praxis22 ([info]praxis22) wrote,
@ 2009-05-14 18:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: good
Entry tags:life, spiffiness, technology

On the cards
Frankly amazing article about customer profiling by credit card companies at the NYT. Like this bit:

But giving credit cards to riskier customers posed a problem: How do you know which cardholders will pay something each month, providing fat profits, and which will simply run up a huge tab and then disappear?

The Ph.D.’s arrived at two solutions. The first was to create thousands of new kinds of cards with their own credit limits, terms and interest rates. Such a strategy theoretically protected companies by limiting how much a cardholder could buy and by charging sufficiently high interest rates to ensure that if a few cardholders walked away, the companies still made plenty of money.

The other solution was learning to predict how different types of customers would behave. Card companies began running tens of thousands of experiments each year, testing the emotions elicited by various card colors and the appeal of different envelope sizes, for instance, or whether new immigrants were more responsible than cardholders born in this country. By understanding customers’ psyches, the companies hoped, they could tell who was a bad risk and either deny their application or, for those who were already cardholders, start shrinking their available credit and increasing minimum payments to squeeze out as much cash as possible before they defaulted.


There are some real gems in the article, long but definitely worth it, go read. [HT Radar]

This article however, is complete tosh, if LLL is such a savvy user why is he not following basic computer security, you know, anti-virus, anti-spyware & firewall? The tag line for the article:

In short, alongside the ethical considerations surrounding casual piracy, there are also very good technical reasons why people should not try this at home

Is IMO a bit of blatant scare mongering propaganda, courtesy of FAST. If you read as many computer magazines as I do, you get used to the industry line. But it's never OTT. Things must be getting desperate if they're fostering such pseudo technical tosh onto otherwise respectable newspapers.




(Read 5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Re: however...
[info]praxis22
2009-05-18 10:30 pm UTC (link)
I'd probably been reading the FT for 2 years or more before I realised that I could no longer call myself a Guardian reader, as I didn't actually read the paper any more :)

However, If you have your AV tweaked to delete infected content, then it would delete it before you got a chance to run it. Granted you're never going to catch zero-day code, but very few people have access to top level scene FTP servers anyway. It's my experience that the average person can't download this stuff anyway, simply because they don't know how.

My argument was more against the oddly explicit nature of the article about editing host files, etc. Which seems overly complex, when you could just let a firewall block all outgoing traffic. It struck me that seeing such detail in a mainstream newspaper, (and a broadsheet at that) was just asking for trouble. It seemed to be putting temptation in people's path, then warning them off.

Ordinarily there would just be the normal veiled moralising, which having seen what the blitz cable did to the Atari ST software market, I have a lot of sympathy with. Unless people do actually continue to buy software, it will go away. But there was seemingly little of that.

It just struck me as out of place and heavy handed. Which for a magazine that employs the very even handed Jack Schofield, etc. was odd.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: however...
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 12:42 pm UTC (link)
"Which seems overly complex, when you could just let a firewall block all outgoing traffic."

Except that you don't want to block all outgoing traffic - only to those particular sites. I guess a firewall can be set to do that. But most people aren't going to do that either.

Fair point about "the average person can't download thus stuff", though "average" in reality covers huge variations in ability and knowledge - from people who get P2P but don't know how to check for fakes, to those who are fastidious about it, and everything in between. I think it's very hard to be completely prescriptive about what people really do and don't know. Overall, I feel it's best to advise people not to (a) break copyright law (b) download stuff that might harbour malware of unknown malignancy.

Charles

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: however...
[info]praxis22
2009-05-19 01:02 pm UTC (link)
An admittedly "suboptimal" word choice :)

By that I mean Zone Alarm for Windows, or Little Snitch for OSX. Something that monitors all outgoing traffic and asks you if you want to allow/block it. Though I must admit that in this I'm more concerned about letting certain programs out, (IE & Outlook for instance) not to mention other nasties that lurk in dark corners.

I have no issue with (a) or (b) just the manner in which it was done. In fact I often feel that the appeal should be made not on the basis of "don't break the law" but on the basis of ongoing survival, especially for the smaller players out there. EA or Microsoft aren't going to miss a meal, but smaller players like Stardock can be adversely affected.

I guess it's just a difference of emphasis really.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read 5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…