For you own safety

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:10:33 -0700 (PDT), Digital
wrote:

Pin numbers in Reverse

If you should ever be forced by a robber to withdraw money from an
ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in
reverse.

For example if your pin number is 1234 then you would put in 4321.
The ATM recognizes that your pin number is backwards from the ATM card
you placed in the machine.

The machine will still give you the money you requested, but
unknown to the robber, the police will be immediately dispatched to
help you.

This information was recently broadcast on FOX TV and it states
that it is seldom used because people don't know it exists.

It's seldom used because it doesn't work.

Please pass this along to everyone possible.


This is an urban myth.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...everse_pin.htm

or

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/pinalert.asp


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article ,
tony cooper wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2008 21:10:33 -0700 (PDT), Digital
wrote:

Pin numbers in Reverse

If you should ever be forced by a robber to withdraw money from an
ATM machine, you can notify the police by entering your Pin # in
reverse.

For example if your pin number is 1234 then you would put in 4321.
The ATM recognizes that your pin number is backwards from the ATM card
you placed in the machine.

The machine will still give you the money you requested, but
unknown to the robber, the police will be immediately dispatched to
help you.

This information was recently broadcast on FOX TV and it states
that it is seldom used because people don't know it exists.

It's seldom used because it doesn't work.

Please pass this along to everyone possible.


This is an urban myth.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...everse_pin.htm

or

http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/pinalert.asp

The sooner banks start allowing real security with longer PIN numbers,
the better - bet your email PW is 8 or more digits long?

"Stewy" wrote

The sooner banks start allowing real security with longer PIN numbers,
the better - bet your email PW is 8 or more digits long?

While that would improve security for the folk who follow the guidelines,
many more would start writing their more complicated PINs down, defeating
the whole process. I remember an article some time back that reported quite
a high percentage of stolen cards used for unauthorised withdrawals had the
PIN written on them! You wouldn't think people would be that dumb, but there
you go...

Paul

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:08:34 +1000, Paul Bartram wrote:

I remember an article some time back that reported quite
a high percentage of stolen cards used for unauthorised withdrawals had the
PIN written on them! You wouldn't think people would be that dumb, but there
you go...

And, sigh...., the vote, they breed,
and fumble around in google groups.

In message , Paul
Bartram writes

"Stewy" wrote

The sooner banks start allowing real security with longer PIN numbers,
the better - bet your email PW is 8 or more digits long?

While that would improve security for the folk who follow the guidelines,
many more would start writing their more complicated PINs down, defeating
the whole process. I remember an article some time back that reported quite
a high percentage of stolen cards used for unauthorised withdrawals had the
PIN written on them! You wouldn't think people would be that dumb, but there
you go...

I have actually had it suggested that you should carry a c card with
four PIN numbers in your wallet. None of the pin numbers being valid.
The thug will try the pin numbers (assuming one is valid) and invalidate
the card.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , Allodoxaphobia
writes
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:08:34 +1000, Paul Bartram wrote:

I remember an article some time back that reported quite
a high percentage of stolen cards used for unauthorised withdrawals had the
PIN written on them! You wouldn't think people would be that dumb, but there
you go...

And, sigh...., the vote, they breed,
and fumble around in google groups.

Is there anyway of disconnecting google groups from Usenet? They could
happily all play there and not get in the way of the adults :-)))

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In article ,
Chris H wrote:

Is there anyway of disconnecting google groups from Usenet? They could
happily all play there and not get in the way of the adults :-)))

Yes. It's known as the "USENET Death Penalty". It would require that
most of the sites which provide the majority of USENET propagation (a
relatively few large sites these days) decide to stop accepting and
propagating articles which originate at Google Groups. It's most
effective if it's implemented by complete de-peering, where those
sites which are currently accepting USENET feeds directly from Google
stop doing so.

Sites could continue to feed USENET articles *to* Google Groups. All
that's required for a UDP is that they stop propagating Google-
posted articles to their other neighbors.

UDPs aren't an easy thing to achieve. There have been a few of them
invoked, I believe, over the lifetime of USENET, but I'd be surprised
if it were more than half-a-dozen. Since USENET is a decentralized
system, with independent policy decisions made at each node, it takes
a lot of bad behavior for a site to manage to irritate a sufficiently
large percentage of the primary USENET node operators for a UDP to
actually take effect.

I suspect that Google Groups is rapidly approaching that point.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!