Talk:RFID skimming

2018 comment

It would seem that the scare monger proposing the crime of skimming are now basing their claims in a faith based area because there is no evidence of the crime happening it must be happening. In order that a crime has occurred any proponent of the crime MUST produce evidence of it failure to do so means there is no EVIDENCE. Please before making claims of a RFID Skimming Armageddon please produce evidence of it and then the argument will be complete before that such claims are simply made in order to sell PRODUCTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.241.166 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. This article is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquechi (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV violation

1. Most cards with chips do not have RFID chips. Only cards which can be "read" remotely, or even by tapping on a scanner, are subject to gathering data by a scanner.
2. This is only valid for the United States. Most cards in the rest of the world now have RFID chips.(212.247.125.169 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC))

1. "Pirate" scanners are considerably more expensive than scanners which can read these cards as intended, which are, in turn, so much more expensive than traditional credit card readers that there are very few now in use by real merchants, so even fewer cards subject to this risk are now being made.
2. Pirate scanners are today in fact cheaper than the ones merchants use. Most "pirate" scanners are priced at around $30 and available at regular online merchants.(212.247.125.169 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC))

1. A "master criminal" would have many more effective ways of stealing credit information: hacking web sites which store (usually, at the users' request) credit card information, hacking bank computers, and PIN stealing at merchant card readers and bank ATMs are much more efficient.
2. Hacking web sites and ATM skimming requires very high technical skills. RFID skimming does not require any technical skills.(212.247.125.169 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC))

This last two points would be speculation, generally inappropriate for Wikipedia, but the fact (according to Slate) that there is no known example of this occuring "in the wild", makes the speculation that incidents may be underreported inappropriate without noting that no incidents have been reported. It is not possible to trace what skimming method that was used when a card fraud has occured. The only facts available that is relevant in this matter is that the Card Not Present frauds has increased rapidly and at the same time the banks have switched to more unsecure credit cards. Even if it were true that no police officer has catched an RFID skimmer red handed, it is not evidence that the crime has not happened.(212.247.125.169 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC))

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3199009/security/why-you-dont-need-an-rfid-blocking-wallet.html This does not seem like a reliable source as it seems to be biased. The article states that modern payment cards are in fact encrypted. This is both true and not true. When a payment card is used to make a purchase at a merchant, the information regarding the transaction itself is encrypted. However, the card number, expiration date and purchase history is not encrypted. There are several videos on Youtube demonstrating when they use a scanner or mobile phone to retrieve the card's information. This information can then be used to make a Card Not Present fraud online.(212.247.125.169 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC))

In other words, it may be notable, but as a myth, not as a plausible occurrence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, in part, although the discussion of remedies may be undue weight, considering the absence of evidence that there is a problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

At the present time, only the WREG source which I recovered from Snopes is likely a reliable source; HowThingsWork doesn't seem to have a good editorial staff to verify their statements, and all the other sources seem to be vendors of products which may or may not help stop RFID skimming, reviewing either their products, or competing products. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3199009/security/why-you-dont-need-an-rfid-blocking-wallet.html Update 2018-08-29 This does not seem like a reliable source as it seems to be biased. The article states that modern payment cards are in fact encrypted. This is both true and not true. When a payment card is used to make a purchase at a merchant, the information regarding the transaction itself is encrypted. However, the card number, expiration date and purchase history is not encrypted. There are several videos on Youtube demonstrating when they use a scanner or mobile phone to retrieve the card's information. This information can then be used to make a Card Not Present fraud online.

EDLIS Café 13:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

This is a terrible article

The sources in this article are terrible and it mixes up various types of fraud - there is actually nothing in here about actual RFID skimming which seems to be a largely mythical crime. Cameron Scott (talk)

• I would agree that this is disputed regard whether or not it is prevalent. Credit cards and other payment cards use encrypted RFID chips, which is very difficult and near impossible to decrypt or cloned in a way to gather information for fraud or make it work with a payment terminal. --67.184.0.138 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes this is a terrible article. While payment cards technically could be considered RFID, they aren't usually called that in the industry. The technology used is NFC, not radio. And RFID is usually used to describe unencrypted reading a serial number off a tag, whereas contactless payment involves a crypto exchange. The article really should be called something like "Contactless payment skimming". And if the crypto is implemented correctly, it shouldn't even be possible, so there should be some discussion in the article about the flaws that enable this crime. GA-RT-22 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)