Talk:40 million credit cards compromised

If you read the AP article, the FBI spokesperson had a reasonable response to CardSystem's allegation that it was asked to keep quiet. The current headline is sensational and unsubstantiated.

I agree with the above statement and I'm editing the title to reflect that. If anyone has an issue with this let me know. --RossKoepke 00:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow; never saw this before; the Yahoo news(associated press) story earlier "Security Breach Could Expose 40M to Fraud" has been redirected to a new one(new reporter and title) telling people not to worry and with the FBI covering its ass. The original story seems to have completely vaporized. Paulrevere2005 01:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

check these out

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_bi_ge/credit_cards_breach_26

versus

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_bi_ge/credit_cards_breach

The top is the earlier story on yahoo news; the lower is the later one TO WHICH PEOPLE ARE REDIRECTED IF THEY CLICK ON EARLIER STORY LINKS, JUST AS WITH THE TOP SOURCE ON THIS WIKI ARTCLE!

IMO we are witnissing a very primitive attempt at damage control. The first AP story said that CardSystems' Friday statement was

"vetted by the FBI". "The company said it was told by the FBI not to release any information to the public; its statement Friday had been vetted by the agency."

The FBI vetted statement is the very statement that said the FBI told them not to advise the public about the cards being compromised.

Now unless we believe that Cardsystems is so stupid and reckless as to falsely accuse the FBI of putting customers' accounts at risk AND THEN to lie and say the FBI vetted the statement making that accusation; then this recent story is simply damage control..which I think it obviously is.

This link []shows that some of the links to the original AP story titled "40M Credit Card Accounts Could Be Affected" have been redirected to the later AP story titled "MasterCard: 68,000 Customers at High Risk". The later story reassures customers and has an FBI spokeswoman contradicting Friday's statement by cardsystems. The FBI spokes person even says the information should have been released;

The new version says;

"CardSystems' chief financial officer, Michael A. Brady, said Friday that his company was "blindsided" by the MasterCard release, adding that his company was told by the FBI not to release any information to the public.

McCarley(FBI SPOKESPERSON) said MasterCard was obliged to its customers to release the information and was not told by the FBI to keep the security breach private.

McCarley said the FBI did ask CardSystems to not release details that might compromise the investigation - but she denied that the FBI had asked the company to not disclose that the intrusion occurred.

"I'm not sure where they got that impression," she said, adding that it was important for the public to be warned so card holders can be more careful while checking their statements."

The new version leaves out the reference to the Friday statement by CardSystems having been vetted by the FBI.

I think that the FBI actually broke some laws when they told CardSystems not to tell the public about the compromising of the cards; ESPECIALLY some European laws (lots of those cards are likely owned by Europeans) and now the FBI is shitting all over themselves trying to cover it up.

I think there is 1 hell of a story waiting here about this "cover up" and I think the people at Cardsystems might be willing to be interviwed about this. Paulrevere2005 04:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think you'll need to watch NPOV in your articles on this. These articles are not a place to come to new conclusions without a lot of original reporting. And you're really towing the line. You might want to step back for now and re-analyze your writing with an eye for true NPOV, not necessarily performing your public duty to report everything you can find on it. That's how you'll get burned as a writer. --RossKoepke 06:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File replacement
editprotected Please replace File:FBI seal.png with File:FBISeal.png, the first is a scaled-down version of the second. Thanks, Manuelt15 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done. It seems that commons user Amada44 resolved this deletion by redirecting to the SVG version: File:US-FBI-ShadedSeal.svg. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)