Sony Needs To Stop Brushing Off PSN Fraud

BBC One show Watchdog exposed Sony's terms and service policies regarding PSN.

GamerVets gives examples and tips on how Sony can offer more consumer friendly feedback to customers who were hit with PSN fraud.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
JoGam1236d ago ShowReplies(5)
TheGreatGamer1236d ago

I agree it's not always the fault of Sony but they act very petty when they lock people out of their digital libary if they get a refund from their bank... disgraceful and petty behavior

nicksetzer11236d ago

They don't get a "refund." They placed a hold on those funds and leave the debt to Sony. When it is the end users fault, that is not ok and should end in the account being frozen until the debt is paid.

Fraud sucks, but there is no reason Sony should be responsible for something that is not in their control. They have secured th at users information and being that the information was not obtained VIA Sony that is not their fault. Nor their responsibility to pay that users debt.

SmielmaN1236d ago

Also, typically when someone reports fraud they must also report it to their local Police Service to obtain a case number and begin a criminal investigation. Creditor needs this info for their own internal fraud investigators. This is how they assure someone just doesn't rack up purchases then call the creditor and claim they were defrauded so they aren't responsible for the debt and keep the goods/services. All these systems are in place to reduce fraud and catch ppl trying to scam the creditors. The only way to do that effectively is to go bankrupt/credit default after racking up ridiculous debt, and even then you have to jump through many hoops and still pay back a portion of the amounts owing.

This writer is definitely creating click bait articles/headlines.

joeorc1236d ago

And before you go for a charge back to your credit card company back, why not,tell Sony by phone or Email, about that a fraud charge was done before you send a charge back to the credit card company... and Tell Sony you are intending to do a credit card charge back.

So they can remove such a pesky Digital Download that you did not use or ask for.

if you indeed use the content, than that would be, when was the last time it was accessed. And from where. Change your password, and log in info after the very 1st sign of a breach to your account.

if your account is breached more than once for your account, it could very well be some piggy backing on your network by another user who may have had a key logger on your network.

But we all know Sony takes network security very lightly now just like they did back in 2011/

son security is 100 percent defensive viable completely even end users very own network!

rainslacker1236d ago

Lets say you run a business. In this business you provide the service of selling streaming movies to the customer. They can log in, make a movie purchase, and watch it within the confines of how you set up your service.

Now, say one day, your servers indicate that customer Joe logs in and purchases a movie. Your servers indicate that customer Joe watched that movie, or didn't doesn't really matter.

A few days later(typically a week after the reversal), you get a notification from the CC company that there is a transaction dispute from customer Joe, with their credit card. At this point you are now out the purchase price of that movie, but you are still on the hook to pay whoever it is you have to pay to be allowed to sell that movie.

So, as a company, you assume that customer Joe's account was compromised, because if he didn't make the purchase, and he's the only one authorized to use the account for purchases, then the account obviously isn't secure.

At this point, do you just say, "Oh well, no big loss, what's $20 dollars"(number used as hypothetical), or do you say, "Customer Joe's account is compromised. In order to prevent future fraud on the account, we will lock the account".

Since the account is a service based entity, with no product other than access to streamed movies, that locks out the content available on that account. It's not the content on the account that was compromised, but the account itself.

Now, to me that seems like a reasonable and justifiable security measure, and honestly, given my time in IT security i can assure you it is the most common way things are done. It protects the company from losing more money. I know this sounds weird, but it also protects the customer as they are the ones who had their identity stolen, and there is no telling what kind of information a thief can garner from logging onto a compromised account.

Funny thing is, is Sony will actually work with people if you contact them. They will usually lock down the account to do an investigation, but if you actively try to resolve the issue then you'll gain it back. I've heard people say they've gotten refunds this way without issue, and only had their account restricted for a couple days. Dealing with the actual company that was defrauded can often be much easier and more efficient than dealing with the CC company, and it usually is more beneficial to both parties since one the company doesn't have to jump through hoops to show they followed proper CC acceptance procedures to get a fraction of that money back.

joeorc1236d ago

Bingo, Rainslacker, if your account was breached, I would be looking to when and where and what time, 2nd working with the company that is offering a service and there is even one fraud charge on , my account I would want it freaking frozen until I change my password and log in info.

reg. Your system 1st and a prime reason to REG. Your system.

gamerfan09091236d ago ShowReplies(4)
Wii_nes_0071236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

All platforms this generation have had technical and server issues, especially at launch. PC, PS4, and XBOX One alike. You say how can you support a company with such weak security? Bill Gates wants to murder a bilion people, how can you support a company that supports human slaughter? Just saying.

Death1236d ago

Is this the same Bill Gates that runs a foundation with his wife to help end hunger and poverty? http://www.gatesfoundation....

Spotie1236d ago

One negates the other?

Death1236d ago

I'll be honest Spotie, I watched the video a couple times and no where did Bill Gates say he wants a billion people killed off. Population control isn't done by lining existing people up and slaughtering them like Hitler did. It's done by preventing unwanted pregnancies. Preventing pregnancy is not the same as terminating pregnancy. Population control is one part of the formula to reduce CO2 emissions. You would have to not cut off the rest of his presentation to see the rest.

Does one negate the other is the question you asked. I'm not sure how asking people to be more responsible with how much CO2 they produce takes away from all the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done. You have what the Foundation has actively been doing vs. the effects increased CO2 will have on the planet and it's population in the distant future. I'm not sure how you can confuse the two.

Spotie1236d ago

I wasn't claiming one or the other to be true. Rather, I was questioning why you would act as if what you claim would make what Wii_nes claimed go away. The veracity of either claim is not my question.


Did you just tried a hysteria inducing conspiracy theory argument to win "console wars"? Oh boy, fanboyism must be about to hit rock bottom, any moment now...

andibandit1236d ago

your spindoctor abilities are unrivaled.

NovusTerminus1236d ago

Fraud happens, and it is mostly small scale here, and every company will brush it aside as much as possible.

Bank of America charged me $300 for fraud after I argued with them for months about it being fraud, their response? Tough luck. They said I was lying, and nothing showed fraud and did nothing for me.

Every company will brush off as much, and sometimes legitimate fraud claims as possible.

rainslacker1236d ago (Edited 1236d ago )

What's funny is that banks will often encourage you to use debit transactions on check cards because you have to contest fraud through the bank, and not the card issuer which will actually give a charge back.

I've never had a problem with a bank putting money back in my account, but their investigations are lacking, as they will usually just take it back out unexpectedly again in 3-4 weeks time without notice.

I use all sorts of fraud protection on my accounts now, have several interlinked accounts with limits that prevent money from being taken out en masse, and have a card which has to be funded manually before use to prevent huge bills being racked up due to fraud. You tend to be more careful after losing $13K in one day, only to get back $200 of it after almost a year of paperwork and your credit being completely shot for the next 7 years.

Despite all this, I don't go all, "OMG Company X has crappy security because of a hack". I just protect myself beforehand, and know that no matter where you entrust your personal information, you are at risk of having it fall into the hands of people that are willing enough to get it.

Show all comments (65)
The story is too old to be commented.