Anonymous Threatens Robin Hood Attacks Against Banks 529
gManZboy writes "Just in time for the holidays, hacktivist collective Anonymous has announced that it has teamed up with like-minded group TeaMp0isoN to donate to charity. The catch: they're using stolen credit data from big banks to make donations, in a campaign they're calling Operation Robin Hood. Is the #OpRobinHood campaign for real, or like previous threats against Wall Street and Facebook, just another hoax? Aesthetically, at least, the OpRobinHood video ticks all of the traditional Anonymous aesthetic requirements: a mashed-up 'p0isoaNoN' logo (green on black), a liberal dose of swelling choral music (via that movie trailer staple 'Europa,' by Globus), together with selected clips of Kevin Costner as Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."
Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont see any issues with them. (Score:5, Insightful)
To simply put it in streetspeak - these people engaged in cash fraud. And they are drinking champagne in wall street. world suffers through their fraud. at this state noone can persuade me that what anonymous doing is wrong.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor? And this is going to affect the people at the top, who probably don't even have a consumer credit card (and at the very least have people watching them, and charging back any unauthorized transactions), exactly how?
98% of the 99% are getting a little pissed at this bullshit.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
"They're going to steal money from the middle class to... theoretically... give it to the poor?"
The wealth disparity has gotten WAY out of hand, and measures like this are what is needed. When some people have no food or medical care, and others have two cars and a nice house, it's time to balance things a little as common HUMAN DECENCY.
Stolen credit cards? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, given the demographic that most often uses credit, they're going to steal from the poor to give to the poor? Except they're not even going to give to the poor, but rather they'll give the stolen funds to people who normally help the poor, thus causing trouble for them. So really, they're going to steal from the poor to harass the people who help the poor. This seems poorly thought out.
If they somehow manage to steal exclusively from millionaires, and if they don't keep a dime for themselves, and if they do it in such a way that it doesn't cause headaches for the charities involved, then fine. More power to them. But somehow I suspect that none of those three criteria will be met.
Oh, this'll be lovely: (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone needs a lesson in credit card merchant agreements.
Wait till the charities they give to start getting their transaction fees raised or processing frozen for astoundingly high chargeback and fraudulent transaction rates. I'm sure they'll really enjoy that.
Big win.
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
When some people have no food or medical care, and others have two cars and a nice house, it's time to balance things a little as common HUMAN DECENCY.
Because most of those people don't own that house and those cars, they pay them off with the money they get from their jobs. fool.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else. Stealing from the middle class just creates new poor.
What about chargebacks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)
"The wealth disparity isn't between the middle class and the poor, its between the rich and everyone else"
No, it's both. The middle class have MASSIVELY more than the truly poor, and it's high time to remedy that just as it's high time to remedy the top 1% being so out of proportion to the middle class.
The difference between the very top and the very bottom has become unethical. That needs to be fixed on BOTH ends, not just the one end that might benefit you personally. This isn't about YOU, it's about what needs to be done for the good of society, because things are just way out of hand right now.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, I don't understand how you think taking money from the middle class and giving it to the poor fixes anything. Corporations and the upper-class have more than enough to be able to bring the poor out of the danger zone and still remain wealthy. The middle class, by and large, did not get there by doing anything other than working their asses off and getting paid salaries proportionate to their work. Whereas the upper class more often than not are getting paid money that is vastly beyond what the rest of society considers appropriate for the work they do. CEO of a company that fired 10,000 people last year and lost $5 billion? Earn a severance package of $100 million. Gamble with other people's money on the market and send $500 billion up in smoke? Get a $2 million bonus.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
Robin Hood stole from the Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's see Anonymous try that one. Only politicians are legally permitted to do that.
Re:dumbest. idea. ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Well.. they are not stealing from the middle class. That's an assumption. Credit data is going to be used which can possibly cover all the demographics.
Stealing is not going to occur anyways. Anybody with a debit card is highly likely to be protected from unauthorized charges with no damage being done to them, other than the inconvenience of filing a claim. Most banks will issue a provisional credit, especially if they notice it is a large pattern of fraud.
A huge number of charge backs are going to occur, which would create a operational cost burden to the financial institutions. If it is a large scale pattern of fraud too, the charities will not be affected by the charge backs with respect to account suspensions, reputation, etc. Giving the money back will happen obviously. Which, if I recall correctly, most money from merchant accounts is held for a period of time. So those charities will not actually see any of that money in all likelihood.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that Anonymous will not try large donations on any debit cards. From looking at the bin numbers you should be able to tell the difference and act accordingly. So any middle class person might lose 10-50$. Not likely to push them over the edge. Credit cards will probably be hit for larger amounts, but that is going to be even more protected by fraud prevention and have a much quicker resolution time to the consumer.
The people that will be hit hardest by this are the banks.
Don't get me wrong. Pushing all this inconvenience on regular people is asinine.
That being said, FUCK THE BANKS. Those are the same people that killed the economy with their bullshit, got bailed out from government, failed to live up to their own obligations with the money (namely home loan modifications), and recklessly and ruthlessly sold financial instruments multiple times so home owners had one or more banks after them for foreclosure, used Deeds of Trust to bypass due process, and generally have been ass raping the American Public to the tune of a trillion plus dollars.
Ohhhhh, and not to mention are engaged in a conspiracy to accelerate foreclosures and not work with homeowners because they can make more money with wealthy investors (themselves and their friends) by picking up the properties cheap with government assistance. Do they pay HOA fees or property taxes? Of course not. Fuck that shit. Not only do they refuse to work with people, they fuck over their local communities by failing to pay these fees which local government needs for police, fire, etc.
They are a blight on humanity, and in that regard, I fully support Anonymous sentiment regarding the fact these people need to pay and suffer in some way. I applaud the ends here, but not the means.
My heart bleeds for them in their protected gated communities and luxury yachts. Poor little fucking bankers.
Re:They're not really stealing from bank (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the way to do this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is Anonymous we're talking about. The same group of pissed-off adolescent-minded individuals who think it's perfectly reasonable to kill the livelihood of thousands of online retailers because MasterCard and PayPal didn't want to risk dealing with WikiLeaks.
The kind of people who participate in Anonymous's activities don't often care about silly things like "consequences". They care about making news, so they can feel like they're a part of something bigger than themselves. They want the good feeling of doing something to improve the world, without any of the hassle involved in actually contributing to improving society.
Sometime over the past few decades, people have forgotten that major cultural changes were preceded by essays, speeches, and persuasive arguments, endorsed by displays of public support. Now, "protesting" has turned into an orgy of destruction and disruption, in the hopes of extorting change.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:4, Insightful)
First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.
Of course spineless always passive losers like you, with their crab mentality, will never know that, since you would never dare to endure a short period of bigger pain, but, in your cowardly short-sightedness, choose to live in the usual pain forever.
TL;DR: No pain, no gain, you sissy!
Banks and Credit cards (Score:5, Insightful)
a) In the USA credit card issuers (issuing bank, not the interchange network) are liable for fraudulent transactions, losing 100% of the amount (as the customer will not pay, usually) is a loss to the bank even if they win 2-3% interchange.
b) They will chargeback to charities many of the fraudulent transactions which occur card-not-present (i.e. internet payments), so the charities won't get much or any of it. I don't know if there are any additional fees which may actually hurt the charity.
c) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, the issuing banks may start to notice it and block payments from all cardholders, hurting the charity's normal fundraising.
d) if a particular merchant, like a charity, seems to attract a significant amount of fraud, then that charity's bank (acquirer) is likely to drop its credit-card processing agreement, disrupting the charity's normal fundraising. There may even be some penalties if they do not have a sufficiently up-to-date website and on-line fraud detection software/procedures.
I work professionally in some aspect of credit card software (at a tech company and not a bank).
In sum, this proposed action is likely to create some extra work for bank employees, though it will probably not cause financially significant losses as many online transactions (not processing with "Secured by Visa" or MC's similar procedure) can be charged back. Charities are unlikely to benefit. They may be harmed.
Re:This is why I don't like Occupy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever heard of the civil rights movement? They cause change without ousting politicians or using force. It's called civil disobedience, and it's proved effective time and time again. By making ourselves heard (me included) Occupy is waking people up from their fantasy land where government and corporations aren't screwing us. When people see how crazy the 1% gets when their power and money is threatened, they will stop being passive and hopeful, and start taking action.
Then, then numbers will grow. The more people they harm, the more will rise up to take their place. Take action and do something YOURSELF, or you have no right to judge those of us who are. Occupy, as well as anon are fighting for you and everyone else. It's not about taking sides, it's about doing whats right for everyones benefit.
Re:Rich People Dont Need Credit Cards (Score:5, Insightful)
they have the money to buy shit dumb fucks.
If you're using a credit card as a way to get a loan ... you're doing it wrong. That's what the banks would love for you to do but you can also think for yourself and not play their game the way they would like you to (by being impulsive, undisciplined, not having a plan, and yielding easily to temptations of instant gratification).
As a form of payment credit cards are great -- that means you buy only what you know you can pay off that same month, and unlike cash you enjoy a paper trail and all sorts of fraud protections and the ability to audit and budget and conveniently purchase online. As a loan, credit cards are horrible -- they are designed to give you just enough rope to hang yourself with. That's why when you show responsibility and make all your payments on time, the banks respond by giving you more credit. They are hoping you will finally get in over your head. That's the way they play this game.
That's why so many of the agreements give the bank the ability to increase your interest when you are late on making a payment, because people struggling to make their payments really need more debt right? It's designed to be a hole that becomes increasingly hard to dig yourself out of. The bank makes more profit that way. If you are so poor that you can barely make ends meet, using credit cards for a loan is only going to make your situation worse.
Sure, emergencies (rare, unforeseeable events) do happen, but aside from that you need to live within your means. Nothing else is sustainable. The banks really love when you try to live beyond your means. Remember that debt is the only form of slavery that's still legal.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
If they steal credit card data, how is that going to hurt the banks ? It's just going to hurt the people whose credit card data was stolen.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but you think the rich are going to lose money over this?
The insurance companies pay. Guess where that extra money comes from? Yes, it comes from everyone. If the insurance premium goes up for banks. banks go and raise their fees, affecting everyone (especially the poor).
Thinking the rich will be hurt by this is just like thinking a credit card company will be hurt by all the chargebacks.
In fact, this op can go against the very people they're trying to help! If the charities get hit with chargebacks, that's a TON of extra paperwork they have to handle (they are probably not equipped to handle it), plus loss of the money (and maybe a little bit extra transaction fee). So now the charity is out the donation and had to have volunteers deal with the bank rather than work on charitable work.
Even though charities get special rates to handle credit cards (often no transaction fees), the extra paperwork involved still takes time and energy away from doing the charitable work.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
Can they donate it Righthaven instead?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not really stealing from bank (Score:5, Insightful)
Occupy is going to get republicans elected ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever heard of the civil rights movement? They cause change without ousting politicians or using force. It's called civil disobedience, and it's proved effective time and time again.
You have it exactly backwards. The civil rights movement succeeded when *voters* decided it would be an electoral issue. The viet nam war ended when *voters* decided it would be an electoral issue, and that decision was made when their lives were affected (increased casualties hitting the middle class) not because of radical anti-war protesters. The true currency of politics are votes not money, money is only useful when the voters are indifferent.
By making ourselves heard (me included) Occupy is waking people up from their fantasy land where government and corporations aren't screwing us.
All Occupy is on a path to do is create a perception of civil unrest and scare the swing voters into going republican, just like the radical anti-war protesters did during the viet nam war resulting in getting nixon elected. Occupy needs to realize that "camping" is going to backfire. Show up, protest, yell and shout, day or night, but when you tire go home or get a room ... repeat as necessary. The more the focus is on "camping" the more the middle will feel that Occupy does not represent them. Polls are showing that this is already happening. In the minds of many Occupy is looking more and more like the "professional protesters" that show up at G20, World Bank, and other meetings. Continue on this path if you wish to waste a great opportunity.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
If your credit card / account was used in a different country or obviously not possible to be you making the transactions then you are damn lucky. In most cases though you are dealing with identify theft in your general area like a city or state. In these situations you have to prove that you are Innocent which is damn near impossible. In fact the credit card companies try to make it as difficult as possible for you to prove your Innocent.
So during Christmas time and banks dealing with thousands (tens of thousands?) of extra malice credit card transactions on top of what they normally would at this time of year I can't imagine the banks trying to make it easier for their customers. It will be in fact the most difficult time of the year for the customers to deal with this.
Charity will lose due to higher processing fees (Score:5, Insightful)
The owners of the card won't be liable for the charges dumbass.
While the owner of the card may not be liable, the charity may still have to pay the fee for payment processing on the fraudulent charges. At a minimum the charity will be put on a higher fee schedule due to an elevated number of fraudulent credit card charges, so they will lose on all legitimate donations in the future.
Re:I dont see any issues with them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think in this case, it's just a bunch of short-sighted kids who want to make a difference. They're just going about it the wrong way. I can't really blame them when, despite the efforts of some really intelligent and good people on all sides, you've got movements like the Tea Party trying their absolute best to make everything into a black-and-white, us-versus-them shouting match.
Re:They're not really stealing from bank (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been batshit insane since the very start, it only looked like they weren't because they coincidentally attacked evil companies at first.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil disobedience my ass.
There's NOTHING civil about stealing someone's money.
Remember, this money isn't replaced in a person's account the second they report a theft. It's usually 7-10 business days (read 2 weeks).
So if your account is drained around rent/bill-pay time, are you prepared live without access to your money for 2 weeks?
Most of the "other 99%" simply ARE NOT. And that's who this bullshit is going to hurt.
This is theft, plain and simple.
The little guy whose money is stolen is hurt.
The banks have to do more work because of this, raising fees.
The places that get graced with the stolen windfall get screwed when that money gets charged back.
All so that these spineless script-kiddies can have their moment on the news and imagine themselves to be "1337 H@x0rz".
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the big banks need to be brought to heel.
So they want to do it by stealing money from people.
The people they are stealing the money from are the customers, not the company, banks issue credit cards, not use them.
Sure, the people can dispute the charges, but that doesn't always work, and then who gets screwed, either way, it's not the bank.
Now for all those false charges that get reversed, that's money the charity sort of had, and then had it taken away. That's going to be a real pain in the neck for them and their accountants, and if there's enough of them, it's going to cost them enough money to cause problems. (That's problems for the charities, not the banks.)
Yeah, real well thought out, punish the other victims, even if they aren't too bright, oh, and smack around the charities while you're at it.
Try thinking these things through before going of half cocked.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're clearly someone who believes there should be no taxes at all.
How are you planning to finance even a basic and useless Government that does nothing more than provide an army and court system ?
Re:Occupy is going to get republicans elected ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The true currency of politics are votes not money, money is only useful when the voters are indifferent.
But isn't that just the problem? Voters *are* indifferent, because the choices they have are _all_ bad. Or they are naive and ignorant and hoping the republican they vote for will make them less poor. Or democrat for that matter.
You see, the problem is bigger than just politics. It's society itself that needs to change. Voting for 'the right' president or governor or what have you might help a bit, but it's not enough.
Re:Occupy is going to get republicans elected ... (Score:3, Insightful)
If society doesn't want to change who are you to tell it it should? Society is people , not mindless robots.
Re:Ready, fire, aim (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand it causes losses to the banks on the other it pisses of their customers and push them to find safer alternatives.
No. It just pisses off the customers. Because the banks aren't to blame for a bunch of malicious, thieving jackasses pretending to be revolutionaries. While the customers are UPSET with the banks, the people they're going to be pissed off at are the thieves themselves.