Timeline for MasterCard won't disclose who leaked my credit card details
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2017 at 21:47 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | @Joe My point is that I think banks like to hide behind a very bland simple reason which in reality is a facade that hides a great many subtitles and stops them straying into libel/slander when it's not clear cut and they're just looking out for their own bottom lines. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 21:38 | comment | added | Joe |
Specifically the question asks: Is it common to withhold this kind of information from affected customers? Are there any further ways to find out more about what happened? Your answer wanders around just guessing at things, and then suddenly says 'Yes it's common' without any logical tie to the rest of the answer. Compare to my answer - which specifically cites an investigative reporting piece into the exact topic - or to the OP's answer, which cites the specific legislation.
|
|
| May 31, 2017 at 21:36 | comment | added | Joe | I disagree; I think that letter is quite specific (I've received nearly the identical letter myself). In any event my point is I don't see what your answer adds here; if the question in your mind isn't specific, then how does this really help in any event? | |
| May 31, 2017 at 21:35 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | @Joe, but my point is that the question itself isn't specific. It says the letter stated "an online shop was compromised" without saying how it was compromised or who noticed that. It didn't say "a merchant reported that their online shop was compromised" in which case I'd be inclined to agree. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 21:17 | comment | added | Joe | My point is I don't find this answer to contain information relevant to this question. It's more of a form answer to a generic question, than specific to this one. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 20:08 | comment | added | Flexo - Save the data dump | @Joe I don't imagine there are more than a few form letters used for situations like this. I doubt they have a sufficiently nuanced set of letters to cover all the various subtitles that might lead to a "we've cancelled your card" moment, they may even deliberately hide the fact that they saw your card in a dump somewhere. Furthermore there's no indication from the question to support your assertion that "a merchant informed the network of a breach". Without an exact copy of the letter we can't say. The Q just says "an online shop was compromised", nothing more which could mean many things. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 18:38 | comment | added | Joe | I don't think this is very relevant to the situation. The sort of letter OP received indicates that a merchant informed the network of a breach of information from their systems, not that a merchant informed the network of a specific incident of fraudulent activity at the merchant. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 10:14 | comment | added | Tari | Thank you for the good listing of possible things that may have happened. The wording on the letter I received implied that there was indeed a specific online shop involved, but I guess that doesn't necessarily rule out a POS break. The multitude of different possible events, all concerning my PII, are exactly the reason why I am inquiring for transparency. Fore example if they told me that an unnamed upstream payment processing contractor that handles only my Name, Address, CC was compromised, would already be a huge improvement. | |
| May 31, 2017 at 7:48 | history | edited | Flexo - Save the data dump | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 192 characters in body
|
| May 31, 2017 at 7:44 | review | First posts | |||
| May 31, 2017 at 13:01 | |||||
| May 31, 2017 at 7:43 | history | answered | Flexo - Save the data dump | CC BY-SA 3.0 |