Timeline for MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28, 2018 at 7:51 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 1, 2017 at 11:54 | vote | accept | Tari | ||
| May 31, 2017 at 21:05 | answer | added | Harper - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 31, 2017 at 18:42 | comment | added | Joe | @Mehrdad PII (personally identifiable information) does not have to be secret in any sense. Your name, your birthday, even your age is PII because it can be used, in combination with other elements, to specifically identify a person. Disclosure of PII is protected by law in many jurisdictions, even when it is not private per se. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 11:17 | comment | added | user541686 | @Tari: If by "private information" you mean "information I was supposed to keep secret [i.e. information that was not supposed to be public]" (which seems to be what you're saying) rather than "information whose revelation can result in an invasion of my privacy [i.e. hindering my ability to live a secluded life]" (which I understood originally) then the clear answer is "this information is no longer secret and so your responsibility to hold it secret has already ended". And I'm ignoring the legal terms because I don't know what they are and I'm talking about the concepts, not legalese. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 11:08 | comment | added | Tari | @Mehrdad I never even wrote that my "privacy" was violated. I wrote that my private information was leaked. MasterCard claims that they can't disclose the leak due to "privacy reasons" (an other translation would be "data protection reasons") Also we may have a different understanding of what privacy or PPI means due to translation issues and cultural differences. In Germany the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz - which can be translated either as Privacy Act or Data Protection Act - does in fact protect the individual .. regarding the use of his personally identifiable information. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 10:55 | answer | added | Tari | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 31, 2017 at 10:51 | comment | added | user541686 | @Tari: ...it says "Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively." You could argue, say, your right to live a secluded life would be violated if someone was able to charge you for fraudulent purchases, but that clearly can't happen here. And once a credit card number is voided, it no longer belongs to you and cannot affect you. The only possible argument I see here is someone trying to correlate it with other databases later, but good luck trying to prove that as a real threat in court. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 10:47 | comment | added | user541686 | @Tari: I used to feel the same way as you, until I realized I was wrong. First, when your CC is charged, that's the company getting charged, not you. You only get charged (/billed) by the CC company for authorized purchases; clearly they know this wasn't the case here. So clearly you can't get charged here. Second, private information and personal information are pretty different things, and PII is a legal term not really fully encompassing either. You were arguing your "privacy" was violated here. You might be right, but I don't see how. Read the first sentence on "Privacy" on Wikipedia... | |
| May 31, 2017 at 10:16 | comment | added | Tari | @HenningMakholm I agree that the cover-up argument is real (was referring to compromising the criminal investigation being theoretical). However, you can also easily turn that around the argument: If there was no quiet way to handle breaches, merchants had more incentive to prevent breaches. | |
| S May 31, 2017 at 10:02 | history | suggested | psmears | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improve wording and grammar
|
| May 31, 2017 at 9:59 | comment | added | Tari | @Mehrdad, The CC# is absolutely my private information, or to be more precise personally identifiable information (PII) that identifies me. Yes my name is also PII. Also I get charged in the first place. That is not affected by limited liability. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 9:52 | comment | added | hmakholm left over Monica | @Tari: The idea that transparency would make merchants (and/or their payment processors) more motivated to cover up breaches rather than alerting the networks may strictly speaking be hypothetical, but it is a so obvious speculation that there seems to be little point in gambling with everybody's security by testing it out in practice. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 9:34 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 31, 2017 at 10:02 | |||||
| May 31, 2017 at 7:54 | comment | added | Tari | @TTT / asgallant: I disagree with ranking company-ass-covering over transparency towards the customer. Incentive too not withhold information should come from liability. The idea that transparency could compromise investigation is a hypothetical theory. In that case, it could still be handled much more transparently. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 7:43 | answer | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 31, 2017 at 7:42 | history | edited | Tari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 111 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2017 at 7:41 | comment | added | Tari | @TripeHound yes - any attempts to contact MaterCard so far were directly forwarded to the bank. I have to give my CC# on the phone and they will directly forward me before I can speak to anyone. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 22:56 | comment | added | asgallant | The public interest of getting companies to admit that they leaked sensitive data like credit card info vastly exceeds the private interest of consumers knowing where a leak occurred. It is also likely that in the near term after a leak, there is an ongoing civil or criminal investigation into the leak which could be compromised by revealing the victim. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 21:45 | comment | added | user541686 | What private information of yours was leaked? I'd argue your credit card number is not your private information; it's the credit card company's. After all, they're the ones getting charged through its leakage. Is your name private (can it be private?) and if you think it somehow is, was it leaked? If not, what was actually leaked? | |
| May 30, 2017 at 20:46 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackFinance/status/869656296055865344 | ||
| May 30, 2017 at 17:16 | answer | added | Joe | timeline score: 65 | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:59 | comment | added | quid | Additionally, there might not have even been a breach. There may have been an audit of some merchant's data storage practices and though there was no evidence of a breach the merchant was removed from the network and everyone who has ever used that merchant is being issued a new card. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:59 | comment | added | TTT | Although I agree that you should have a right to know, I also feel that a merchant should have the right to stay anonymous if they choose to. If they could not, it's possible they wouldn't report the breach in the first place for fear of losing business, and that would be even worse for everyone. Of course, MasterCard also has the right to revoke the merchant's ability to accept MC payments, if they felt that the merchant was compromised due to negligence or some other reason that could have reasonably been prevented. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:45 | comment | added | quid | In the US this is definitely the standard practice. I don't know if Germany specifically or the EU generally has consumer laws in place to require disclosure, but the US definitely has no such laws. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:42 | comment | added | TripeHound | Have you tried contacting Mastercard? They might only tell the bank who has been affected, but it's possible (but by no means guaranteed) that they'll tell the customer where the details came from. | |
| May 30, 2017 at 16:33 | review | First posts | |||
| May 30, 2017 at 16:58 | |||||
| May 30, 2017 at 16:30 | history | asked | Tari | CC BY-SA 3.0 |