About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

October 29, 2018


Remote Card Fraud: A Growing Concern

Where's the money in card payments? Despite all we hear about e-commerce and other kinds of remote payments, in-person payments remain strong. The total dollar value of in-person card payments exceeded the total dollar value of remote payments in both 2015 and 2016. In-person payments were 56 percent of all card payments by value in 2016, and 58 percent in 2015. By number, the race is not even close: 78 percent of card payments were in person in 2016.

Graph-one

Looking at change from 2015 to 2016, however, another story could be emerging. When we consider the growth in the value of card payments, remote payments grew by 11 percent from 2015 to 2016, compared to about 3 percent growth by value for in-person card payments. By number, in-person card payments increased 5 percent and remote by 17 percent.

It wasn't only remote payments that grew from 2015 to 2016—so did remote fraud. In fact, it grew faster than remote payments did overall. Remote fraud by value grew more than three times faster than the value of remote payments—35 percent compared to 11 percent. By number, remote fraud grew about twice as fast—32 percent compared to 17 percent.

In contrast to the mix of remote and in-person card payments overall, where in-person payments still are the majority, fraudulent remote card payments were more than half of all fraudulent card payments by both value and number in 2016.

Graph-two

These data suggest that remote card payments fraud is likely to be of increasing concern for the U.S. payments system going forward. Additional data are included in the report at www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fr-payments-study.htm.

To learn more about payments fraud, you can sign up for the Talk About Payments webinar on November 1 at 11 a.m. (ET). This webinar is open to the public but you must register in advance to participate.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

October 29, 2018 in cards, consumer fraud, debit cards, fraud, identity theft, mobile payments, online retail, payments study | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

October 22, 2018


Three Views of Noncash Payments Fraud

Despite what we might gather from the headlines, payments fraud is a small fraction of the value of all payments.In 2015, by value, it was only about 1/200 of 1 percent of noncash payment transactions. The pie chart shows what a tiny slice of the pie that payments fraud is.

Image-one-sm

This view of the value of payments fraud in 2015 is one of three views that today's post will offer, using data from a recently released payments fraud report.

The report, based on data from the Federal Reserve Payments Study, quantifies noncash payments fraud by value and number in 2012 and 2015 and provides information that can help inform efforts to prevent and detect payments fraud. Data include detail on different payment instruments and transaction types.

Fraud value is defined in the report to be the value of unauthorized third-party payments that were cleared and settled, before any chargebacks, returns, or recoveries. It does not include the costs of any prevention, detection, or remediation methods. The report covers noncash payments used for everyday consumer and business transactions, including automated clearinghouse (ACH), check, and card payments. (Wires are excluded.)

Here's the next view of payments fraud by value: most payments fraud is by card. Slightly more than three-quarters of noncash payments fraud by value are credit card, debit card (prepaid and non-prepaid), and ATM withdrawal fraud; almost half is credit card fraud. The second chart shows that by value, ACH fraud is 14 percent of noncash payments fraud and check fraud is 8.6 percent.

Image-two-sm

Finally, fraud rates by value for cards increased from 2012 to 2015 while fraud rates for check payments decreased and fraud rates for ACH stayed flat. That rate increase for cards means that the value of fraudulent card payments grew faster than the dollar-value growth overall, which is concerning. Indeed, card fraud by value grew more than three times faster than the growth in card payments and ATM withdrawals by value—64 percent compared to 21 percent. ACH fraud grew more in line with the growth rate in ACH payments, with fraud by value increasing 11 percent compared to a 13 percent increase in the value of total ACH payments.

Image-three-sm
You can find additional data in the report at https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/fr-payments-study.htm.

To learn more about the payments fraud report, join our next Talk About Payments webinar on November 1 at 11 a.m. (ET). The webinar is open to the public but you must register in advance to participate. (Registration is free.) Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email with login and call-in information. Also, be sure to check back next Monday for another Take On Payments post about the report.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

October 22, 2018 in cards, consumer fraud, cybercrime, cybersecurity, debit cards, payments study | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 13, 2018


Protecting Our Senior Citizens from Financial Abuse

By all accounts, elder financial abuse appears to be a multi-billion-dollar problem. A 2011 New York State study found that, for every documented case of elder financial exploitation, more than 43 other cases went unreported. A 2015 report from True Link Financial estimates that nearly $17 billion is lost to financial exploitation, defined as the use of misleading or confusing language, often in conjunction with social pressure and tactics, to obtain a senior’s consent to take his or her money. According to the same report, another $6.7 billion is lost to caregiver abuse, which is deceit or theft by someone who has a trusting relationship with the victim, such as a family member, paid caregiver, attorney, or financial manager.

Over the last several months, Risk Forum members have had several conversations with boards and members of different regional payment associations. The topic of elder financial abuse and exploitation came up often. It has been over seven years since Take On Payments last explored the topic, so we are overdue for a post on the subject given both the interest from some of our constituents and new legislation around elder financial abuse recently signed into law.

With an aging baby boomer population representing the fasting growing segment of the population, awareness of the magnitude of elder financial abuse and an understanding of ways to identify and prevent it are critical to the well-being of our senior citizens. And that is exactly the intent of the Senior SAFE Act that on May 24 was passed by Congress and signed into law under Section 303 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. Briefly, the act extends immunity from liability to certain individuals employed at financial institutions (and other covered entities) who, in good faith and with reasonable care, disclose the suspected exploitation of a senior citizen to a regulatory or law enforcement agency. The employing financial institutions are also immune from liability with respect to disclosures that these employees make. Before they were afforded immunity, banks and other financial-related institutions had privacy-violation concerns over disclosing financial information to other authorities. The new immunities are contingent on the financial institution developing and conducting employee training related to suspected financial exploitation of a senior citizen. The act also includes guidance regarding the content, timing, and record-keeping requirements of the training.

Massive underreporting of elder financial abuse and exploitation makes it difficult to estimate the amount of money lost. While the law does not require financial institutions to report suspected financial abuse and exploitation, it definitely encourages them to create employee educational programs by offering immunity. And those who know the Risk Forum well know that we are strong advocates of education. Elder financial abuse is a growing problem that must be tackled. How is this law changing your approach to reporting suspected cases of elder financial abuse and related employee education?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 13, 2018 in consumer fraud, consumer protection | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 6, 2018


The FBI Is on the Case

I recently took advantage of a job shadow program in our Information Security Department (ISD). I joked with our chief information security officer that I was ready to "ride along" with his detectives for our own version of the television drama series Crime Scene Investigations (better known as CSI).

All jokes aside, I enjoyed working with ISD as part of the team rather than as an auditor, a role I have played in the past. We spent a good part of the day walking through layered security programs, vulnerability management, and data loss prevention. Underneath these efforts is an important principle for threat management: you can't defend against what you don't know.

Threat investigations absolutely must uncover, enumerate, and prioritize threats in a timely manner. Digging into each vulnerability hinges on information sharing through adaptable reporting mechanisms that allow ISD to react quickly. ISD also greatly depends on knowledge of high-level threat trends and what could be at stake.

It turns out that many payments professionals and law enforcement agencies also spend a large part of their time investigating threats in the payments system. After my job shadowing, I realized even more how important it is for our payments detectives to have access to efficient, modern information-sharing and threat-reporting tools to understand specific threat trends and loss potential.

One such tool is the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). The FBI, which is the lead federal agency for investigating cyberattacks, established the center in May 2000 to receive complaints of internet crime. The mission of the IC3 is two-fold: to provide the public with a reliable and convenient reporting mechanism that captures suspected internet-facilitated criminal activity and to develop effective alliances with industry partners. The agency analyzes and disseminates the information, which contributes to law enforcement work and helps keep the public informed.

The annual IC3 report aggregates and highlights data provided by the general public. The IC3 staff analyze the data to identify trends in internet-facilitated crimes and what those trends may represent. This past year, the most prevalent crime types reported by victims were:

  • Nonpayment/Nondelivery
  • Personal data breach
  • Phishing

The top three crime types with the highest reported losses were:

  • Business email compromise
  • Confidence/Romance fraud
  • Nonpayment/Nondelivery

The report includes threat definitions, how these threats relate to payments businesses, what states are at the highest risk for breaches, and what dollar amounts correspond to each crime type. This is one tool available to uncover, enumerate, and prioritize threats to the payment ecosystem. Do you have other system layers in place to help you start your investigations? If you don't know, it might be time for you to take a "ride along" with your detectives.

Photo of Jessica Washington By Jessica Washington, AAP, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 6, 2018 in consumer fraud, consumer protection, cybercrime, cybersecurity, data security, fraud, identity theft, risk management | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 30, 2018


Are You at Risk from Zombie Credit Cards?

Do you have any infrequently used credit cards hiding in the back of a drawer? Maybe a card you applied for to get a discount on a new washing machine? Or a card you used frequently a few years ago that has been superseded by a newer card with better rewards or a lower interest rate? You know, the kind of card you might think is dead but isn't quite.

I had a card like that in the back of a drawer, until my bank canceled it a few weeks ago. The bank pointed out that I hadn't used the card in years but offered me the opportunity to reactivate.

No, thanks. I don't need the extra exposure of a forgotten card that has long outlived its usefulness. It's enough trouble keeping track of the cards I do use.

When it comes to inactive credit cards, it turns out I'm not alone. The 2016 Federal Reserve Payments Study finds that, of general-purpose credit cards issued to consumers, 42 percent were not used to make at least one purchase a month during 2015. As a percentage share, this is about the same as 2012, when 44 percent of credit cards were not used at least once a month. ("General-purpose" cards use one of the four major credit card networks, while "private-label" cards can be used only at a particular merchant or limited set of merchants.)

In 2015, there were 192 million consumer general-purpose credit cards outstanding and inactive. That's about four inactive credit cards for every five adults in the United States. (The adult U.S. population in 2015 was 247 million.)

Of course, inactive cards are not necessarily abandoned cards, as mine was. Perhaps their owners reserve them for a special purpose, or keep them around for times when particular retailers offer discounts. Perhaps they are backups in case primary cards are compromised. Or perhaps they serve as an emergency credit cushion—a "just-in-case" line of credit.

Nevertheless, these account numbers are out there. Mine could be sitting in the database of a magazine that is automatically renewed every year or maybe attached to an expired membership at a website I don't use anymore. It's good to have that card canceled, to avoid the risk that the card will rack up charges, zombie-like.

So what about those infrequently used cards at your house? Are you holding on to an older card because a longer lifespan card could possibly improve your credit score? If not, today might be a good day to cancel and then cut them up.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 30, 2018 in cards, consumer fraud, data security | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 23, 2018


Learning about Card-Not-Present Fraud Mitigation

Over the last year, I have had the pleasure of working with Fed colleagues and other payments industry experts on one of the Accredited Standards Committee's X9A Financial Industry Standards workgroups in writing a technical report on U.S. card-not-present (CNP) fraud mitigation. You can download the final report (at no cost) from the ANSI (American National Standards Institute) web store.

As this blog and other industry publications have been forecasting for years, the migration to payment cards containing EMV chips may already be resulting in a reduction of counterfeit card fraud and an increase in CNP fraud and other fraudulent activity. This has been the trend in other countries that have gone through the chip card migration, and there was no reason to believe that it would be any different in the United States. The purpose of the technical report was to identify the major types of CNP fraud and present guidelines for mitigating these fraud attacks to the various payments industry stakeholders.

Graph-image-b

Source: Data from Card-Not-Present (CNP) Fraud Mitigation in the United States, the 2018 technical report prepared by the Accredited Standards Committee X9, Incorporated Financial Industry Standards

After an initial section identifying the primary stakeholders that CNP fraud affects, the technical report reviews five major CNP transaction scenarios, complete with transaction flow diagrams. The report continues with a detailed section of terms, definitions, and initialisms and acronyms.

The best defense against CNP fraud from an industry standpoint is the protection of data from being breached in the first place. Section 5 of the report reviews the role that data security takes in CNP fraud mitigation. It contains references to other documents providing detailed data protection recommendations.

Criminals will gather personal and payment data in various attacks against those who don't use strong data protection practices, so the next sections deal with the heart of CNP fraud mitigation.

  • Section 6 identifies the major types of CNP fraud attacks, both attacks that steal data and those that use that data to conduct fraudulent activities.
  • Section 7 reviews mitigation tools and approaches to take against such attacks. The section is subdivided into perspectives of various stakeholders, including merchants, merchant acquirers and gateways, issuers and issuer processors, and, finally, payment card networks.
  • Section 8 discusses how a stakeholder should identify key fraud performance metrics and then analyze, report, and track those metrics. While stakeholders will have different elements of metrics, they must each go to a sufficient level so the results will provide key insights and predictive indicators.

The report concludes with several annex sections (appendices) covering a variety of subjects related to CNP fraud. Suggestions for the improvement or revision of the technical report are welcome. Please send them to the X9 Committee Secretariat, Accredited Standards Committee X9 Inc., Financial Industry Standards, 275 West Street, Suite 107, Annapolis, MD 21401. I hope you will distribute this document among those in your institution involved with CNP fraud prevention, detection, and response to use as an educational or reference document. I think it will be quite useful.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

July 23, 2018 in card networks, cards, consumer fraud, consumer protection, cybercrime, cybersecurity, debit cards, identity theft | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 6, 2018


Attack of the Smart Refrigerator

We've all heard about refrigerators that automatically order groceries when they sense the current supply is running low or out. These smart refrigerators are what people usually point to when giving an example of an "internet-of-things" (IoT) device. Briefly, an IoT device is a physical device connected to the internet wirelessly that transmits data, sometimes without direct human interaction. I suspect most of you have at least one of these devices already operating in your home or office, whether it's a wireless router, baby monitor, or voice-activated assistant or "smart" lights, thermostats, security systems, or TVs.

Experts are forecasting that IoT device manufacturing will be one of the fastest growing industries over the next decade. Gartner estimates there were more than 8 billion connected IoT devices globally in 2017, with about $2 trillion going toward IoT endpoints and services. In 2020, the number of these devices will increase to more than 20 billion. But what security are manufacturers building into these devices to prevent monitoring or outside manipulation? What prevents someone from hacking into your security system and monitoring the patterns of your house or office or turning on your interior security cameras and invading your privacy? For those devices that can generate financial transactions, what authentication processes will ensure that transactions are legitimate? It's one kind of mistake to order an unneeded gallon of milk, but another one entirely to use that connection to access a home computer to monitor one's online banking transaction activity and capture log-on credentials.

As one would probably suspect, there is no simple or consistent answer to these security questions, but the overall track record of device security has not been a great one. There have been major DDOS attacks against websites using botnets composed of millions of IoT devices. Ransomware attacks have been made against consumers' home security systems and thermostats, forcing consumers to pay the extortionist to get their systems working again.

Some of the high-end devices such as the driverless cars and medical devices have been designed with security controls at the forefront, but most other manufacturers have given little thought to the criminal's ability to use a device to access and control other devices running on the same network. Adding to the problem is that many of these devices do not get software updates, including security patches.

With cybersecurity issues grabbing so many headlines, people are paying more and more attention to the role and impact of IoT devices. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has begun efforts to develop security standards for cryptology that can operate within IoT devices. However, NIST estimates it will take two to four years to get the standard out.

In the meantime, the Department of Justice has some recommendations for securing IoT devices, including:

  • Research your device to determine security features. Does it have a changeable password? Does the manufacturer deliver security updates?
  • After you purchase a device and before you install it, download security updates and reset any default passwords.
  • If automatic updates are not provided to registered users, check at least monthly to determine if there are updates and download only from reputable sites.
  • Protect your routers and home Wi-Fi networks with firewalls, strong passwords, and security keys.

I see IoT device security as an issue that will continue to grow in importance. In a future post, I will discuss the privacy issues that IoT devices could create.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 6, 2018 in consumer fraud, cybercrime, cybersecurity, fraud, identity theft, innovation, online banking fraud, privacy | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

February 12, 2018


If the Password Is Dying, Is the PIN Far Behind?

Back in January, I wrote a post that highlighted the rising incidence of lost-and-stolen card fraud in the United Kingdom. I concluded that the decades-old PIN solution for the card-present environment is now showing signs of weakness. Results of a recent Minneapolis Fed survey of 283 financial institutions offer some validity to my conclusion: the survey found that losses on PIN-based debit increased by 50 percent from 2015 to 2016. In fact, 81 percent of the respondents reported fraud losses from PIN-based debit, compared to only 77 percent for credit cards.

The news wasn't all bad for PIN-based debit. Signature-based debit and credit cards still had more fraud attempts than any other payment instrument. At 63 percent, signature debit fraud actually had a higher increase in fraud losses from 2015 to 2016 than did PIN debit. The PIN is a far superior verification method for card payments, but I'm willing to bet that the PIN, much like the password, has become less effective.

Is this coming at a time when the PIN is about to become more prominent? In late January, the PCI Security Standards Council announced a new security standard for software-based PIN entry, also known as "PIN on glass." This standard specifies the security requirements for accepting a PIN on a mobile point-of-sale device such as a Square card reader.

As an aside, I am a bit surprised by this announcement. Apparently, mobile phones are safe enough for entering PINs, but when someone uses a pay wallet such as Apple Pay or Samsung Pay, the card's PAN, or primary account number, is tokenized for security purposes. I'll save a discussion of this inconsistency for another post.

People have been talking for years now about how the password has passed its prime as a standalone authentication solution. Yet it continues to live, and it's as difficult as ever to mitigate its vulnerabilities. In my opinion, attempts to do so have increased customer friction and had minimal impact. I think the PIN is following a similar path. It creates customer friction (especially for me as I now have different PINs for multiple cards that I struggle to keep straight) and is losing its effectiveness, according to the data I mentioned in the first paragraph. But it appears that, with the PCI's recent announcement, the PIN could become even more prevalent for cardholders. Is it time, in the name of security and customer friction, for us to replace PINs and passwords with more modern authentication technologies such as biometrics?

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

February 12, 2018 in authentication, banks and banking, cards, chip-and-pin, consumer fraud, debit cards, EMV, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

October 16, 2017


No Magic Bullet for Preventing Data Breaches

Much has been written about the Equifax data breach, including a Take On Payments piece several weeks ago. Since the announcement of the breach in early September, my LinkedIn timeline has been filled with articles and messages from sales and development professionals claiming that their technologies and solutions could have prevented the Equifax breach. Unfortunately, the weakest leak isn't a technology problem or issue. It is, and will continue to be, the human element.

Before I hear from the sales and development professionals I just referred to, let me say that I believe that technology does play an important role in mitigating data breaches. For example, statistics show that homes equipped with a security system—"hard targets"—are significantly less likely to be burglarized than homes without them—"soft targets." I suspect the same is true for companies and data breaches in that those who do a better job of securing their data with technology are harder targets than those who do not. However, technology is only one aspect of preventing data breaches—which brings us back to the human element.

We are the weakest link. We architect and program security systems with flaws. We fail to properly update software or install patches on a timely basis. We open suspicious attachments on emails. We sometimes visit dubious websites and click on suspicious ads or links. We divulge too much information over social media. We share sensitive information with people we think we know and who we think are friendly. And we are mistake- and accident-prone. Education does and will continue to help, but humans will continue to make mistakes and be accident-prone, thus data breaches will remain an ongoing problem.

The late, great musician Tom Petty said, "Music is probably the only real magic I have encountered in my life. There's not some trick involved with it. It's pure and it's real." While Petty's remark that music is probably the only real magic is debatable, there is no debating that data breach prevention has no magic bullet. Educating people remains critical, but, as is all too often the case, education also ends up falling short. As a risk expert, I really wish that I had the answer to preventing data breaches. Unfortunately, human actions trump any answers that I might have. Given the grim outlook for data breaches, it is imperative for companies and individuals to have a plan in place to minimize the damage when a data breach occurs.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

October 16, 2017 in consumer fraud, cybercrime, data security, identity theft, malware | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

July 24, 2017


FIDO Tightens Authentication's Leash

Our blog often covers user authentication challenges confronting financial institutions and merchants. We feel this topic is essential given that consumers are increasingly going online to make payments and their passwords tend to be weak. Financial institutions and merchants face a difficult balancing act. They must be confident that their authentication tools effectively confirm the legitimacy of the individual attempting a transaction, but they also have to make sure these tools don't create a bad experience for the customer.

A meeting in 2009 between a fingerprint-sensor manufacturer and a global, third-party payment provider to fingerprint-enable online payments quickly turned into a conversation on how to develop an industry standard for the general use of biometrics to identify online users. Ultimately, this meeting led to the formation of the FIDO (Fast IDentity Online) Alliance in 2012. FIDO currently has a global membership of more than 250 companies and agencies spanning the payments, mobile, PC, and transaction security industries.

FIDO's principal effort has been to develop a set of specifications and certifications covering consumer devices, mobile and web applications, and biometric authentication methods for e-commerce applications. Products certified to these authentication specs reduce password dependence, transaction friction, and stolen password attacks such as phishing, man-in-the middle attacks, and transaction replays.

FIDO initially focused on mobile devices—which allow authentication with the fingerprint sensor, microphone, and camera—and developed the Universal Authentication Framework. This framework provides enhanced security using public-key cryptography, with the keys and biometric templates remaining on the mobile device. The user goes through a device registration process that creates the biometric template and a cryptographic key pair on the device and registers only the public key with the online service. To perform a transaction, the customer uses one of the phone's biometric sensors to unlock the private key on the device.

To expand these strong cryptographic authentication capabilities to second-factor use cases on the web, FIDO established a second set of specifications known as FIDO U2F, or Universal Second Factor protocol. With this protocol, the user inserts a certified U2F device, also known as a security key, into a device's USB port or uses the device's Bluetooth or near-field communication features. The application running in a FIDO-compliant web browser first challenges the user for a password and then authenticates the user with the cryptographic private key on the U2F device.

Authentication of customers, especially on a remote basis, will always be a challenge as criminals find more and more ways to spoof identities. The industry's efforts to increase the security of remote payments remain ongoing and the cooperative work demonstrated by groups such as the FIDO Alliance plays an important part in that effort.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

July 24, 2017 in banks and banking, biometrics, consumer fraud, consumer protection, identity theft, innovation, mobile payments | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad