Hacker News Reader

Comment by Test0129 | Hacker News Reader

As a meta-comment why does everything bad need some sort of impetus to drive the point home? For example here, "...affects those most in need". Sure, I agree, it most likely does. This is obvious at it's face. If someone stole $500 from me I'd be pissed, but it wouldn't keep me from feeding my family.

It feels like news in general leverages this for extra views. Card skimming effects everyone that includes poor people. It's not "a little more okay" when it happens to people who are not needy. However, the language seems to imply this. Like card skimming wasn't an issue until it started having an effect on poor people. It really cheapens the article when I read this.

View on HN

You might want to read the article before commenting on it. This article is not about the fact losing money is a bigger blow when you're poor (although, that is obviously true). It is about the fact that the card type most used by them (EBT cards) do not have modern security features (most don't have a chip) and are difficult to reverse transactions on (unlike traditional credit cards which much stronger fraud protection).

It's a shame I have such a revulsion to that click bait technique I didn't bother reading what is apparently a good article.

Oh come on you are just doubling down when you got called out not having read the article. I feel this title exactly describes the point it is trying to get across.

What should the title have been then?

"Card skimming affects those most in need" is a tautology.

EBT cards most vulnerable to fraud from skimming

National EBT fraud costing $X/year

We can reduce EBT fraud by changing the way California administers SNAP

After reading the article, something along the lines of "Insecure EBT cards and bad fraud detection leave the poor disproportionately vulnerable to card skimming".

I too didn't read the title and jump directly to security issues in EBT cards, and also theres a whole import piece about officials saying"no fraud" and police not following up that isn't referenced in the original title.

The article is specifically about card-skimming of EBT cards ("food stamps"), which are effected by card skimming particularly because they basically never have "chips", and also because it's basically possible to get reimbursed for fraudulent charges.

So it's a specific story about EBT cards, which, by definition, are basically given to "those most in need", and how users of such are hit especially hard. It's not just about card-skimming in general, or about something "obvious on it's face".

But the headline could have mentioned EBT cards instead of "those most in need", and perhaps krebs used the "most in need" phrase to get attention, sure.

Most in need is a superlative expression. Yet there is no analysis why these fraud victims are in fact, "most in need".

It's a poor form of rhetorical exaggeration because everyone knows it's either true tautologically or it's not strictly true and someone can nitpick an example to prove it.

The problem identified by the article is that specific state issued EBT cards don't have chips in them.

What does that have to do with why card skimming affects those most in need? That's just a method of fraud. It does affect needy people, but what are the proprtions?

You expect, based on the title that the article will examine proportions of fraud experienced by peoples of different vulnerabilities. Which is uninteresting to me. California being too lazy to issue EBT cards with chips is much more interesting.

i mean, you're complaning that the headline suggested the article would do something uninteresting to you, and then didn't follow through on doing the uninteresting thing? "the food was terrible, and such small portions!"

Maybe go calm down and reflect on your priorities. You’re upset because an article reported that something disproportionally affects people less fortunate than you. It didn’t report that you’re not affected. It highlighted an acute harm done to a vulnerable population. That doesn’t mean you’re any less important. It just means they’re being regarded as important alongside you. Have some grace and something soothing, you’re still important too even if other people also have the prospect of not being silently further entrenched in poverty.

i felt that way until i read the article, then i realized it was the first really good use of "disproportionately affects..." i've seen in a while.

I mean, this guy uses every trick in the book to generate views, so I'm not surprised he's using this psychological device to drive views.

Card skimming devices affect the least secure cards; advocate for more secure cards (chipped cards).

Thieves aren't thinking, huh, there's some poor people, let's gittem! They're going for insecure cards.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com