Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

Re: And yet CA banks adopted chip-cards long before the US

That has nothing to do with it.

The US already had a large infrastructure in place and they looked at the cost of moving to chip and pin versus the losses (theft) that they had at the time. The cost of moving was higher. So they didn't move.

When there was more data theft and fraud such that the cost of moving was cheaper, the US moved.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

@AC ... Re: FFS

Outsourced teams will and do cut corners to save money - and having worked in India for many years, there is a malaise there - a level of mid-management there that act like feudal lords and treat the programmers / architects / tech resources as serfs.

That's a cultural thing. I've seen it from on-shore Indian managers. While this isn't across the board, its a high percentage.

@Korev, Re: Public vs Private Github repo?

You do realize that just parking client's material off the client site could be illegal?

If any of the Financial institutions considers the code to be trade secrets... you have a crime of theft.

At a minimum, you most definitely have multiple breaches of the contracts per institution.

This could cost Tata a boatload of money.

@Steve Davies 3 Re: Outsource it all To India

Spot on, however I wonder if El Reg actually understood the significance of the following:

The documents related to programming work Tata was carrying out for six big Canadian banks, two well-known American financial organizations, a multinational Japanese bank, and a multibillion dollar financial software company.

Silly me, but shouldn't there be a glass wall between different clients?

Meaning if I were one of those clients, not only would I give Tata the boot, but also would be getting the team of in house counsel lined up to sue the carp [sic] out of them for violating and sort of MSA and NDA.

At the same time, this wasn't the work of a single bad programmer, but a concerted effort to share code.

This also shows not only the lack of professionalism but also calls to question their skills as developers. Which implies Tata is over charging their customers by providing under skilled employees.

Sorry for the flame, but its more about the situation than anything else.

@AC ... Re: Comey: Weird, but it doesn't matter.

Have you looked at other countries and their politics? ;-)

South Korea? and then in South America?

I would hope that the US would be better, but unfortunately there's politicians who put partisan politics before what is best for this country.

Trump would be a better president than Obama if given half the chance to get things done. Of course someone would have to take away his twitter account too, but you get the idea. The thought of Trump actually doing a good job scares the Democrats so much that they would rather attack Trump than fix the DNC.

@Sparty ... Re: @eldakka Impeachment?

Are you an American?

The sequence isn't wrong.

Comey isn't independent and is answerable to Trump.

And of course you didn't listen to the questioning and the answers.

Trump was never under investigation.

There's more, but the subtlety is lost .

@Eddie Ito Re: @ Ian Michael Gumby

Did Comey take notes during the meeting?

No. He took them afterwards. So even if he showed his notes... there will be questions.

Not sure where you're talking about 'convictions'.

With respect to Comey... both sides agree that a conversation took place. Comey's notes done after the fact are his recollections of what he heard and what he thought the POTUS meant.

Trump doesn't deny that the meeting occurred but does dispute Comey's account of it. So Comey could be correct in that his notes reflects what he thought about the meeting. Trump recalls something different. Since there was no third party to corroborate either. Notes or not... its still he said / she said.

@Sparty ... Re: @Mi Tasol

Trump does have credibility.

Comey, on the other hand is damaged goods.

There's more to it of course.

The point of a he said, she said trial is that the person who wins is the one who can tell a better story to the jury.

Comey has his notes, which he admitted to being the leaker. He can be charged over that. Even though they are his work product, under the official records act, they are the property of the Government. And it wasn't just a note by Comey, it was something said between Comey and the POTUS. Classified or not, Comey can be charged. (Already Trump's lawyer(s) are asking for the judiciary committee to look in to the leak.)

You also don't seem to get it. Trump won based on the electoral college. It exists for a reason. Had Trump spent more time in CA he could have taken more of the vote. Clinton lost the midwest because she ignored us.

And in a he said, she said... the courts also put more weight on the context of the situation. Comey leaked his note after he was fired.

At the same time... going in front of congress vs going in front of the special prosecutor are two different things. The special prosecutor can and will grill Comey.

@Sparty Re: Lies, damned lies and Trumpy's declarations

Well I'm not a fan of Trump either and you can blame two things...

1) The DNC party rigged the nomination to be Hillary who was un-electable.

2) The MSM who gushed over Trump and gave him free air time ignoring other candidates.

To Trump's credit... he understood the voters and what they wanted. At least give him credit for attempting to fulfill his campaign promises.

But its also important to note that if it came down to a popular vote, we would end up with a system found in the Hunger Games.

@ Sparty...

Wow, shiny gold badge... :-)

Ok,

The reality is that there are more ties between Clinton and the Russian government that Trump.

Recently... literally last week I think... there was yet another batch of emails released due to the JW (Judicial Watch) FOIA lawsuit. The major take away was that Clinton didn't want to fly on the same jet as the First Lady Obama. (You can google that ...)

In that same batch... there are a couple of emails that tie Clinton as SoS and the Foundation. One thread ties the threat of an IRS audit in order to stop the investigation by a country in to a CF donor. (You can google it.) In another, there's confirmation that a Russian Investment Group, again CF donors got 'hooked up' with the right people in the US Government (State Dept. )

The Russians wanted to have chaos... and personally, none of the world leaders wanted to deal with Hildabeast and prefered Trump to her. ;-)

@Peter 39 Re: "Leaker"? No !

Actually it is a leak.

Those notes are official documents and under the law (Official Records Act) while not classified documents, it is a criminal act to leak them. They are work products.

At the same time, there's the issue of executive privilege. Only Trump would be able to release the notes.

Comey's actions are criminal, although I doubt that they would charge him with any crime.

You are mistaken that it has to be classified material for it to be criminal. It does not.

@Kiwi Re: Two things..

Does Trump have the tapes?

This could be a bluff. If its a bluff then its only as effective as long as you don't know the answer to the question.

If this isn't a bluff and Trump's staff admits to there being tapes... then you have a real problem for Trump. Those tapes could be subpoenaed. This is what caught Nixon and forced him to resign.

It also begs the question... if there are tapes, then what else did Trump record? And again those recordings would be subpoenaed as well.

Its a bad bluff on the part of Trump.

But the real question... did Comey lie under oath because he claimed Trump's tweet is what forced him to leak (which is itself a crime) or is Trump's lawyer right that Comey leaked before Trump's tweet.

That would be a very easy thing to prove.

Re: What kind of spy

I don't know... Trump could tape the conversation.

But is DC a two party consent state? (DC isn't a state, but has its own laws...)

@eldakka Re: Impeachment?

Exactly.

Alan Dershowitz, a very liberal democrat and Harvard Prof on Law, also pointed this out.

Trump can pardon anyone after the fact. Where the fact is the alleged crime even if there are no charges.

Hypothetically, the POTUS can't hand someone a pardon for killing X before they killed X, but if X was killed and that someone was a suspect, the POTUS could pardon them even if they weren't yet under investigation... (Note: Bad example, but proves the point...)

This is why you really don't have obstruction. Comey admitted that Trump didn't say go do X which would have forced Comey to do X, or resign because to not do X would be insubordination. Many don't understand the law, and those in Congress who do are willfully being ignorant for their own political gain.

@AC re Obama Re: Impeachment?

Wow.

So many things wrong that I don't know where to begin.

First, Obama made public statements stating an opinion during the investigation. This was in fact putting his finger on scale.

Second Obama claimed he did nothing to interfere with the investigation. Yet he had many meetings with Lynch who then, according to Comey's testimony yesterday, attempted to influence (obstruct) the investigation in to Clinton. In fact there is more evidence against Lynch and Obama than there is against Trump. Not to mention Comey previously testified that he did not feel Trump's comments were in fact obstruction.

Your tirade about Trump's tax returns is old news. Trump won the election and Trump was under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to submit his tax returns. Yeah. There is no law requiring it although Jimmy Carter was the first POTUS candidate to do so setting precedence. With respect to Trump's tax returns... the leaked page (which was illegal to leak) showed he paid more in taxes than any of the other candidates.

So please drop the red herrings.

@ Cow Herd ... Re: Impeachment?

No.

Where's the cover up?

Trump didn't use executive privilege to stop Comey. (He could have)

Trump encouraged Comey to testify because Comey couldn't accuse Trump without himself getting charged on a couple of counts.

The worst thing for Trump, Comey called him a liar because their recollection of the meeting differ. The Democrats and the MSM pounced on that.

Re: Impeachment?

No.

Here's the problem.

Under the law, if Trump wanted to shut down the investigation to Flynn, he would merely just issue a pardon to Flynn. He can do this any time after the alleged act occurs, even if there are no charges present.

That would put an end to the issue, however it would cause more fodder.

Under the law...

If Comey believed that Trump's conversation was an attempt at Obstruction, he would have been obligated to report it ASAP. He did not. By waiting... Comey violated the law. Were he to now claim it was obstruction, Comey could face criminal charges.

In the past, under oath, Comey told Congress that he did not feel that there was any obstruction on the part of Trump. So... if Comey said anything different, he would be in trouble for lying under oath. It would result in a perjury charge and then Comey would have to defend himself.

So Comey was already boxed in to a corner before his testimony.

Beyond that...

In order to impeach Trump, you would have to show intent.

There is more evidence to say Obama committed obstruction when it came to Clinton's email investigation. And also Lynch.

So only a rabid Democrat would call for impeachment while others in the Democratic Party will not yet call for more investigation in to this...

@Mi Tasol

Lawyers learn that unless you're under oath, where you are compelled to be truthful, its ok to lie. And even under oath, as long as its not an outright lie, you can say things that are less than truthful. There exists a willful intent to twist the interpretation of the facts to their favor.

If caught in a lie, the lawyer will apologize and say that they misspoke. Mea Culpa.

Mr. Comey is a lawyer. Don't forget that.

Here's the take-away from Comey's testimony.

His recollection of the events differ from those of Trump. Since they were the only ones present this becomes a he said, she said issue. Both parties will recollect the meeting differently.

With respect to Trump's lawyer's statement...

He honed in on the timeline of events.

Comey said he leaked the memo because of Trump's tweet about there being tapes.

Yet the lawyer indicated that Comey leaked the memo before Trump's tweet.

This should be easy to corroborate. If true, it will hurt Comey.

@Kristian Walsh ... Re: @baspax ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

It depends.

On small retailers, their website provider would capture the details and handle the online billing.

With larger chains... no they handle all of the information.

There is tokenization but that happens by a third party at the time of authorization. Its relatively new and it allows the hotel chain not to capture or store the CC info, but the token which is unique to the chain. The actual cc info is stored by the 3rd party. This causes a bit of a headache with the CC providers for a couple of things... (I could say more, but then I'd get in to trouble.., which is why I avoided the tokenization issue. Note: Not everyone is there...)

Things are moving towards the tokenization, however... your CC info is stored by the provider and if they ever get cracked... whoa mamma.

@William 3 Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

Yes, she was foolish in her use of the Debit card.

Were she a he, I'd say the same thing.

Its not a sexist thing either.

But its funny that you went there.

BTW, I've talked to all of my relatives and my wife about not using the debit card for anything but use at an ATM within a bank and not out in the open. Have you done the same?

@Lost all faith ... Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

Smug?

Hardly.

In the past 27 years, I've had fraud on my Amex card 3 times.

Each time, I cancelled my card, got a new one and the charges were dropped.

No harm, no foul.

So I am protected from stupidity.

There's more to it, like a bad experience at a boutique hotel I was forced to stay at once that was a dive and of course the company made me prepay the room.

Fraud will hit, however using my Amex makes my life easier, not to mention I was in the middle of BFE and they delivered a card to me within 48 hours after they contacted me about the fraud.

And yeah Debit card mischarged? Phone up, report fraud... wait until the money is back in to your account.

Why the girl didn't do that immediately... is something not found in the article.

@Adam 1 Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

Its not a question of victim blaming.

Is it not completely obvious that the hotel screwed up bad? Really bad?

The question... is there a potential lawsuit? Maybe, however it can be avoided if the hotel makes restitution to the woman. Which any good lawyer would tell them to settle ASAP.

As to the use of your debit card. Yes, that's the thing. You will get your money back eventually. What wasn't said in the article was if or when the woman contacted the bank. She would have eventually gotten her money back so she's protected, however its the temporary loss that can be problematic.

Calling the woman dumb because she made the mistake of using her debit card isn't blaming the victim unless of course you believe that trying to avoid being the victim isn't a smarter course of action.

@baspax Re: ma1010 "Sounds like a lawsuit"

Mate, you really need to learn a bit more about what happens on the back end and PCI compliance.

The retailer stores the CC information. They have to in order to charge the customer. So they have the full credit card number. The web site, and users do not have access to the whole card, only the last 4 digits because that's all they need to confirm the identity of the person based on those numbers. Now they are asking for more information as a way to verify the person. (Home address, email, phone #, etc...)

The last 4 digits is used to identify the account information. That doesn't mean only the last four digits are stored. The whole account info is stored. That data has to stored in an encrypted format while at rest.

And they have to show that only authorized people have access to the information. There's more... maybe you should learn it.

With respect to the lawsuit... if the hotel doesn't make restitution, there could be a lawsuit, however... the hotel will make restitution. Why the woman didn't contact her bank, even w a debit card, there are laws that they have to follow.

With respect to the hotel... yeah, they are going to have a major problem with their card processing company. It theoretically could bankrupt them.

@Voland ...Re: "Sounds like a lawsuit"

The Debit cards have the same rules, however it will take time before the money is back in her bank account. Whereas Credit Cards can't get to the money until its withdrawn.

Not to mention there are rules about disputed charges and what the parties have to do...

Never use a Debit card unless you're doing an ATM transaction at your bank. Only at the banks.

@TDog Re: Optional explosive charge?

No, you could do it...

I just don't want to be near the gun when you're doing the initial life fire testing.

You have exploding 50 cal BMG bullets so why not a rail launched projectile? the trick would be in the fuse.