Frank Abagnale: “Catch Me If You Can” – Talks at Google [video] | Hacker News Reader

Frank Abagnale: “Catch Me If You Can” – Talks at Google [video]

youtube.com

112 pointsludlu52 comments

Some of his closing remarks about the future of technology are hard to believe. I highly doubt passwords will entirely disappear in favour of "Trusona". I personally will not be submitting to any authentication scheme that can "100% identify the person remotely". It sounds like a bigger vulnerability than the one it solves.

I also find it hard to believe that the FBI can remotely disable a car's engine in the general case. I drive a car which has no ECU. And even cars which do have ECUs don't all have the ability for the ECU to receive radio signals. And even cars that do have the ability to control the ECU with radio signals probably aren't all vulnerable.

Edit: but, aside from that, I thoroughly enjoyed the talk. I intend to watch the film.

A great story. What I do not understand (I am a European) is that he uses a credit card, but not a credit card. I just did an AirBnB and I was prohibited by the system to use my debit card. I was outraged. I still am. I had to buy a separate debit-credit-card to be able to use AirBnB services. AirBnB supports iDeal (Dutch payment system), but only for bookings >6 days.

From my point of view, using a debit card is far superior to using a credit card. Why would I want to debt myself to pay stuff? I have enough on my account to pay for a mere AirBnB. I don't want to indebt myself. yet, there is a system which forces me to.

It’s all about putting fraud liability completely on the bank and not on yourself for the duration of an investigation. And building credit.

To my knowledge, it's because if somebody steals money off your debit card, they've stolen YOUR money. You gotta fight with the bank to get it back.

But thanks to consumer protection laws, if somebody steals money off your credit card, they've stolen the BANK'S money. It's up to the bank to get it back.

They've stolen the merchant's money if it was an online transaction. Bank only takes the fall for card-present transactions.

The key is that it's somebody else's problem, not yours.

Sure. As a merchant myself, though, I cringe at generalizations that the bank eats the cost.

Personally, I think they should, because they have access to the aggregate data that could prevent more of it.

Because they take no hit for online fraud, however, they do almost nothing to make things better.

Well, they implemented 3D Secure. I've had to use it quite a few times for online purchases this year (I use an European CC, if that makes a difference).

Although apparently it's a crappy protocol and it's used to shift liability to customers[1], so yeah, they could do better.

[1] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/Papers/fc10vbvsecurecode.pdf

Verified by visa (and similar) in the US just never took off. You have to implement it as optional, as most consumers have no idea what it is. So very, very, few people use it if you turn it on.

I dont think that's true with vBv and Securecode - I believe that indemnifies the merchant of stolen scenario if enabled, at least in Europe.

His recommendation is based on the USA consumer protection laws so it may or may not apply in other countries.

For credit cards, US law limits your personal liability to $50 (typically $0). "Under the FCBA, your liability for unauthorized use of your credit card tops out at $50. However, if you report the loss before your credit card is used, the FCBA says you are not responsible for any charges you didn’t authorize. If your credit card number is stolen, but not the card, you are not liable for unauthorized use."[1]

If you contest a charge, you are NOT required to pay that amount until the matter is resolved. Resolving it typically takes two or more months, but it isn't your problem and doesn't affect your life during this period. If it is resolved in your favor, dealing with the loss/recovery/reversal is not your problem, it is like it never happened (for you). The bar you need to achieve to show a charge was fraudulent is pretty low - typically a phone call to challenge the charge and a followup letter with a statement and any documentation available (as simple as stating you did not order/receive the goods shown or the goods were damaged).

Debit cards typically have limits to liability, but the stolen money is not restored until the matter is resolved. It typically is a LOT more work and can be several months to get the card issuer to make you whole again. Also, with a debit card, the theoretical limit of what the thieves can take is ALL the money in your bank account (and more with overdrafts). The bills don't stop while you are unwinding the mess and your money is unavailable... You can end up in a big hole; restoration of original funds that were stolen does not make you whole because of the "knock-on" charges and losses while your money was unavailable.

[1] https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0213-lost-or-stolen-cr...

In Australia, my debit card was stolen. My bank worked out this fact before I did, and sent me a text message. The charges were reversed within 3 days.

You're still without that money for three days, instead of zero days. Credit cards act like a buffer to your real money, so disputed transactions have no real effect on you.

Debit cards costs less money to shops and so on (transaction cost). Maestro system is way cheaper than anything else.

Credit cards are annoying that your balance isn't updated immediately, they're much more costly to operate, more fraud tolerant (just need to copy the numbers) while the benefit only applies to US and maybe a few others. Meaning, any bank here will pay you back regarding debit card fraud similar to the other response.

Credit/debit cards; it's weird that having such a card results in so many differences other than paying on credit/debit.

Credit cards have consumer protections and dispute resolution processes like chargebacks. Debit cards often have nearly zero recourse for disputes. Why would you want to lose all protections for the less important temporary debt that you can pay at the end of the month? It seems like you're optimizing for the wrong things.

From a general point of view: using a credit card responsibly will improve your credit rating.

A debit card won’t.

I had to explain this to a school friend recently as he has never owned a credit card and avoids loans - preferring to save first, then spend.

When it came time to get a mortgage he couldn’t get good rates - or a large enough loan - as his credit history was so lacking.

He was infuriated but I pointed out to him that it makes sense from a lenders point of view: they gave no record of him being able to manage debt responsibly.

So that’s one reason to use a credit card, though likely not any reason Frank would suggest (he’s going with their better protection and coverage)

In other words, American banks extort their customers to go into debt with them early and often.

To be fair, you can pay off the full amount of your credit card every month and never have to pay interest. A common misconception is the idea that you have to pay interest to build credit.

Credit cards are more like a delayed bill than debt, if you pay off the amount in full every month (and I don't know why you wouldn't, credit cards are a poor way to borrow money).

A delayed bill is a debt, so it's impossible for something to be more like a delayed bill than debt.

They are also often the best method consumers have to borrow money for many purposes.

A debt has interest; a delayed bill doesn't. An interest-free loan is literally free money (the difference between net present value of future repayments and current value, which will be higher); I always take 0% finance if it's on offer.

(The only exception would be in a deflationary environment.)

And yet, most credit card users do NOT pay off the amount in full. Why do you think banks push these cards so hard?

And that means that they, in turn, could be a credit risk. Which is what was being talked about.

Although it has to be said a running balance is not actually a direct credit risk. It doesn't make financial sense, as you're racking up interest fees, but if you are safely managing your payments (no late ones) and your credit usage (a percentage of what your total available credit lines are) then it's not a bad thing for your credit score.

Not that I would recommend it of course.

Don't they? Everyone I know does, who I've talked to about it.

Seems a bit like Trump supporters.

Er.. no. Credit ratings are basically a giant risk assessment.

The more you demonstrate your ability to manage debt (and you can do that by simply paying off your card every couple of weeks) the better you demonstrate your ability to do so. More data points, so to speak.

Of course if you can't manage that then that's data too.

> So that’s one reason to use a credit card, though likely not any reason Frank would suggest (he’s going with their better protection and coverage)

He does mention it: by giving his sons a credit card, one benefit is that when they graduate college, Frank has essentially built their credit for them.

You can immediately pay off your credit card balance if you so desire and credit cards (at least American ones) don't charge interest initially. So if you automatically have your credit card debit from your checking account each month there is literally no cost to you to use a credit card and only upside.

The merchant is already pricing in credit card fees into their prices, so you should go with the payment instrument that provides you the best protection and other perks — otherwise you are leaving value on the table.

there is literally no cost to you to use a credit card

I don't know what it's like in the US, but at least in Sweden basically all credit cards have an annual fee.

Mostly no annual fee in the US, or if there is a fee you are getting some worthwhile rewards or benefits out of the deal.

Apparently, this is the system favoured in US: make people depend on credit and add protections to offset the negatives that you mentioned.

End result: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The US national debt has nothing to do with credit card debt.

Can you really say "nothing" with a straight face?

I use a Revolut card for this purpose. Pre-pay the card, pay the amount required. Also benefit from interbank rates for foreign transactions. Also means that if the card details are stolen from the merchant or processor, or are stolen in transit, all they have is a prepay account number with a $0 balance 99.999% of the time. If they get my checking account debit card number, they could easily take dozens of dollars on any given day. Dozens!

Because the risk of being out of pocket for a period of time is higher with debit cards than credit cards.

If you just think of your credit card as a delayed bill, where you can quibble over charges trivially, they're not like debt at all. Always pay off in full every month, automatically.

Prepaid Credit Cards are also usually poorly supported and may get your account locked up (tried to signup for Mailgun).

Which I find a bit weird, a Prepaid Card is my safest option considering I have no want for a Credit Card at all. I pay my bills immediately or as early as possible, I don't even like ongoing costs and I try to buffer then into yearly payments if possible (which usually also means you get stuff cheaper)

"I don't often talk about my life, but $company has asked me to"

The talk seems identical to one he gave at Fed Talks 2013, and probably a bunch of other venues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJIc16aqpO8

It is a well practiced speech he gives.

> It is a well practiced speech he gives.

You can tell he pretty much has it memorized. Still a great story.

Yeah! I didn't mean to imply I thought it wasn't. :)

He's given it several times for sure. I guess he's saying he's more frequently talking about other things? Talking about his life story isn't his actual job.

I had never seen him give a talk before - is this one of his first that's publicly available? He's a phenomenal storyteller.

That’s what I was thinking. It’s also great PR for the FBI to demonstrate competence and an optimistic outlook in a time when DOJ is taking hits from the executive branch and the rank and file get no public defense from the AG.

Given his history I would expect him to be an extremely charming and charismatic person.

He spoke at my University and mentioned that he does talks regularly now - not sure if any other are recorded though.

Talks yes, telling his own story I don't think so. He specifically say that he rarely tells his story at the beginning of this.

See the link in my top level comment, he has had this recorded before.

If you click around on youtube you can find multiple versions of this talk : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0fEA0MsiV8 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X-LlwupIqc which are almost identical, though in the google version there is a part about him "being" a doctor missing which is in some other versions i have found. Even the answers to some off the questions are almost identical

Well specifically he gave his own story at said talk - it did not seem like a rare thing.

Coincidentally, Catch Me If You Can was showing at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, MA tonight. It was part of Hanksgiving (Tom Hanks series).

He draws interesting lessons from his life that you don’t hear all the time from famous people. One example is the ultimate priority of family responsibilities over money, skills, work, etc. He comes out strongly against divorce due to the lifelong effect on kids (which I think undercuts his point that his own father loved his children more than anything—he may have never missed a bedtime kiss, but he still let his kid be put in that horrific position at the courthouse).

Secondly, his admission that he did not see the light or get rehabilitated in prison but found purpose in family and work afterward is worthy of highlighting given the mandate for US politicians to be tough on crime.

The book is wonderful as well.

I picked the book up for a dollar at a used bookstore, not expecting much. I then proceeded to tear through it in less than a day. It's a phenomenal story. The book includes everything in the movie, of course, plus a lot of fine details of how he pulled off his scams (I think a lot of HN users would like these; very hacker-like), PLUS an extraordinary section expanding on his time in French and Swedish prisons. The French prison is mentioned in the movie, but they, if anything, downplayed what it was like.

I've since learned that maybe much of it was embellished, but I still recommend it.

BONUS Frank Abagnale story-slash-rumor: I heard from a friend of a friend that, soon after the movie came out, Courtney Love was tripping out on "something" and started screaming that she needed to speak with Frank Abagnale--somebody who she had never spoken to nor had ever mentioned before. Her agent called somebody, who called somebody else, who called somebody else, and within 30 minutes Frank was on the phone having a long conversation with Courtney, calming her down. No real point to this story, other than it's neat how the six-degrees-of-separation works in show business circles.

I first heard of Frank Abagnale when adjunct professor Edward Amoroso told my information security class at Stevens that Catch Me If You Can was the best book he ever read. A few weeks later he jokingly berated the class when a quick poll showed no one had yet read it. “I said it’s the best book I ever read and no one reads it?!”

I had queued it and later read it. I couldn’t agree it was the best I ever read but I did thoroughly enjoy it. Incidentally Amoroso was the most compelling speaker of all my professors at Stevens. It was a shame he only taught the one course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com