and potentially making them liable for any card fraud
losses they may suffer;
• 27% of Britons use the same PIN for all their cards and the average adult has four
cards each;
• 44% of people still allow their cards out of their sight (in restaurants and bars for
example) when settling a bill;
• 51% of online shoppers do not fully appreciate that the start of a website address
changes from ‘http’ to ‘https’ when they enter a website made secure for purchasing.
The key recommendation for cardholders is that they should be security conscious
and take all practical precautions when undertaking a card payment. Cardholder
complacency is still a large factor in card fraud levels. While card issuers are unlikely
to acknowledge vulnerabilities, in order to avoid adverse reputational impacts, increased
cardholder awareness of the risks and impacts associated with known vulnerabilities
in the Chip and PIN system, will ensure that they become less complacent.
The large variety of card terminals makes it difficult for a cardholder to identify
one that has been tampered with, but there are other ways they can notice fraudulent
actions, for example by being familiar with merchant best practices. This would allow
them to raise alarms with other staff members if suspicious behaviour is observed,
e.g., swiping a card prior to inserting it into a card terminal or watching a PIN
being entered. Cardholders should also check their credit card and current account
statements to identify any illicit transactions. One measure to limit exposure for a
debit card linked to a current account is to establish a second account containing a
smaller balance for use in card transactions.
Stakeholders by Susan Burns, George R. S. Weir, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow. The agreements which merchants have with their acquirers spell out the terms under
which they can accept card payments. The terminals supplied by the acquirers determine
floor limits and undertake the Chip and PIN authorisation process. Vulnerabilities
exist when fraudsters have access to terminals and so merchants should seek
to address and improve staff awareness of process vulnerabilities that could lead to
card fraud through training. Staff should be trained in card transaction processes and
be empowered to request additional authorisation via a Code 10 call where they deem
necessary and know how to do this without putting themselves at risk.
Stakeholders by Susan Burns, George R. S. Weir, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow. Merchants must also be alert to the fact that they are a prime target for fraudsters.
Smartcard Scam: Stakeholders – University of Strathclyde and Associates. They have a responsibility to be vigilant and monitor transactions and any suspicious
staff activities. References should be checked when hiring new staff. Systems holding
customer and transaction data must be adequately protected. Any concerns raised
by customers about staff undertaking card transactions should be investigated. Card
present merchants have various ways of reading and processing card details e.g. staff
inserts card, cardholder inserts card or card is swiped and this can make it difficult for
cardholders to know what would constitute a suspicious action by a member of staff.
Acquirer guidelines should be followed to minimise the risk of chargeback for
both card present and CNP transactions. The planned rollout of ‘contactless’ cards in
the UK towards the end of 2007 may introduce further concerns for merchants as only
one in three low value transactions would be flagged for verification by PIN. For a
CNP merchant there are specific challenges as Chip and PIN is not currently an option
for this type of transaction and it is an area where card fraud has risen significantly.
The Address Verification System (AVS) allows retailers to verify the billing address
supplied with that associated with the cardholder and Card Security Code (CSC)
allows retailers to cross check a special security code held on the back of the card.
Card schemes are also introducing positive identification measures such as Verified
by Visa and MasterCard Secure Code to help merchants. Merchants should protect
themselves against chargeback’s by introducing these measures for on-line transactions.
By 30th June 2007, all CNP merchants must have introduced this measure or at
least have a plan in place to do so. Chargeback of disputed transactions is likely for
any non-compliant merchants.
Smartcard Scam: Stakeholders – University of Strathclyde and Associates. The acquirer or merchant acquirer is the bank retained by the retailer to process
payment card transactions on their behalf. Acquirers are responsible for paying the
merchant for the transactions they process. They do this on receipt of card transaction
details from retailers by passing them to the card issuer for authorisation and processing.
Acquirers are also responsible for obtaining transaction authorisation prior to the
delivery of goods and/or services.
The responsibility for maintenance and upgrades to card terminals also lies with
acquirers who risk who must provide clear instructions and guidelines to merchants in
order to minimise instances of card fraud and chargeback. Acquirers are increasingly
using fraud detection software to detect patterns that could be due to fraudulent activity.
This can be helpful in identifying and investigating unusual patterns of transactions.
Thursday 24 March 2011
University of Strathclyde Card ID Theft Warning: Trends in Smartcard fraud scam
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates. The introduction of smartcard technologies has reduced the incidence
of card fraud in the UK, but there are still significant losses from fraudulent
card use. In this paper we detail the context of smartcard introduction and describe
the types of fraud that remain a threat to cardholders and other stakeholders
in the card system. We conclude with a risk analysis from the cardholder’s
perspective and recommend greater cardholder awareness of such
risks.
A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that
nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a
credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital
of Europe’ [1], with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as
other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds
may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN
cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN
verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the
141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic
card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in
2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart
cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
Card ID Theft. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK
Identity theft occurs when a criminal obtains an individual’s personal information and
uses this to open or access card accounts in that individual’s name. A criminal may
use stolen documents such as utility bills and bank statements, or false documents, to
give the necessary documentation to open up a card account. Alternatively, they can
use key bits of personal information to take control of an account, perhaps arranging
for payments to be taken from the card account or by changing account address details
and requesting issue of cheques or a new card.
Likely Trends. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. Wilhelm [7] considered the future of credit and debit card fraud due to the introduction of smart cards and predicted a hybrid period of approximately ten to fifteen yearsduring which magnetic stripe and smart card technology would co-exist. In this period,fraudsters will get creative and exploit technology and social conditioning to devise
attacks on chip technology.
One of the highlighted concerns is allowing the use of the magnetic stripe as a
fallback where a chip fails to function. This permits fraudsters to circumvent a number
of the safeguards provided by smart card technology. This will prevent Chip and
PIN from fully addressing counterfeit card fraud made possible through the theft of
card details in transit or from lost/stolen scenarios. While the report predicts that a
significant reduction in card counterfeiting is likely to occur, it acknowledges that
while magnetic stripes are available, counterfeiting remains a viable option for fraudsters.
The report also highlights that fraudsters will focus their efforts on CNP fraud
and target merchants as a vulnerable link in the process.
of card fraud in the UK, but there are still significant losses from fraudulent
card use. In this paper we detail the context of smartcard introduction and describe
the types of fraud that remain a threat to cardholders and other stakeholders
in the card system. We conclude with a risk analysis from the cardholder’s
perspective and recommend greater cardholder awareness of such
risks.
A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that
nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a
credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital
of Europe’ [1], with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as
other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds
may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN
cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN
verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the
141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic
card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in
2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart
cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
Card ID Theft. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK
Identity theft occurs when a criminal obtains an individual’s personal information and
uses this to open or access card accounts in that individual’s name. A criminal may
use stolen documents such as utility bills and bank statements, or false documents, to
give the necessary documentation to open up a card account. Alternatively, they can
use key bits of personal information to take control of an account, perhaps arranging
for payments to be taken from the card account or by changing account address details
and requesting issue of cheques or a new card.
Likely Trends. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. Wilhelm [7] considered the future of credit and debit card fraud due to the introduction of smart cards and predicted a hybrid period of approximately ten to fifteen yearsduring which magnetic stripe and smart card technology would co-exist. In this period,fraudsters will get creative and exploit technology and social conditioning to devise
attacks on chip technology.
One of the highlighted concerns is allowing the use of the magnetic stripe as a
fallback where a chip fails to function. This permits fraudsters to circumvent a number
of the safeguards provided by smart card technology. This will prevent Chip and
PIN from fully addressing counterfeit card fraud made possible through the theft of
card details in transit or from lost/stolen scenarios. While the report predicts that a
significant reduction in card counterfeiting is likely to occur, it acknowledges that
while magnetic stripes are available, counterfeiting remains a viable option for fraudsters.
The report also highlights that fraudsters will focus their efforts on CNP fraud
and target merchants as a vulnerable link in the process.
Trends in Smartcard Scam Warning: Lost and Stolen Fraud
Susan Burns, George R. S. Weir, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK
A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that
nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a
credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital
of Europe’ , with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as
other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds
may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN
cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN
verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the
141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic
card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in
2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart
cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
Trends in Smartcard Scam, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates: Lost and Stolen Fraud. This type of fraud occurs when a card is lost by the cardholder or is stolen from them. Fraudsters can then use the card to obtain goods and services. Once the cardholder notices their card is gone, they will contact the card issuer but as it can take time to realise the card has gone, most fraud of this type takes place before the card has been reported as lost or stolen.
Levels of this type of fraud have remained static for the past five years but the introduction
of Chip and PIN is expected to reduce this by making it more difficult for
fraudsters to use a lost or stolen card in person at a retail outlet. Prior to Chip and
PIN, the retailer would verify that the signature on the sales voucher matched that
written on the back of the card. The signature strip was signed by the cardholder in
ink and was subject to wear and tear over the lifetime of the card.
University of Strathclyde and Associates - Mail Non-Receipt. This occurs where a card is stolen when it is in transit from the issuing bank or building
society to the cardholder. This is similar to lost and stolen fraud since it takes
time for the cardholder to realise that a card has not arrived. This delay is often compounded
by the fact that cards are often sent out automatically by the issuers rather
than at request of the cardholder, e.g. when a card is nearing its expiry date. Card issuers
have endeavoured to reduce levels of this type of fraud by using secure mail
services and/or requiring the cardholder to phone and activate the card before it can
be used. However, fraudsters could still intercept cards in transit and skim the details
before re-mailing them to the cardholder. Once the cardholder activates the card, the
fraudster can also use the counterfeit card produced using the skimmed details.
Credit card cheques, often sent to cardholders on an unsolicited basis by the card
issuing company, also offer criminals an additional means of obtaining unauthorised
spending against a card account.
Card Not Present, Trends in Smartcard Scam: Lost and Stolen Fraud. This type of fraud covers any card transactions where the cardholder is not physically
present, i.e. those conducted over the internet, telephone, fax and mail order, and is
now the largest type of card fraud in the UK [6]. Fraudsters obtain details of a card,
i.e. cardholder name, card number and the 3 digit security number from the back of
the card, and can use these to pay for goods or services over the internet, phone, fax
or mail order. Companies reliant on Card Not Present (CNP) transactions are unable
to check the physical security features of the card to determine if it is genuine and
cannot rely on signature or PIN authentication. Equally, there is no check that the information
is being provided by the genuine cardholder.
A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that
nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a
credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital
of Europe’ , with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as
other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds
may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN
cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN
verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the
141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic
card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in
2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart
cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
Trends in Smartcard Scam, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates: Lost and Stolen Fraud. This type of fraud occurs when a card is lost by the cardholder or is stolen from them. Fraudsters can then use the card to obtain goods and services. Once the cardholder notices their card is gone, they will contact the card issuer but as it can take time to realise the card has gone, most fraud of this type takes place before the card has been reported as lost or stolen.
Levels of this type of fraud have remained static for the past five years but the introduction
of Chip and PIN is expected to reduce this by making it more difficult for
fraudsters to use a lost or stolen card in person at a retail outlet. Prior to Chip and
PIN, the retailer would verify that the signature on the sales voucher matched that
written on the back of the card. The signature strip was signed by the cardholder in
ink and was subject to wear and tear over the lifetime of the card.
University of Strathclyde and Associates - Mail Non-Receipt. This occurs where a card is stolen when it is in transit from the issuing bank or building
society to the cardholder. This is similar to lost and stolen fraud since it takes
time for the cardholder to realise that a card has not arrived. This delay is often compounded
by the fact that cards are often sent out automatically by the issuers rather
than at request of the cardholder, e.g. when a card is nearing its expiry date. Card issuers
have endeavoured to reduce levels of this type of fraud by using secure mail
services and/or requiring the cardholder to phone and activate the card before it can
be used. However, fraudsters could still intercept cards in transit and skim the details
before re-mailing them to the cardholder. Once the cardholder activates the card, the
fraudster can also use the counterfeit card produced using the skimmed details.
Credit card cheques, often sent to cardholders on an unsolicited basis by the card
issuing company, also offer criminals an additional means of obtaining unauthorised
spending against a card account.
Card Not Present, Trends in Smartcard Scam: Lost and Stolen Fraud. This type of fraud covers any card transactions where the cardholder is not physically
present, i.e. those conducted over the internet, telephone, fax and mail order, and is
now the largest type of card fraud in the UK [6]. Fraudsters obtain details of a card,
i.e. cardholder name, card number and the 3 digit security number from the back of
the card, and can use these to pay for goods or services over the internet, phone, fax
or mail order. Companies reliant on Card Not Present (CNP) transactions are unable
to check the physical security features of the card to determine if it is genuine and
cannot rely on signature or PIN authentication. Equally, there is no check that the information
is being provided by the genuine cardholder.
Thursday 10 March 2011
University of Strathclyde and Associates Types of Card Fraud Scam
A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital of Europe’ [1], with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the 141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in 2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. Types of Card Fraud Scam. The UK Payments Association (APACS) has identified five categories of card fraud: Counterfeit Card Fraud, Skimming, Mail Non Receipt, Lost and Stolen Fraud, Card not Present
Counterfeit Card Fraud Scam. Counterfeit cards are also referred to as cloned cards. Counterfeit cards are made by altering and re-coding validly issued cards or by printing and encoding cards without permission from the card issuing company. Most cases of counterfeit fraud involve skimming of valid card details, a process whereby the genuine card details from the magnetic stripe are electronically copied onto another card, without the legitimate cardholder’s knowledge. In most cases, the cardholder will be unaware that their card details have been skimmed until card statements reveal that illicit transactions have been made on their account.
Skimming. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK - Skimming of card details can happen at retail outlets where a corrupt employee can put a card through a skimming device which will copy data from the card’s magnetic stripe so it can be used to encode a counterfeit card. Skimming can also occur at cash machines where a skimming device has been fitted. A skimming device is attached to the card entry slot where it records the electronic details from the magnetic stripe on the back of the inserted card. A separate pin-hole camera is hidden to overlook the PIN entry pad to record the PIN number. Fraudsters can then produce a counterfeit card for use with the captured PIN to withdraw cash at a cash machine. Criminals can also shoulder surf, whereby they watch the user entering a PIN and then steal the card for their own use. Another type of device can be inserted into a cash machine where it will trap the inserted card. A fraudster can then suggest retrying the PIN. Once the genuine cardholder gives up and leaves to contact the card issuer or cash machine operator, the criminal can then remove device, retrieve the card
and then use it with the PIN details they have observed.
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. Types of Card Fraud Scam. The UK Payments Association (APACS) has identified five categories of card fraud: Counterfeit Card Fraud, Skimming, Mail Non Receipt, Lost and Stolen Fraud, Card not Present
Counterfeit Card Fraud Scam. Counterfeit cards are also referred to as cloned cards. Counterfeit cards are made by altering and re-coding validly issued cards or by printing and encoding cards without permission from the card issuing company. Most cases of counterfeit fraud involve skimming of valid card details, a process whereby the genuine card details from the magnetic stripe are electronically copied onto another card, without the legitimate cardholder’s knowledge. In most cases, the cardholder will be unaware that their card details have been skimmed until card statements reveal that illicit transactions have been made on their account.
Skimming. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde and Associates, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK - Skimming of card details can happen at retail outlets where a corrupt employee can put a card through a skimming device which will copy data from the card’s magnetic stripe so it can be used to encode a counterfeit card. Skimming can also occur at cash machines where a skimming device has been fitted. A skimming device is attached to the card entry slot where it records the electronic details from the magnetic stripe on the back of the inserted card. A separate pin-hole camera is hidden to overlook the PIN entry pad to record the PIN number. Fraudsters can then produce a counterfeit card for use with the captured PIN to withdraw cash at a cash machine. Criminals can also shoulder surf, whereby they watch the user entering a PIN and then steal the card for their own use. Another type of device can be inserted into a cash machine where it will trap the inserted card. A fraudster can then suggest retrying the PIN. Once the genuine cardholder gives up and leaves to contact the card issuer or cash machine operator, the criminal can then remove device, retrieve the card
and then use it with the PIN details they have observed.
Strathclyde University and Associates: Boiler Room Movie Review
The Digital Information Office, Strathclyde University and Associates service for electronic resource management review by Bradley Null: America is the land of opportunity, and now more than ever, the opportunity that most Americans are preoccupied with is that of easy money. Our news media is saturated with stories of the instant millionaire, 25-year-old startup CEOs worth nine figures or the crafty investor that bought that startup on IPO and doesn't have to worry too much about his day job anymore either. There are a number of powerful cautionary tales waiting to be drawn from this unwholesome frenzy. Boiler Room tries to tell one of these stories, but sadly it fails to add much to the greed genre established by its two heavily referenced predecessors: Wall Street (1987) and Glengarry Glen Ross (1992).
Boiler Room is the story of Seth (Ribisi), a 19-year-old college dropout obsessed with the American dream of easy money. After concluding rather quickly that college isn't necessarily the fast track to a quick buck, he opens up an underground casino out of his house in Queens, providing a popular service for the local city college kids. After his disapproving father (Rifkin) finds out about the casino, Seth, feeling a repressed need to gain his father's approval, looks into an opportunity to become a stockbroker at the small firm of J.T. Marlin.
As it turns out, the firm, located in the heart of Long Island, conspicuously far from Wall Street, is a 'chop shop,' shorthand for a brokerage house more interested in pawning off securities for its own interests rather than serving its customers. When Seth's father discovers this, not only does Seth not find the approval he was hoping for, but he is excommunicated from the family.
Though he has only a minor part in the film, Ben Affleck is highlighted in trailers for the film, and the discerning observer will notice a strong similarity between his scene in the trailer, and Alec Baldwin's immortalized portrayal of a real estate shark in Glengarry Glen Ross. In fact, Affleck's big scene draws heavily on Baldwin's, though his performance (and the material he has to work with) does not live up to what is almost universally agreed upon as the best performance of Baldwin's career. This is not the only referencing of David Mamet's portrayal of the dark world of real estate cold-calling in this movie, however. Later in the film, when receiving some instructions on how to cold-call potential customers, Seth is told to remember one of Baldwin's catch phrases from that scene, 'A-B-C. Always Be Closing.' Boiler Room also liberally references, both directly and indirectly, its direct predecessor in the 'greed is good' category of filmmaking. Not only drawing its basic theme and plot structure from Wall Street, Boiler Room also draws its best dialogue during a scene in which a number of young stock brokers sitting in one of their sparely decorated mansions, compete with each other to quote lines from Wall Street, whose antagonist, Gordon Gecko, is obviously regarded as an idol within the group.
As a movie, Boiler Room is moderately entertaining. Vin Diesel in particular, off a strong turn in Saving Private Ryan, turns in another powerful performance as Chris, one of Seth's mentors at J.T. Marlin. Sadly though, Ben Younger, in his writing and directorial debut, adds very little to the filmic pantheon in his own voice. Even the film's most prolific statement on the American obsession with getting rich, 'either you're slinging crack rock or you've got a wicked jump shot,' is a quote of the rap star Notorious B.I.G. The most admirable outcome of this film might be that it leads viewers to check out its two predecessors. I would urge the same as well.
Boiler Room is the story of Seth (Ribisi), a 19-year-old college dropout obsessed with the American dream of easy money. After concluding rather quickly that college isn't necessarily the fast track to a quick buck, he opens up an underground casino out of his house in Queens, providing a popular service for the local city college kids. After his disapproving father (Rifkin) finds out about the casino, Seth, feeling a repressed need to gain his father's approval, looks into an opportunity to become a stockbroker at the small firm of J.T. Marlin.
As it turns out, the firm, located in the heart of Long Island, conspicuously far from Wall Street, is a 'chop shop,' shorthand for a brokerage house more interested in pawning off securities for its own interests rather than serving its customers. When Seth's father discovers this, not only does Seth not find the approval he was hoping for, but he is excommunicated from the family.
Though he has only a minor part in the film, Ben Affleck is highlighted in trailers for the film, and the discerning observer will notice a strong similarity between his scene in the trailer, and Alec Baldwin's immortalized portrayal of a real estate shark in Glengarry Glen Ross. In fact, Affleck's big scene draws heavily on Baldwin's, though his performance (and the material he has to work with) does not live up to what is almost universally agreed upon as the best performance of Baldwin's career. This is not the only referencing of David Mamet's portrayal of the dark world of real estate cold-calling in this movie, however. Later in the film, when receiving some instructions on how to cold-call potential customers, Seth is told to remember one of Baldwin's catch phrases from that scene, 'A-B-C. Always Be Closing.' Boiler Room also liberally references, both directly and indirectly, its direct predecessor in the 'greed is good' category of filmmaking. Not only drawing its basic theme and plot structure from Wall Street, Boiler Room also draws its best dialogue during a scene in which a number of young stock brokers sitting in one of their sparely decorated mansions, compete with each other to quote lines from Wall Street, whose antagonist, Gordon Gecko, is obviously regarded as an idol within the group.
As a movie, Boiler Room is moderately entertaining. Vin Diesel in particular, off a strong turn in Saving Private Ryan, turns in another powerful performance as Chris, one of Seth's mentors at J.T. Marlin. Sadly though, Ben Younger, in his writing and directorial debut, adds very little to the filmic pantheon in his own voice. Even the film's most prolific statement on the American obsession with getting rich, 'either you're slinging crack rock or you've got a wicked jump shot,' is a quote of the rap star Notorious B.I.G. The most admirable outcome of this film might be that it leads viewers to check out its two predecessors. I would urge the same as well.
Trends in Smartcard fraud Warning– Abstract: University of Strathclyde and Associates
Susan Burns, George R. S. Weir, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK {susan.burns, george.weir}@cis.strath.ac.uk
University of Strathclyde and Associates: Abstract. The introduction of smartcard technologies has reduced the incidence of card fraud in the UK, but there are still significant losses from fraudulent card use. In this paper we detail the context of smartcard introduction and describe the types of fraud that remain a threat to cardholders and other stakeholders in the card system. We conclude with a risk analysis from the cardholder’s perspective and recommend greater cardholder awareness of such risks.
University of Strathclyde and Associates: Introduction. A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital of Europe’ [1], with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the 141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in 2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
If the media is to be believed, the UK introduction of Chip and PIN authentication for credit and debit card transactions is flawed and has failed to reduce levels of card fraud across the board. Specific cases highlighting the security implications of smart card based technology have been widely reported, including exploits at Shell petrol stations [4] and Tesco self-service tills.
As cards are a widely accepted international form of payment, fraud can happen virtually anywhere in the world or on the Internet. Cards can be compromised in the UK and then used overseas. Cardwatch research shows that most of the fraud committed abroad on UK cards affects cards that have been compromised in the UK
Although the financial cost of card fraud is largely borne by the banking industry, the cardholder experiences loss of time in taking steps to resolve matters, as well as inconvenience, worry and frustration while a fraudulent incident is investigated. The cardholder’s credit rating can be affected and the whole affair can be a distressing experience.
University of Strathclyde and Associates: Abstract. The introduction of smartcard technologies has reduced the incidence of card fraud in the UK, but there are still significant losses from fraudulent card use. In this paper we detail the context of smartcard introduction and describe the types of fraud that remain a threat to cardholders and other stakeholders in the card system. We conclude with a risk analysis from the cardholder’s perspective and recommend greater cardholder awareness of such risks.
University of Strathclyde and Associates: Introduction. A recent report from the European Security Transport Association (ESTA) found that nearly 20% of the adult population in Great Britain has been targeted as part of a credit or debit card scam. As a result, the UK has been termed the ‘Card Fraud Capital of Europe’ [1], with UK citizens twice as likely to become victims of card fraud as other Europeans. Plastic card fraud is a lucrative exploit for criminals and the proceeds may be used to fund organised crime. Smart payment cards (Chip and PIN cards) were introduced in the UK to replace magnetic stripe cards and support PIN verification of card transactions. By the end of 2005, more than 107 million of the 141.6 million cards in the UK had been upgraded to smart cards [2]. Levels of plastic card fraud fell by 13% to £439.4 million in 2005 [3] and again to £428 million in 2006 (Figure 1). The reduction has been widely attributed to the rollout of smart cards with Chip and PIN authentication.
If the media is to be believed, the UK introduction of Chip and PIN authentication for credit and debit card transactions is flawed and has failed to reduce levels of card fraud across the board. Specific cases highlighting the security implications of smart card based technology have been widely reported, including exploits at Shell petrol stations [4] and Tesco self-service tills.
As cards are a widely accepted international form of payment, fraud can happen virtually anywhere in the world or on the Internet. Cards can be compromised in the UK and then used overseas. Cardwatch research shows that most of the fraud committed abroad on UK cards affects cards that have been compromised in the UK
Although the financial cost of card fraud is largely borne by the banking industry, the cardholder experiences loss of time in taking steps to resolve matters, as well as inconvenience, worry and frustration while a fraudulent incident is investigated. The cardholder’s credit rating can be affected and the whole affair can be a distressing experience.
Strathclyde University and Associates: Boiler Room Movie Review
The Digital Information Office, Strathclyde University and Associates service for electronic resource management review by Bradley Null: America is the land of opportunity, and now more than ever, the opportunity that most Americans are preoccupied with is that of easy money. Our news media is saturated with stories of the instant millionaire, 25-year-old startup CEOs worth nine figures or the crafty investor that bought that startup on IPO and doesn't have to worry too much about his day job anymore either. There are a number of powerful cautionary tales waiting to be drawn from this unwholesome frenzy. Boiler Room tries to tell one of these stories, but sadly it fails to add much to the greed genre established by its two heavily referenced predecessors: Wall Street (1987) and Glengarry Glen Ross (1992).
Boiler Room is the story of Seth (Ribisi), a 19-year-old college dropout obsessed with the American dream of easy money. After concluding rather quickly that college isn't necessarily the fast track to a quick buck, he opens up an underground casino out of his house in Queens, providing a popular service for the local city college kids. After his disapproving father (Rifkin) finds out about the casino, Seth, feeling a repressed need to gain his father's approval, looks into an opportunity to become a stockbroker at the small firm of J.T. Marlin.
As it turns out, the firm, located in the heart of Long Island, conspicuously far from Wall Street, is a 'chop shop,' shorthand for a brokerage house more interested in pawning off securities for its own interests rather than serving its customers. When Seth's father discovers this, not only does Seth not find the approval he was hoping for, but he is excommunicated from the family.
Though he has only a minor part in the film, Ben Affleck is highlighted in trailers for the film, and the discerning observer will notice a strong similarity between his scene in the trailer, and Alec Baldwin's immortalized portrayal of a real estate shark in Glengarry Glen Ross. In fact, Affleck's big scene draws heavily on Baldwin's, though his performance (and the material he has to work with) does not live up to what is almost universally agreed upon as the best performance of Baldwin's career. This is not the only referencing of David Mamet's portrayal of the dark world of real estate cold-calling in this movie, however. Later in the film, when receiving some instructions on how to cold-call potential customers, Seth is told to remember one of Baldwin's catch phrases from that scene, 'A-B-C. Always Be Closing.' Boiler Room also liberally references, both directly and indirectly, its direct predecessor in the 'greed is good' category of filmmaking. Not only drawing its basic theme and plot structure from Wall Street, Boiler Room also draws its best dialogue during a scene in which a number of young stock brokers sitting in one of their sparely decorated mansions, compete with each other to quote lines from Wall Street, whose antagonist, Gordon Gecko, is obviously regarded as an idol within the group.
As a movie, Boiler Room is moderately entertaining. Vin Diesel in particular, off a strong turn in Saving Private Ryan, turns in another powerful performance as Chris, one of Seth's mentors at J.T. Marlin. Sadly though, Ben Younger, in his writing and directorial debut, adds very little to the filmic pantheon in his own voice. Even the film's most prolific statement on the American obsession with getting rich, 'either you're slinging crack rock or you've got a wicked jump shot,' is a quote of the rap star Notorious B.I.G. The most admirable outcome of this film might be that it leads viewers to check out its two predecessors. I would urge the same as well.
Boiler Room is the story of Seth (Ribisi), a 19-year-old college dropout obsessed with the American dream of easy money. After concluding rather quickly that college isn't necessarily the fast track to a quick buck, he opens up an underground casino out of his house in Queens, providing a popular service for the local city college kids. After his disapproving father (Rifkin) finds out about the casino, Seth, feeling a repressed need to gain his father's approval, looks into an opportunity to become a stockbroker at the small firm of J.T. Marlin.
As it turns out, the firm, located in the heart of Long Island, conspicuously far from Wall Street, is a 'chop shop,' shorthand for a brokerage house more interested in pawning off securities for its own interests rather than serving its customers. When Seth's father discovers this, not only does Seth not find the approval he was hoping for, but he is excommunicated from the family.
Though he has only a minor part in the film, Ben Affleck is highlighted in trailers for the film, and the discerning observer will notice a strong similarity between his scene in the trailer, and Alec Baldwin's immortalized portrayal of a real estate shark in Glengarry Glen Ross. In fact, Affleck's big scene draws heavily on Baldwin's, though his performance (and the material he has to work with) does not live up to what is almost universally agreed upon as the best performance of Baldwin's career. This is not the only referencing of David Mamet's portrayal of the dark world of real estate cold-calling in this movie, however. Later in the film, when receiving some instructions on how to cold-call potential customers, Seth is told to remember one of Baldwin's catch phrases from that scene, 'A-B-C. Always Be Closing.' Boiler Room also liberally references, both directly and indirectly, its direct predecessor in the 'greed is good' category of filmmaking. Not only drawing its basic theme and plot structure from Wall Street, Boiler Room also draws its best dialogue during a scene in which a number of young stock brokers sitting in one of their sparely decorated mansions, compete with each other to quote lines from Wall Street, whose antagonist, Gordon Gecko, is obviously regarded as an idol within the group.
As a movie, Boiler Room is moderately entertaining. Vin Diesel in particular, off a strong turn in Saving Private Ryan, turns in another powerful performance as Chris, one of Seth's mentors at J.T. Marlin. Sadly though, Ben Younger, in his writing and directorial debut, adds very little to the filmic pantheon in his own voice. Even the film's most prolific statement on the American obsession with getting rich, 'either you're slinging crack rock or you've got a wicked jump shot,' is a quote of the rap star Notorious B.I.G. The most admirable outcome of this film might be that it leads viewers to check out its two predecessors. I would urge the same as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)