Aug 09 2010

Identity theft: How to protect your kids

Category: Identity TheftDISC @ 10:34 am
identity theft
Image by TheTruthAbout… via Flickr

Stopping Identity Theft: 10 Easy Steps to Security

Identity theft that targets children is rising. Here are five steps to protect your family

By Alissa Figueroa

Identity theft has grown into a multibillion-dollar problem. And it’s not only adults who are targeted.

At least 7 percent of the reported cases of identity theft target children. The number could actually be much higher, since many families don’t discover theft until a child applies for credit.

And the problem is likely to get worse before it gets better, the Associated Press reports, as identity thieves steal children’s dormant Social Security numbers and use them to create phony lines of credit and rack up debt, sometimes for years.

The scam, which has popped up only in the last year, is difficult to guard against, says Linda Foley, cofounder of the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC), an organization that offers counseling and resources to identity theft victims. The ITRC has seen a notable jump in the number of children identity-theft cases in the last year, reaching about 9 percent of its caseload this month.

“There’s no way to protect your child completely,” says Ms. Foley. That’s partly because these thieves are likely using sophisticated programs that mine for dormant numbers through school or doctor’s offices databases, which often require that children’s Social Security numbers be provided. And partly because tactics for selling the numbers are constantly evolving, making this kind of theft difficult to track.

Since credit issuers do not keep track of the age of Social Security number holders, they cannot alert families when a child’s number is being used. That’s something Foley’s organization has been trying to change since 2005, and a protection she considers vital for preventing child identity theft on a large scale.

There is some advice that parents can follow, though, to reduce the risk of identity theft:

1. Be cautious with your child’s Social Security number. Always ask why an organization needs the number and when possible, do not give it out. Be careful about which individuals, even friends and family, have access to your child’s number. Many identity thieves know their victims. Destroy extra documents that list your child’s number.

2. Talk to your kids about identity theft. Teach children not to divulge their personal information on the telephone and online.

3. Do not check your child’s credit report unless you have reason to believe there’s a problem. A minor should not have a report unless someone has applied for credit using that child’s Social Security number. To order reports unnecessarily can establish a credit report, opening a door to thieves, according to the ITRC.

4. Watch for red flags. If you receive pre-approved credit card offers or calls from collection agencies, run a credit report on your child immediately to see if there has been fraud.

5. Contact an identity theft specialist if you suspect a problem. There are several resources for families concerned with issues of identity theft. Visit the ITRC’s website for facts and information, or call its hotline at (888) 400-5530. You can also find information on the Federal Trade Commission’s identity-theft-prevention website.

Tags: Credit card, crime, Federal Trade Commission, Identity Theft, ITRC, Linda Foley, Social Security number, Theft


Jul 10 2010

FTC Says Scammers Stole Millions, Using Virtual Companies

Category: CybercrimeDISC @ 11:23 pm
Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

100% Internet Credit Card Fraud Protected

by Robert McMillan
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has disrupted a long-running online scam that allowed offshore fraudsters to steal millions of dollars from U.S. consumers — often by taking just pennies at a time.

The scam, which had been run for about four years, according to the FTC, provides a case lesson in how many of the online services used to lubricate business in the 21st century can equally be misused for fraud.

“It was a very patient scam,” said Steve Wernikoff, a staff attorney with the FTC who is prosecuting the case. “The people who are behind this are very meticulous.”

The FTC has not identified those responsible for the fraud, but in March, it quietly filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Illinois. This has frozen the gang’s U.S. assets and also allowed the FTC to shut down merchant accounts and 14 “money mules” — U.S. residents recruited by the criminals to move money offshore to countries such as Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Estonia.

“We’re going to aggressively seek to identify the ultimate masterminds behind this scheme,” Wernikoff said. According to him, the scammers found loopholes in the credit card processing system that allowed them to set up fake U.S. companies that then ran more than a million phony credit card transactions through legitimate credit card processing companies.

Wernikoff doesn’t know where the scammers obtained the credit card numbers they charged, but they could have been purchased from online carder forums, black market Web sites where criminal buy and sell stolen information.

Small Thefts Overlooked

The scammers stayed under the radar by charging very small amounts — typically between $0.25 and $9 per card — and by setting up more than 100 bogus companies to process the transactions.

U.S. consumers footed most of the bill for the scam because, amazingly, about 94 percent of all charges went uncontested by the victims. According to the FTC, the fraudsters charged 1.35 million credit cards a total of $9.5 million, but only 78,724 of these fake charges were ever noticed. Typically they floated just one charge per card number, billing on behalf of made-up business names such as Adele Services or Bartelca LLC.

As credit cards are increasingly being used for inexpensive purchases — they’re now accepted by soda machines and parking meters — criminals have cashed in on the trend by running this type of unauthorized charging scam.

“They know that most of the fraud detection systems won’t detect anything under $10 and they know that consumers won’t complain about a 20 cent fee,” said Avivah Litan, an analyst with the Gartner research firm who follows bank fraud. “What’s different here is the scale, and that they got away with it for so many years,” she said.

Similar Cases Show Trend

In March Alexsandr Bernik of Roseville, California, was sentenced to 70 months in prison for running a similar scam. He put tens of thousands of charges on Amex accounts, each ranging from $9 to $15. Neither federal authorities nor American Express would explain how Bernik obtained his card numbers.

Bernik made his charges on behalf of a fictional corporation called Lexbay Ltd., but in the FTC case, the scammers would mimic legitimate companies — taking real federal tax I.D. numbers and then setting up fake businesses with nearly identical names that appeared to be located nearby. In a move that apparently tricked credit card processors into granting it a merchant account, Adele Services, for example, was set up to mimic a legitimate Bronx, New York group called Adele Organization.

When the scammers tried to register merchant accounts with credit card processors, the processors would do some investigating, but using tricks like these, the scammers were always one step ahead.

In fact, the FTC’s description of their operation reads like a textbook on how to set up a fake virtual corporation in the Internet age.

The criminals used a range of legitimate business services to make it appear to credit card processors as though they were legitimate U.S. companies, even though the scammers may have never set foot in the U.S.

For example, using a company called Regus, they were able to give their fictional companies addresses that were very close to the companies whose tax IDs they were stealing. Regus lets companies operate “virtual offices” out of a number of prestigious addresses throughout the U.S. — the Chrysler Building in New York for example — forwarding mail for as little as US$59 per month.

Mail sent to Regus locations was then forwarded to another company, called Earth Class Mail, which scans correspondence and uses the Internet to deliver it to customers in pdf format.

They used another legitimate virtual business service — United World Telecom’s CallMe800 — to have phone calls forwarded overseas. To further make it seem as though their companies were legitimate, the scammers would set up fake retail Web sites. And when credit card processors asked them to provide information about company executives, they handed over legitimate names and social security numbers, stolen from ID theft victims.

When they had to log into payment processor Web sites, they would do this from IP addresses that were located near their virtual offices, again evading payment processor fraud detection services.

One of the largest payment processors in the U.S., First Data, was a favorite of the scammers. Of the 116 fake merchant accounts the FTC uncovered, 110 were with First Data. The scammers also set up bogus accounts with Elavon and BBVA Compass.

First Data would not comment on the measures it had taken to improve its merchant vetting process, but the company did confirm that it cooperated with the FTC investigation.

Aided by ‘Mules’

To get the money out of the U.S., the scammers had to recruit money mules. These were U.S. residents who were recruited online, often with spam e-mail messages. Under the impression that they were helping offshore businesses, the money mules set up bank accounts and helped the fraudsters move money offshore.

In a letter to the judge presiding over the case, one of the mules, James P. Smith of Brownwood, Texas, says he worked for one of the scammers for four years without realizing that anything illegal was going on. Smith now says he is “ashamed” to be named in the FTC action, and offers to help catch his former boss, who used the name Alex Moore.

The FTC’s Wernikoff believes that whoever is responsible for this crime lives outside of the U.S., but with the money-cashing operation now busted up, the scammers will have to start again from scratch, if they want to keep bilking consumers. And criminal investigators now have a trail to follow.

“Does it prevent the people from ultimately responsible from building up again from scratch?” he asked. “No. But we do hope that this serously disrupts them.”.

Tags: American Express, Business, Credit card, Federal Trade Commission, First Data, fraud, FTC, United States


Apr 02 2010

Man sentenced for hacking restaurant card data

Category: Information Security,pci dssDISC @ 1:47 pm

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

By Alan J. Liddle

WASHINGTON (April 1, 2010) Albert Gonzalez, the mastermind of payment card data thefts from Boston Market and Dave & Buster’s and a participant in the hack of a credit transaction processor serving thousands of restaurants, has been sentenced to two 20-year prison terms, the U.S. Justice Department said.

In a separate development, the Federal Trade Commission said late last week that one of the companies targeted by Gonzalez’s ring — Dallas-based Dave & Buster’s Inc. — will be subject to closer scrutiny for 20 years. That is the length of time that conditions laid down by the federal agency must be met by Dave & Buster’s following its agreement to settle FTC charges that the casual-dining chain had “left consumers’ credit and debit card information vulnerable to hackers, resulting in several hundred thousand dollars in fraudulent charges.”

April Spearman, vice president of marketing for 55-unit Dave & Buster’s, said the company had no comment about Gonzalez’s sentencing or its settlement with the FTC. However she reiterated the company’s earlier statements that it had acted immediately after being alerted to the possibility of data theft at 11 of its restaurants in 2007 and had “worked closely with both the Secret Service and Department of Justice and assisted them in their investigations.”

Dave & Buster’s has said that after learning of the data network breach, it retained outside security experts and deployed additional measures to prevent similar thefts going forward.

In a March 26 filing with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Dave & Buster’s said, “The order does not require [Dave & Buster’s] to pay any fines or other monetary assessments and the registrant does not believe that the terms of the order will have a material adverse effect on its business, operations, or financial performance.”

Requests for comment about Gonzalez’s sentencing by Golden, Colo.-based Boston Market were unanswered as of press time.

Gonzalez, 28, was sentenced March 25 in U.S. District Court in Boston to 20 years in prison for two cases involving conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, according to the Justice Department. Those charges stemmed from data network intrusions at numerous companies, including 520-unit Boston Market, Dave & Buster’s, the TJX Cos., OfficeMax and Barnes & Noble. Those virtual break-ins were carried out by what federal officials characterized as the “largest hacking and identity theft ring ever prosecuted by the U.S. government.”

To read more @ nrn.com

Tags: Albert Gonzalez, Dave & Buster, debit card, Federal Trade Commission, Identity Theft, U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, United States, United States district court


Mar 31 2010

Debit Card Fraud: Is Your Money at Risk?

Category: Information Security,pci dssDISC @ 2:12 am


by Amy Fontinelle @ investopedia.com

Debit card fraud occurs when a criminal gains access to your debit card number and, in some cases, PIN, to make unauthorized purchases and/or withdraw cash from your account. There are many different methods of obtaining your information, from unscrupulous employees to hackers gaining access to your data from a retailer’s unsecure computer.

When your debit card is used fraudulently, the money is missing from your account instantly. Payments you’ve scheduled or checks you’ve mailed may bounce; you may not be able to afford necessities, and it can take awhile for the fraud to be cleared up and the money restored to your account.

How to Detect Debit Card Fraud

Fortunately, it doesn’t take any special skills to detect debit card fraud. The easiest way to spot problems early is to sign up for online banking, if you haven’t already. Check your balance and recent transactions daily. The sooner you detect fraud, the easier it will be to limit its impact on your finances and your life. If you see unfamiliar transactions, call the bank right away. If you’re the forgetful type, start hanging on to the receipts from your debit card transactions so you can compare these against your online transactions.

If you don’t want to bank online, you can keep tabs on your recent transactions via phone banking. In the very least, you should review your monthly bank statement as soon as you receive them, and check your account balance whenever you visit an ATM or bank teller. However, it can take much longer to detect fraud using these methods.

9 Easy Ways to Protect Yourself

While you may not have any control over hackers and other thieves, there are many things you can control that will help you avoid becoming a victim.

• Get banking alerts. In addition to checking your balance and recent transactions online daily, you can sign up for banking alerts. Your bank will then contact you by email or text message when certain activity occurs on your account, such as a withdrawal exceeding an amount you specify or a change of address.

• Go paperless. Signing up for paperless bank statements will eliminate the possibility of having bank account information stolen from your mailbox. Shredding existing bank statements and debit card receipts using a diamond-cut shredder when you’re done with them will greatly reduce the possibility of having bank account information stolen from your trash.

• Don’t make purchases with your debit card. Use a credit card instead, because it offers greater protection against fraud. If you do make debit card purchases, don’t use your PIN – tell the cashier to select the credit option. The money for your purchase will still be withdrawn from your account right away, but you won’t expose yourself to PIN theft.

• Stick to bank ATMs. They tend to have better security (video cameras) than ATMs at convenience stores, restaurants and other places.

• Destroy old debit cards. Some shredders will take care of this for you.

• Don’t keep all your money in one place. If your checking account is compromised, you want to be able to access cash from another source to pay for necessities and meet your financial obligations.

• Beware of phishing scams. When checking your email or doing business online, make sure you know who you’re interacting with.

• Protect your computer. Use firewall, anti-virus and anti-spyware software on your computer, and keep it updated regularly.

• Use a secured network. Don’t do financial transactions online, when using your computer in a public place and/or over an unsecured network.

What to Do If It Happens to You

If you learn that your debit card information has been compromised, contact your bank immediately to limit the damage the thief can do, and limit your financial responsibility for the fraud. Make contact immediately by phone, and follow up with a detailed letter stating the full name of the bank employee you spoke with, details of the fraudulent transactions, and any ideas you have about how your account may have been compromised. Ask your bank to waive any NSF fees that may be incurred because of the fraud, and to restore the fraudulently withdrawn funds to your account.

Hopefully, you won’t have any trouble resolving the issue directly with your bank, but if you do, you can contact a legitimate consumer advocacy group such as Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. There are also government organizations to contact if your bank isn’t cooperating. The agency to contact depends on the type of bank you use.

• The Federal Reserve Board of Governors handles complaints for state-chartered Federal Reserve System banks, bank holding companies and branches of foreign banks.
• The FDIC deals with state-chartered, non-FRS banks.
• The National Credit Union Association handles federally chartered credit unions.
• The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) oversees national banks.
• The Office of Thrift Supervision keeps an eye on federal savings and loans and federal savings banks.
• The Federal Trade Commission handles everything else.

If you’re not sure which one to call, start with the OCC.

If you will have trouble making any of your monthly payments because of the fraud, contact those creditors, explain the situation and ask if they can do anything for you. This step is extremely important, as failure to do so implies your unwillingness to pay them. However, if they know about your hardship, they may be willing to work with you to reschedule payments.

Conclusion

Anything you can do to make a thief’s work more difficult, whether it’s staying on top of your balance, spreading your cash out across multiple accounts or making purchases with credit cards instead of debit, will help safeguard your checking account and decrease your chances of becoming a victim of debit card fraud

Tags: ATM, debit card, debit card fraud, Federal Trade Commission, OCC, PIN theft


Mar 10 2010

Anti-fraud service bamboozle consumers

Category: Identity TheftDISC @ 1:42 am

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

by Edward Wyatt
provided by – NYTimes.com

Lifelock, the company that brazenly broadcast its chief executive’s Social Security number as part of its claim that it could protect anyone against identity theft, agreed on Tuesday to pay $12 million to settle charges that it misled consumers about the effectiveness of its service.

The settlement, announced by the Federal Trade Commission and a group of 35 state attorneys general, requires Lifelock to refrain from making further deceptive claims and take more stringent measures to safeguard the personal information that it collects from customers.

Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the trade commission, said that “several hundred persons, at least,” who were Lifelock customers had become victims of identity fraud while using the company’s services. Customers typically paid $10 a month for the services, he said.

The commission also claimed that the “fraud alerts” Lifelock placed on individuals’ credit files protected only against certain types of identity theft, mainly the opening of new accounts, which is the cause of fewer than 1 in 5 cases of identity theft.

Lifelock’s customers were left vulnerable to having their current accounts misused, the most common form of the crime. About eight million Americans have their identity used illegally each year, the officials said.

“This was a fairly egregious case of deceptive advertising from our perspective,” Mr. Leibowitz said.

In an interview, Todd Davis, the Lifelock chief executive, said that the company had adopted a new advertising campaign that complied with the trade commission’s request. “We have differing views on what the intent of the message was” of the earlier ads, Mr. Davis said, adding that he believed the commission’s actions “set a standard for the entire industry to follow.”

Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, who joined Mr. Leibowitz in announcing the action at a news conference in Chicago, said that while Lifelock did provide some legitimate services, “most of what they did, you can do on your own and you can do it free.”

The biggest problem with the company’s claims, she said, was its guarantee to prevent identity theft from ever happening. “There is nothing you can do or you can purchase that is a 100 percent guarantee against identity theft,” Ms. Madigan said.

Mr. Davis knows the truth of that. After he began broadcasting his Social Security number, dozens of attempts were made to secure credit or identification using the information. At least one attempt succeeded, when a man in Texas secured a $500 payday loan using Mr. Davis’s Social Security number.

Tags: Attorney general, Federal Trade Commission, Identity Theft, Jon Leibowitz, LifeLock, Lisa Madigan, Social Security number, Todd Davis


Oct 26 2009

ChoicePoint fined for security breach

Category: Security BreachDISC @ 1:10 pm

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...
Image via Wikipedia

Into The Breach; Protect Your Business by Managing People,

Atlanta Business Chronicle reported on Monday, October 26, 2009 that ChoicePoint Inc. will pay federal regulators $275,000 for a data breach in 2008 that compromised the personal information of 13,750 people and put them at risk of identify theft, the Federal Trade Commission reported.

The company, now owned by Reed Elsevier Inc., also agreed to strengthened data security requirements. ChoicePoint now must report to the FTC every two months for two years detailed information about how it is protecting the breached database and certain other databases and records containing personal information.

The moves settle Federal Trade Commission charges ChoicePoint failed to implement a comprehensive information security program protecting consumers’ sensitive information, as required by a previous court order.

In April 2008, ChoicePoint turned off a key electronic security tool used to monitor access to one of its databases, and for four months failed to detect that the security tool was off, according to the FTC. During that period, an unknown person conducted unauthorized searches of a ChoicePoint database containing sensitive consumer information, including Social Security numbers. The searches continued for 30 days. After discovering the breach, the company brought the matter to the FTC’s attention.

The FTC alleged that if the security software tool had been working, ChoicePoint likely would have detected the intrusions much earlier and minimized the extent of the breach. The FTC also claimed ChoicePoint’s conduct violated a 2006 court order mandating that the company institute a comprehensive information security program reasonably designed to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information.

The FTC’s prior action against ChoicePoint involved a data breach in 2005, which compromised the personal information of more than 163,000 consumers and resulted in at least 800 cases of identity theft. The settlement and resulting 2006 court order in that case required the company to pay $10 million in civil penalties and $5 million in consumer redress.

Choice Point Victim
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90qWVtAuE_A

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: ChoicePoint, Choicepoint breach, ChoicePoint fined, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Identity Theft, Reed Elsevier, Security Breach, social security, Social Security number