Probably not a “Best Practice” to call the number the customer gives you. Another “social engineering” scheme that works!

http://www.databreaches.net/?p=744

MT: Woman gets prison for bank fraud

Posted January 18th, 2009 by admin

Slightly o/t, but once again we see employees falling for it…

Clair Johnson of the Billings Gazette reports on a ring that defrauded banks in Montana, Wyoming, Oregon, Minnesota, Indiana and Kentucky:

In the scheme, Isaacs would present a bank with a credit or debit card for a cash advance of less than $10,000. When the card was swiped and declined, Isaacs would tell the bank employee to call a customer service number she provided. The purported customer service agent would then provide codes that would override the card machine and Isaacs would get the cash she requested.

If the story sounds familiar, it may be because there was a similar scheme in Mississippi reported here last week.

We don't care about no stinking furrin bank laws. Rat out your customers or we'll come audit you!

http://www.pogowasright.org/article.php?story=20090118154408200

Swiss to hand over data to end UBS tax case-report

Sunday, January 18 2009 @ 03:44 PM EST Contributed by: PrivacyNews

The Swiss government plans to hand over some data on UBS clients and accept a large fine against the bank in exchange for U.S. authorities ending a damaging tax probe, the NZZ am Sonntag reported.

The U.S. has accused UBS of helping rich Americans hide billions of dollars of untaxed money in Swiss accounts. They have asked UBS to hand over the names of its U.S. clients, a step that would breach Switzerland's bank secrecy laws and may damage the country's status as leading offshore centre.

Source - Reuters

These rulings amuse me. Lawyers are often too clever for their own good – and judges let them know it in no uncertain terms!

http://ralphlosey.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/did-you-see-judge-john-facciolas-christmas-present/

Did You See Judge John Facciola’s Christmas Present?

JOHN M. FACCIOLA, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District Court in Washington D.C., worked late Christmas eve to give us all a present; he wrote yet another memorable e-discovery opinion: Convad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2008 WL 5377698 (D.D.C. Dec. 24, 2008). The opinion showcases the archaic pre-digital Requests for Production of documents still used by many, perhaps most attorneys in America.

… Thus, I am supposed to determine by examining ancient boilerplate - designed for discovery in a paper universe - such nice questions as whether an e-mail, existing in a computer’s memory is a “tangible thing” and how e-mails are “maintained in the ordinary course of business.”

… More importantly, I do not need to parse words because no one is pretending that Revonet prints all of its e-mails or converts them to TIFF files on a daily basis no matter how ephemeral, meaningless or trivial their content.FN2 Therefore, though Covad’s instruction is hopelessly imprecise and Revonet could colorably argue that it should be interpreted to include several different formats, no reasonable person can honestly believe that hard copy is one of them.

… Finally, I would hope that my decision will have a didactic purpose. This whole controversy could have been eliminated had Covad asked for the data in native format in the first place or had Revonet asked Covad in what format it wanted the data before it presumed that it was not native.