Katarina Donors Should Beware of Scams

Written by Evan Schuman
September 1st, 2005

Generous people wanting to help victims of Hurricane Katrina should direct their financial contributions carefully, so that the money isn’t diverted by e-commerce thieves.

Scammers taking advantage of the disaster don’t need much capital or personnel: The Web provides them all they need in the way of cover, illusion and false identities.

Firstly, there was some warning of the hurricane, allowing time to register domains, design professional-looking sites and set up bogus links and spam e-mail campaigns.

Secondly, this is the kind of disaster that generates global generosity. Major credit cards are trackable, and money can be refunded if fraud is later proven. But in parts of Europe, Asia and India, online credit card usage is much less common than in the United States. Also, some con artists have pushed PayPal as a payment method and created bogus PayPal landing pages.

The biggest advantage that online con artists have had is that many of their victims do not yet know they are victims, and many will never know.

The victim goes to a Web site that requests money to help the Katrina victims. The victim generously donates, say, $500. A day later, $500 is removed from the bank account and or charged to a credit card. No surprise: The victim expects that money to be removed.

But do charity donors typically check later to see if their funds arrived in the intended place? How would one even do that in this scenario?

Mark Rasch, former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and current senior vice president and chief security counsel for Solutionary Inc., points out that many of the traditional rules about avoiding charity fraud don’t apply to an incident-specific effort, such as Hurricane Katrina relief.

Traditional rule No. 1 is to only donate to long-standing recognized charities. That would suggest organizations such as the American Red Cross, the United Way and the Salvation Army, he said.

The problem is that there are some legitimate fund-raising groups that are brand new, having been created to help the Katrina victims.

“There are going to be legitimately created foundations and funds that are going to spring up,” Rasch said. “Just because it’s new doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s fraudulent.”

Unfortunately, a newly created charity has no history, no reports with the Better Business Bureau and no easy way to establish credibility.

A safe course is for people to visit the Web sites of established charities and contribute through them. An even safer approach might be to just telephone them, thereby avoiding fraudulent sites that are trying to mimic those legitimate sites and hijack their traffic.

Web sites of established charities seem to be getting plenty of traffic these days, though. Keynote Systems, which monitors Web traffic and site responsiveness, on Thursday reported huge performance reductions for both the Red Cross and Salvation Army sites.

“Keynote’s measurements, taken from the top 25 cities in the United States, show these sites available only sporadically from 7 am to noon both yesterday [August 31] and today [September 1],” the Keynote statement said.

“Wait times for these sites to load were often as high as 38 seconds. Keynote noted the same phenomenon on many charitable and government Web sites during the Tsunami disaster and can only attribute it to a traffic storm.”

Keynote reported that it is also watching Catholic Charities USA, FEMA, the City of New Orleans, the City of Mobile, the State of Alabama and the State of Louisiana.

In a disaster, people want to feel trusting and charitable. Alas, it takes a disaster to reach people’s hearts and get them to open up enough to offer money, and then the worst of humankind steps in, forcing them to think twice before doing so.


Comments are closed.


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.