Radio Credit Cards Move Closer 295
pvt_medic writes "CNN.com has an article about research that some major credit card companies (MasterCard and American Express) are putting into creating 'contactless' credit cards. These are similar to the Speedpass that ExxonMobil has been using for six years. What to people think about the prospect of this more widespread use of RFID? Is this something that will only lead to more credit card fraud, or will it provide more secure means of payment?" (The article comes from the Associated Press.)
Well lets see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing like tapping into the cowstomer's (sic) impulse buying, especially in the US.
Well lets see...Moo...ving money. (Score:2, Funny)
I believe that Gateway has a patent on that.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
However, with this radio card, you wouldn't even have to remove the card from your wallet/purse/whatever, so a lot of the effort is removed and therefore you don't have as much time to think about whether you "really need" what you're buying.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the concerns about fraud, the credit card banks addressed this a couple years back by exposing most cardholders to only $50 liability in the event of false chargers, and many cards have taken that down to zero on many accounts.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2, Interesting)
Credit card fraud costs the creditors more money than it costs the consumers. Remember, when you buy something on credit, it's not your money you're spending. It only costs you money when the monthly bill comes. If they are going to make a system for exchanging credit for goods, you better damn well believe it's gonna be as secure as possible.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:5, Insightful)
> it's gonna be as secure as possible
Oh yes, like the wonderfully secure state of credit card use on the Net right now.
It won't be *secure as possible*
Sure, the credit card companies might cover the losses (*might, after you fight*), but there's nothing like seeing a huge charge on your credit card, that you didn't make, and having to go through the hassle of getting it resolved.
Don't blindly think they make things "as secure as possible." That's not the economics of it.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2)
Foul! Your offering to lend me money, and now you wont! Oh no! You bastards!
And unless you complain about fraud either a lot (which makes the CC companies assume its YOU doing the fraud), or its over some amount like $3000, it gets reversed with basicly ze
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, factoring in the time value of money, it's cheaper for me to buy with credit, since I don't have to actually pay for it for 30-50 days.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Informative)
Mods, please, downgrade the parent to over-rated. The AC has no idea what he is talking about. None.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets just hope they get the issues sorted out, so we don't have a scenario where that even though one card was scanned that it picks up the signal from another card and hence charges the wrong one.
I have not played with the technology, but I feel that the onous is always on the technology to prove itself safe. Until then it is hard to assume the customer will be comfortable with it.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well lets see... (Score:5, Informative)
Offhand, I can think of two big ways to screw up the implentation:
Replay attacks - if the challenge is consistent through multiple authentication sessions, an attacker can reuse a hash response from a previous session. The solution is simple; better psuedo-randomness (using the date/time is a pretty poor idea, since an attacker can simply challenge the card with a date in the future and retrieve the needed response).
Poor hashing - if the hash used on the response is reversible, the password is right there for the taking. Solution, use something known to be strong, like blowfish or MD5.
Assuming the makers aren't stupid, they have a cryptographically secure system on-hand. You make an assumption based on a few out-of-context or unrelated cases that all security is useless. This is silly; while I don't have a lot of faith in secure systems as a whole, the flaw is rarely in the cryptography backing them, if it is implemented correctly. The reason for this is obvious; cryptography, and computing complexity, are easily-understood enough that developing mathematical models for security is easy. For example, we know--or rather, we believe very fervently, but cannot prove--that factoring large numbers is very, very difficult. Therefore, we trust RSA when implemented properly. Similarly, we know--or at least believe very strongly--that certain algorithms are very, very difficult to reverse. Therefore, we trust that if a bad guy gets our password file, he can only try to find our passwords via brute-force.
The difficulty of sniffing and cracking the protocol used is probably much greater than that of simply getting a waiter at a restaurant to swipe the cards of customers through a skimmer (traditional cards, that is). And security is really not about absolute security; it's simply about making sure that defeating is is more trouble than it's worth (I believe Bruce Schnieder said this, but I could be mistaken).
That's Narrow-Minded (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, why are you so paranoid about a contactless credit card? Do you eat at restaurants and pay with a credit card? Chances are, if you do, some potentially sleazy waiter has taken your credit card out of your sight for a few minutes. Not only can he copy your card, chances are that he knows what city you live in and can then get your home (think billing) address out of the phone book. On top of that, he can look at what kind of clothes you wear and car you drive and make a guesstimate about your credit line.
Re:That's Narrow-Minded (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, on verified by visa/mastercard authenticode transactions, the merchant is not liable for chargebacks if the card holder says they didn't make the purchase.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:5, Insightful)
I see a great number of redundant posts all throughout stating this same idea.
I think you guys are being more than just a little shortsighted. You read something about a RFID credit card and jump to a horrendous number of conclusions about how this technology will be used. Give it a little thought:
The most likely candidate for a technology to be paired with this is Biometrics. We're all quite familiar with this technology, and its easy to see how it would be coupled with RFID CCs.
But we can come up with something a little less "futuristic". I belong to a tennis club that uses RFID encoded cards for entry in to the building, but they are also used for purchasing food. What happens? You swipe your wallet (containing the card), and the computer in front of the salesperson (yes we have those nowadays) brings up a picture of me and all my personal information. If anything seems fishy, they ask for a signiture.
Now considering that this technology is not going to be immediately implemented, and will not be forced upon the general public, I think we can give at the very least a few more years before it becomes ubiquitous. In that case, use your imagination (I know its hard since tech evolves so quickly) to come up with some solutions to the pedantic and generally trivial questions just like this one that everyone is posing.
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Insightful)
The technology is nothing new, of course. Mobil/Exxon has had this for several years in the form of SpeedPass. I've never used it, however, and
Re:Well lets see... (Score:2, Informative)
A 16 digit number is nothing to memorize, and the expiry date can be pretty easy as well. There's lots of people out there (more so in the mathematics/physics field) that can just look at a number, and a few moments later, be able to write it down.
So really, what's to prevent someone who works at a restaurant who takes your CC and memorizes the number, let alone write it down?
Af far as security for in
Re:Well lets see... (Score:3, Funny)
How safe are they? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How safe are they? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How safe are they? (Score:2, Interesting)
"
In theory, the transaction could be intercepted without a consumer's knowledge by a technologically savvy thief intent on cloning a card. That's because RFID transmissions themselves are not encrypted.
"
But there's also -
"
American Express makes the RFID reader verify the card's authenticity with a "challenge-response" exchange that depends on 128-bit encryption encoded on the chip.
MasterCard says it uses a different security system but would not provide specifics.
"
I don't know
Re:How safe are they? (Score:2)
Rejoice! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Rejoice! (Score:2)
Re:Rejoice! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah I agree... Sure, if he wanted to charge people to walk over his bridge, but past his house? Cummon, people!
Faster than cash? (Score:5, Funny)
I agree. Nothing's more annoying than handing someone $10.15 for a $5.15 bill and watching the other person take out a calculator.
Re:Faster than cash? (Score:2, Interesting)
was in the post office buying stamps last week and a woman was with her daughter. she wanted four 28p stamps and couldn't work out how much to tell her daughter to put in the machine. she had written down 28+28+28+28 on a piece of paper and was adding it up manually...8+8, carry 1, um....
seriously...it made me realise i take some things for granted....
easier to steal cc number (Score:3, Insightful)
Scanners (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Scanners (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, for traditional use, like online, you could use the traditional CC#.
No Problemo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No Problemo (Score:4, Funny)
Scroll to the middle of the page.
Re:No Problemo (Score:2)
My Wallet (Score:4, Funny)
Ben
Re:No Problemo (Score:2)
Re:No Problemo (Score:2)
Bad Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bad Idea (Score:2)
American Express makes the RFID reader verify the card's authenticity with a "challenge-response" exchange that depends on 128-bit encryption encoded on the chip. That strength of encryption is considered safe against "brute force" attacks, in which a hacker tries every possible combination.
MasterCard says it uses a different security system but would not provide specifics.
I don't really think they're that stupid. Presumable there's a secure private key on the card (in
DoS vulnerable ? (Score:2)
Re:DoS vulnerable ? (Score:4, Informative)
The card is usually passive (without an internal battery) and consists of an antenna and an RFID ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit). During operation, the transmitter sends out an electro-magnetic wave to establish a zone of surveillance. When a card enters this zone, the electromagnetic energy from the reader begins to energize the IC in the tag. Once the IC is energized, it goes through an initialization process and begins to broadcast its identity.
So it seems like the cards use induction to get just enough juice from the radio waves to power their internal circuitry. No battery needed.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:2)
As opposed to before, when they just had to bump into you on the subway.
What an age we live in!
PIN (Score:2)
It's not really saving that much time.
But it sure is cool! (for the crooks)
Re:PIN (Score:2)
I use a credit/debit card for everything, I seldom have more than $40 in cash on me. In place of a signature on the back of the card I have always put down "Check ID" To me this is the least that a store can do to reduce the chances that my stollen card might be used to purchase things for the thief. In recent years though I have noticed that many stores now have card swipes that the customer uses as opposed to the clerk. This looks like a time saving thing but really what it does is make
Re:PIN (Score:2)
Checking anything other than the signature on the back of the credit card is usually in violation of the retailer's agreement with the credit card company.
A.
Re:PIN (Score:3, Insightful)
The merchants who really care about the id of their purchasers ask to see my fake id when i use a stolen card anyhow.
Re:PIN (Score:2)
It would save me a lot of time. My wallet is constantly erasing the mag stripes on my cards. I can't wait to ditch them for a contactless card.
Bring'em On! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Bring'em On! (Score:2)
Fast food on me (Score:2)
I walk into Wendy's and buy burgers for the next ten customers. great!!
Oh, and a thief can't steal your "REAL" credit card number, but they can duplicate your RFID, so they never NEED to steal your "REAL" credit card number.
This needs serious work!
RTFA (Score:2)
There is a (sort of) working example (Score:3, Insightful)
At the moment, it can only hold season tickets, so it isn't a great problem if you accidently use it. From next year, you can hold other types of ticket in there as well.
It has some advantages, like being able to recharge it over the phone or online without having to wait for the tickets to arrive through the post.
You can get through the ticket barriers without taking it out your bag, though you have to hold the bag petty close to the sensor.
People don't like it because it allows TFL to trace your travel habits much more than they could before.
In the case of credit cards, I can't see how just holding it close to a sensor could be evidence of your approval of the transaction. You would need some sort of verification process like a signature or a PIN/password.
Widely used in Hong Kong (Score:3, Informative)
A spare radio transmitter... (Score:2)
A good vantage point at the local shopping mall and I'm a rich bastard.
Re:A spare radio transmitter... (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
New Invention (Score:2)
Combination cell phone, EZ-Pass and RFID jammer.
Credit Card Theft? (Score:2)
This seems like a big mess waiting to happen. All it takes is one leak or crack of the secret key and the entire RFID credit card system will come crashing down.
Once the secret key gets out, we'll see thieves with mo
Re:Credit Card Theft? (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the idea is that if both you and the authenticator know the secret password, but you don't want to transmit it, the authenticator sends you some random chunk of data, say message M. You encrypt it using some (presumably one-way) algorithm, using your password as the encryption key to create W. The authenticator also encrypts the same chunk, and, when you send back your W, compares it do his own known-good W. Assuming they match, it means you have the password. The password itself is never sent plaintext.
You seem to be assuming that there is one secret key for the whole system. This would be completely useless, and is obviously not the case. You would need one secret key per person, as I'm sure American Express knows.
The merchant never touches it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there is no way for the customer to control access to the card. My sister recently picked me up at Kennedy airport, and as she was holding the parking fee money out the window, the attendant charged the fee to her EZpass because he was too lazy to look up. There wasn't enough room on the pass so she got hit with a penalty. He wouldn't even look up from his paper when she complained.
So you'll have to keep your card in a metalic wallet, because the lack of physical contact means you can't really control when it's accessed.
It's interesting that I can build a wand and get someone's information off the license in their pocket. Now you could potentially get their credit card number too.
It may be slightly faster, but beyond that I don't see how it's better for the consumer or the business.
The merchant never touches already (Score:2)
Since fraud is a major expenditure for credit card companies, I would guess that they would worry about the fraud implications of this new type of credit card. If they are seriously considering it, they must not believe it will increas
Re:The merchant never touches it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously though, excellent point.
I made a similar point here [slashdot.org] in the article on fake ATMs -- even smartcards (contactless or otherwise) with PK crypto are susceptible to attack by fake-front ATMs unless they present an on-board interface so that the buyer can control the transaction.
Otherwise, the buyer will just see the seller make a "big sucking sound".
Re:The merchant never touches it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Here's a funny link posted to slashdot some time ago: the credit card prank. [zug.com].
I know (Score:2)
Fraud. All you have to do is take a small mobile credit card scanner and keep it in your pocket... walk around in a crouded shopping mall where everyones credit "cards" are in their pockets and see how many you can scan.
Coming soon... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so evil/stupid (Score:2)
Replying to myself... (Score:2)
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Re:Not so evil/stupid (Score:2)
For a thief that's a piece of cake in crowded public areas such as malls, markets, airports, public transportation, etc. except now he doesn't have to gain possession of the physical property, like a wallet, but simply stand in line or pass by closely next to another person. Encryption... that's a different topic.
Speaking of airports, they could install the
prove it (Score:5, Interesting)
It's obvious where the benefit of this is: surreptitious extraction of information and account data. Sit down on a bench with a reader in it, and all your credit card data was just captured. Walk in the door of an establishment and your RFID cards are scanned and the next day you get junk mail.
I feel the same way about "debit cards". These afford the consumer less protection and security than credit cards (which are protected under the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1976) yet this new gimmick was foisted upon consumers offering more convenience. BS.
No thanks. This is not any technology that benefits consumers from any angle I can see.
What if you've got multiple cards? (Score:2)
Exactly how this system is going to magically know which card to use is... beyond me. Of course, MasterCard and Amex don't need to worry about that, because of course you're just going t
Re:What if you've got multiple cards? (Score:2)
Screw Credit (Score:2, Funny)
It's only a matter of time (Score:2)
Anything that I have to carry around in a foil lined wallet to keep it from squealing on me or being charged without my knowledge just isn't worth the few seconds of convenience in my book. When we have to employ some wild weasel jammers on our person to keep the RFID tags in our clothes
Re:It's only a matter of time (Score:2)
security concept (Score:4, Interesting)
So here's a concept. When you make a purchase using the RFID credit card, these steps happen:
1. the cash register sends a HELO type signal
2. the credit card responds and requests an encryption key
3. the cash register randomly generates an asymmetric encryption key valid for that transaction only, and send the 'public' portion of the key to the credit card
4. the credit card encrypts the transaction information using the 'public' key it received and send it to the cash register
5. the cash register uses the 'private' key to decrypt the information and process the transaction.
This way, the only information being transmitted is either encrypted, or a public key which isn't useful in decrypting the information.
The other concern I can think of off the top of my head would be people carrying devices that could fake a transaction -- so a thief would just be walking behind somebody, making a transaction through a device in their pocket, and walk away without a trace. Not sure about this one, though the first step would be high security on the transaction protocol.
Re:security concept (Score:2)
The article mentions that range is the primary protection against my second concern, but I find it conceivable that a significant power boost could bridge that....
<humerous anecdote>
I used to work in a building that required those proximity RFID security cards for entrace. They must have had the power cranked up plenty thou
Re:security concept (Score:3, Informative)
Asking an RFID tag to encrypt something is like asking a new born baby to do calculus. You can't ask a device which has no battery of its own to compute something.
What does having a battery have to do with it? They're powered by the reader.
Both contact and contactless smart cards (which are not the same as RFIDs, although the difference is one of complexity rather than technology) do have the capability to perform cryptographic operations, both symmetric and asymmetric, and with sufficiently large key
Pick Pockets (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably based on ISO 14443 Secure RFID spec (Score:3, Informative)
It uses challenge-response encryption so it is very resistant to "man in the middle" attacks and snooping. Operates on a near-field magnetic-load method of communication.
This means that the main transmitter senses changes in the energy load as a method communication. The RFID tag just gets its power from the magnetic carrier and changes the magnetic load to communicate. This makes it more difficult to snoop than RF because the energy and communication transfer is bound into a closed loop.
One other point, magnetic load technology has a range that is proportional to the antenna. A 18 centimeter antenna has a range of 18 centimenters if it is built correctly. With a fundamental frequency of 13.56Mhz, the theoretical maximum range is 3 meters (16% of wavelength is the maximum range for the near field). This means that you would need a 3 meter (~10 foot) antenna to reach ten feet. People would tend to notice this.
Just some info.
The Raw Facts... (Score:5, Insightful)
This could be secure if..... (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Charge Theft: the thief charges your card by bringing a payment terminal near you. This depends on the security of the payment terminals. If the credit card processing system authenticates the terminal, then it would be hard for the thief to use the terminal to get the money. Even if the thief steals a terminal, the only thing that would happen is that the money would go to the retailer where the thief obtained the payment terminal. The real threat comes from a home-made or modded terminal. But this approach also requires a break in to the credit card processor to hack a record for the hacked terminal to ensure that charges to that terminal goes to a destination of the thief's choosing.
2. Card Theft: the thief remotely steals a person's card. This seems highly unlikely. The card would need to provide enough data in a reasonable number of monitored transactions to enable the thief to deduce how the card would respond to any future transaction. I would assume that the system would use a highly encrypted challenge-response system that would make it hard to reverse engineer the parameters for the response from a reasonable number of data points. But if someone hacks or steals the algorithm that is used to create the cards, then all bets are off.
It seems like the system could be secure if the encryption is sufficiently good and the data terminals are well controlled.
Only more stupidity (Score:2)
Now we're talking about radio credit cards? What is the point? The cashier is only going to ask to see it as well, the only thing it might hope to help is we
Re:Only more stupidity (Score:2)
"The card companies say the system is much faster and safer because the card never leaves a customer's hand."
Dumb.
Re:Only more stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
ATM Fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
Fine, except given that some thieves have gone as far as to obtain a legitimate ATM machine to steal ATM card/PIN numbers, how much more difficult would it be to obtain an RFID credit card reader? Whatever public keys or key database a scanner needs would be taken care of, as it would all be purchased/leased for a seeminly legal purpose. At this point it would be trivial to plant the reader in a location that people tend to walk by, and unless there's some kind of PIN verification, you've got all you need.
Thus, the user doesn't even have to knowingly make a transaction as with the ATM scams.
If there's PIN verification, an on/off switch, or a lead protective storage pouch... then we're in the same place we're at now; but if all it takes is the user to click "OK" on the scanner, then obviously there's no security there (only against accidental scans at a legitimate establishment).
Any thoughs?
2066 (Score:2, Funny)
Things that consumers should avoid (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's a sampling of examples of things I'm talking about that consumers should avoid:
* RFID
Tremendous security & exploitation potential; virtually no discernable advantage to using this technology. Corporate interests claim the adoption of RFID will help reduce costs and curtail shoplifting and fraud. There is no real evidence to support this and consumers should be suspicious of this technology.
* Debit and ATM cards
Tremendous security and fraud potential. Not covered under many existing laws regarding credit card fraud. Regular credit cards are much more useful as the consumer shifts the burden to the merchant to prove a transaction was valid before paying for anything unauthorized (generally speaking but some banks have similar "consumer protections" they *claim* but credit card fraud protection is covered by Federal law). With debit cards, you lose and the burden is on you to prove the transaction is illegitimate. These are gimmicks designed to make money for the credit companies and give consumers less fraud protection. All the hype about identity and credit card theft is blown out of proportion and further used to scare consumers into, ironically, using technology that actually is less secure.
* Rebates
Misleading advertising; basically a tax on laziness. People should avoid purchasing anything that offers a rebate unless it's instant at the POS.
* Considated utility services
It's really bad to have multiple cards from the same bank, or use a single company for internet, cable and local phone service. The first time there is a billing snafu, every single one of your credit cards will be declined (if they're from the same bank - Citicorp loves to do that shit) or you lose phone, internet and cable TV if you're foolish enough to use one company for all these things.
In addition to that, there's the huge security and privacy issue of having one large company handle so many of your essential financial services and utilities. It's much more likely the information will be used against you than to enhance the quality/convenience of your life, so don't buy into the hype these companies spew about the "all on one bill convenience" they offer if you use one company for multiple services.
Security.. bah. (Score:3, Insightful)
- If reasonable proof can't be shown that I personally authorized a transaction, I will not be held responsible for it.
That's it. That's all. The line of credit is between me and the issuer... the card is simply a token that represents that. Historically, you had to be there in PERSON to use one.. but everyone looks the other way for convenience, online work, etc.
I don't care what method visa or whoever comes up with to represent that token. If it's less convenient for me, I won't use it. If it somehow rips me off, I won't use it. If it makes me more liable for fraud, I won't use it. If they take all the risks, I don't care if it's a smart card or a credit card or a proximity card.
Now.. that said.. having proximity cards / RFID type cards does bother me.. it seems like a bad move. It doesn't give ME, the customer, anything I really want. So.. it simply won't fly.
I won't have my credit card dictated to me.. its' not about the card, it's about the agreement... and about credit.
Bad deal (Score:4, Interesting)
How is having some bits in a RFID chip any stronger security-wise than having bits on a magnetic stripe?
There is no consumer benefit to this. The only one who benefits is the company making the sale because it makes things easier to buy. That's just what we need. As if things werent' easy enough to buy already.
The only POSSIBLE benefit I can see to this for a consumer is it sounds more durable; no stripe to get worn down.
this would actually be easy to make secure (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't we just put a button on the little RFID dongle you would put on your keychain? Answer: we can. And this is what the CC companies should do. I know, speedpass doesn't implement it. But it would be very, very simple to do and go a long way toward easing my fears about this. I'm envisioning something similar to a Photon light.
Even better, why not pair it with an always-on RFID in your wallet, and only allow transactions when both are present? This'd prevent simple theft by valets, pursesnatchers, etc.
The first card (Score:2)
In Store Sensors (Score:3, Insightful)
Or once we have tagged currency, they can see if you can even afford to be in the store or not..
And provide records to the government, ' ya he was in our store at such-and-such a time date'
I wish you people would read the article first... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, the thief would have to get quite close to his target or have a very sensitive reader.
Hmmm. Build a powerful RFID reader and walk through a large crowd of people collecting RFID numbers. Warwalking!
Also, the account number on the contactless cards is useful only in the RFID system -- it's not the same as a user's credit card number. A crook would thus not be able to use the card number to go on a fraudulent Internet shopping spree, for example.
But you could use it in person - build a RFID transmitter. After, the key fob never has to leave your pocket - how does the clerk know if it's real or the PDA-sized RIFD cloner in your pocket.
American Express makes the RFID reader verify the card's authenticity with a "challenge-response" exchange that depends on 128-bit encryption encoded on the chip. That strength of encryption is considered safe against "brute force" attacks, in which a hacker tries every possible combination.
It's good to know that some people have a clue in designing a secure system.
MasterCard says it uses a different security system but would not provide specifics.
I'll reserve judgment.
RFID = symptom of the real problem (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also starting to intimidate dissidents.
If we could trust the government and corporations (yeah right) RFID would be no problem at all.
Since we can't, attacking RFID and other intrusive surveillance technologies is only applying a bandage to a gangrenous wound.
Hijacked Redirector (Score:2)
you can find a good review of the pros/cons here.
This AC hijacked my redirector for a goatse.cx link. Sorry.
Based on the time of the posting, this individual has a subscription and lives in Vermont. Check it out:
max4-190.greenmountainaccess.net - - [13/Dec/2003:18:13:42 -0500] "GET /iis HTTP/1.1" 301 325 "http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/13/1 213221&mode=nested&tid=137&threshold=- 1" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)"
max4-190.greenmountainac
Re:What if... (Score:2)
As villians are so fond of saying in movies: "We have ways of making you talk."
Of course, by talk they also mean authorize credit transactions. Money isn't that important, if some asshat wants you to buy him X so he doesn't shot you with the gun in your back, I'd suggest buying him X, and then calling your bank when he's off playing with it.