60 Minutes Report On TJX Raises New Charge

Written by Evan Schuman
November 25th, 2007

A fascinating report aired on the 60 Minutes site tonight. Not a tremendous amount of new ground was covered, but the comments from NRF CIO Dave Hogan—where he said that Visa and company are pressuring retailers to retain credit card data specifically so that they can bring in money—was a new angle.

“If you do the math on it, this could be a windfall of $200 million annually for the credit card companies as far as a revenue stream,” Hogan was shown saying on the video. Even at my most cynical, I’m not so sure I’d buy into that rationale. Clearly, the credit card companies don’t want to take on the burden and most larger retailers would truly like to avoid the hassle. But deliberately faciliating PCI violations so they can pocket the fine money? That’s pretty Machiavellian, even for Visa. (But 60 Minutes also linked to only one media source—StorefrontBacktalk—for further information about the TJX data breach, so they certainly got that part right.) ;-)


3 Comments | Read 60 Minutes Report On TJX Raises New Charge

  1. Tyler Hannan Says:


    I agree with you completely.

    In my blog on this topic, I mention that I was “taken aback” by the statement from Dave Hogan. While I understand his organizations role in the ongoing battle between retailer and card association. . .it was very surprising to hear that he felt Visa, etc. were hoping solely to monetize data breach.

    With that said, I’m glad that the story of security at the physical retail location is being to be widely reported. PA-DSS as an extension to PCI further underscores the importance this topic will continue to have in the future.

  2. Don Jackson Says:

    As an IT compliance auditor, and hearing the remarks made about VISA, and seeing the type of information that 60 Minutes had gathered, I have to agree with Mr. Hogan, that type of information would not be privy to a merchant, that information is kept at the bank. Also, my opinion on PCI is very low to begin with, although it is a start, I think that Congress should take PCI and make it an amendment to the GLBA, because it is true that VISA is making money if a merchant is non-compliant with PCI. As for PCI, the objectives and control objectives are so vague that it’s open to interpretation by only the VISA certified auditors that also must pay VISA to certify them to do PCI audits, yeap I’d say this is a huge money maker for VISA.

  3. Barry Silverstein Says:

    Utter poppycock ! The notion that VISA wants merchants to retain cardholder data is the most uninformed statement I have ever seen in payments circles. The damage to the reputation of the networks, merchants and casrd issuers is in the hundreds of millions. The few measly dollars taken in fines pales in comparison.. I can not disagree more – anyone who works closely with PCI or the card networks will take issue with this drivel !


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.