Talk:Carding (fraud)

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Credit card fraud#Checker|checker]] The anchor (#Checker) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Money is most typically laundered via bitcoin?

The statement "Today, money is most typically laundered via Bitcoin" is known to be false. Please read the reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Deku-shrub (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hii 2402:8100:2628:5E2B:578:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the controversial statement that 'most' carders use bitcoin to 'some' carders use bitcoin, yet you are still disputing? @Ladislav Mecir: Deku-shrub (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons are stated in the templates. It does not matter much how you edit the statement, when there is no support for it from the sources, the marked sources are unreliable, and the sources make no statement about the preferences of carders. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typical procurement of details

The lead section contains a sentence starting as follows: "Online activities also typically encompass procurement of details by methods such as..." I marked it as unverified, since the cited source does not confirm that these are typical procurement methods. In a subsequent edit, Deku-shrub, instead of trying to find a source confirming this, or trying to discuss it, simply deleted the template. Since the issue persists, I restore the template. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladislav Mecir: Could you be more specific about what you think is missing? How would you like this cited? I don't follow your objections Deku-shrub (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money laundering techniques

The article contains a sentence: "Today, money is sometimes laundered via bitcoin,..." The problem is that the cited source just states that the author used bitcoin for an illicit purpose, for which the term "money laundering" doesn't seem appropriate, in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladislav Mecir: I think you keep checking 19 and 20 rather than my inline citation at 18. I'm adding some citations there. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the wording, I think your issue was I was suggesting stolen cards could be cashed out directly for Bitcoin which isn't the case, so I replaced the section and focusing on the internal payments structure, I hope that's more to your liking. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't buy bitcoin with stolen card info

This is the axiom I'm assuming to be correct right now.

Here's a scam site offering the service from September 2014: http://spicycoinity.com

Here's it being debunked: bitcointalk and carder forum Deku-shrub (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in the "Structure" section

The wording of the first sentence is: "Credit card information may be captured via various methodologies, such as skimming, hacking an ecommerce or payment processing site or intercepting card data within a point of sale network but have included 'trashing', raiding mail boxes and working with insiders."

The first problem with the sentence is that it is not a correct English, so it is not understandable.
The first source used does not claim it knows any method used for capturing credit card information.
The second source is not a WP:RS

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think textfiles.com is in fact a reliable source. Isn't there some kind of noticeboard you can discuss this on? Deku-shrub (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you forgot to address the fact that the sentence is not correct English. And no, the source is not reliable, see WP:IRS (for example, the reliability of the author cannot be judged, making the source unreliable). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the grammar, the sentenced just evolved y'know? In the case of this source I am making the case that that such methods were once advertised (e.g. on BBSes), not that I can provide evidence of their actual use. Perhaps the new sentence structure better reflects this? Deku-shrub (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that there is absolutely no reliable source confirming the statements. As said, one source does not confirm any of the statements, and the other is not reliable at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: "Card not present transaction" to section

I left a note on the article Card not present transaction informally (at this time) seeking information as to why that article should not be merged to the section in this article. As I stated there the article is "primarily about fraudulent purchases by credit card transactions when the card is not physically present. The unreferenced lead and the sections are at odds.". If someone Would add thoughts to this I would appreciate it. Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CardPlanet mention disappeared? (( disregard: It's CarderPlanet!))

Does anyone know where the mention of CardPlanet went? This article is the #1 google result for this term, and I have naught be HORRID experiences trying to search Wiki(P|M)edia's "History" pages for keywords, search terms etc. Danke. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wow - Google is too intelligent for the likes of me, heh. The correct term is CarderPlanet. I found it by doing Ctrl-F (a find) on just the word, planet! Here's the snippet from the article: In 2001, Russian speaking hackers founded CarderPlanet in Odessa which would go on to be one of the most notorious forums of its kind.(cite_here).
. Kindly disregard. -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Definition

I have made updates to the beginning blurb to give the article a clearer definition. I have also removed the sentence about it not being a crime as I think the article should introduce the term first. It was also not backed up and seemed to contradict the first cited source that describes the arrests of carding fraud, which is a crime. Hiiisparks (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xcaret100

xcaret100 ? .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carding Is Now Very Problem

It is an very common known problem on us ([[User talk::CEEC|talk]]) 12:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)