I went to a local Thai restaurant for lunch today. When it was time to pay, my credit card was declined. Puzzled, I offered an alternative card, paid, and returned to the office.
Straight away, I called the credit card company about the first card and, after jumping a number of very appropriate security hurdles to establish my identity, I was informed my card had been suspended due to suspicious activity.
Expressing my thanks, I asked about the suspicious activity and it was explained that four identical purchases for $30-something dollars had taken place at a jewelry store in Austin Texas. I confirmed that I hadn’t been in Austin Texas so the charges were obviously bogus. I asked, however, why someone would use my account for such petty charges. The fraud team representative explained that this is a common approach – small charges that won’t be noticed, ramping up over time.
She then asked if my family was in possession of all of the cards on the account. I said I thought so. Checking the record, she then noted that it appeared as if no card had been presented for the transaction, that my account number had been entered manually, so whoever did it didn’t need my card, just the number. Then, she tossed out: “Or it could have been on an online transaction.”
Click…
I asked about the jewelry store. She gave me the name. I Googled it. Yes, the store did sell jewelry – class rings. As well as caps and gowns, yearbooks and other graduation-related paraphernalia. And, notably, the “store” was an e-tailer, not a store - a one-time mail-order shop.
Click…
Now that I’d figured out what was going on, I explained to the fraud team representative that I am the proud father of 17-year-old quadruplets, each half a year shy of graduating. A quick check with home confirmed that the kids had recently ordered caps or gowns, which I further relayed to the fraud rep, asking her to remove the hold on my card since the purchases were legitimate. I expressed thanks for the strict procedures that the credit card company had in place and she apologized to me for any inconvenience.
The intent of the security measures was sterling – prevent fraud and theft. The filters were good: An unusual location and an unusual purchasing pattern. And the prophylactic was powerful – shut it down. Yet, some of the assumptions were flawed: no card presented doesn’t mean hand-keyed. And the due diligence was scant: Just because an outlet sells jewelry does not mean it is a jewelry store. But these were afterthoughts, embellishments - the location/pattern profile was enough.
But, best intentions aside, the profile was wrong. Not because the system couldn’t comprehend or was ignoring the facts, but, rather, because the system is blind. But, importantly, as demonstrated in the above, it can be corrected.
There is an interesting if indirect analogy in this story that applies to Huawei and the treatment it has received in the U.S.
The credit card fraud prevention system blocked a transaction because the nature of the transaction didn’t meet an acceptable profile therefore it was suspicious. Huawei, based in China, has been blocked from doing business in the U.S. because it’s Chinese heritage does not meet an acceptable profile for a multinational technology company, and therefore is deemed suspicious.
The cap and gown transaction need not have been blocked, and, indeed, was approved once it was explained that while it was unusual, it was not suspicious. The profile – a one-size-fits-all – was understood to have been incorrect. Huawei is in a similar situation, but has thus far been unable to help customer service accept the facts. Rather, the fraud team is insisting, based on flawed assumptions and a lack of due diligence, that if it doesn’t meet the profile, it can’t be approved. The profile cannot be corrected.
Quadruplets are unusual and beyond the average persons’ frame of reference. So too are privately-held multinationals with a Chinese heritage. Just as the number of multiple births has increased over the last decade, so too will the number of independent Chinese multinationals. With time, “acceptable profiles” will evolve. What are we waiting for?
November 16, 2012
April 29, 2012
Huawei, Rep. Wolf and George Clooney
Representative Wolf (R-VA) has some strong concerns about China, many of which may well have merit. Sadly, Rep. Wolf's expressions of concern about China, however well-justified, sacrifice credibility when he kowtows to industry friends who seemingly seek to leverage the Congressman's China concerns to preclude competition and innovation in the U.S. information and communications technology industry.
Recently, as reported by The National Journal (link) and others, Rep. Wolf wrote to a Managing Partner at a D.C. law firm calling on that Partner to drop representation of China-based multinational Huawei, my employer (Please note that the comments in this blog are my personal reflections).
Rep. Wolf's letter rehashes oft-cited, never-substantiated disinformation about Huawei, including purported ties to the Chinese Government, as justification for his request of the law firm. He further cites as some sort of factual basis for his opinion an April 6, 2012 Wall Street Journal article that quoted Cisco CEO John Chambers saying that Huawei is Cisco's "toughest rival" and that Huawei doesn't always "play by the rules."
Among multiple ironies associated with Rep. Wolf's seeming support for Cisco's commercial de-positioning campaign, is the fact that Cisco conducts significant research and development, codes software, builds products and invests billions of dollars annually in China, Chinese-based innovation, and Chinese education and jobs.
There has never been a shred of proof of Huawei having any undue connection to the Chinese Government. Notably, Huawei, which bears some responsibility for having allowed disinformation to fester for the better part of a decade, has since its February 2011 "Open Letter" (link) continually and proactively communicated detailed facts about the company, and has consistently been met with nothing more than unsubstantiated politically- or competitively-inspired myth and innuendo.
But this isn't Rep. Wolf's first run at the company. On March 19, 2012, Wolf made remarks for the Congressional Record (link), yet again undermining his concerns about China-based cyber activities by purporting links between Huawei and the Chinese Government (citing numerous never-substantiated sources, U.S. Government and otherwise), and almost amusingly warning that "U.S. network carriers should not be selling Huawei devices...but if they do, they have an obligation to inform their customers of these threats." Given that virtually every mobile device (and computer, for that matter) is made in China, the carriers are going to have to cede a lot of display space to Rep. Wolf's proposed warning brochures...
Wolf's letter also quotes U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson making fuzzy observations about Huawei, including the quizzical statement: "It appears that Huawei has capabilities that we may not fully detect to divert information." Sadly, Rep. Wolf's letter is too brief to include yet more "fun with facts" from his exchange with the Secretary that took place during a March 20, 2012 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Subcommittee meeting. So, it seems only fair that we review some highlights (errors are not mine, they come verbatim from the transcript), with comments. I'll ignore all of the tired references to Huawei's "close connections" to Chinese intelligence, given that they are backed with zero substance and fly in the face of well-publicized facts:
WOLF: "...The Wall Street Journal reported that quote, 'Huawei's network business has stride at the expense of struggling Western network companies such as Alcatel, Lucent Company and the Korea's Siemens networks.' The bottom line is that these subsidies are costing American jobs and distorting the global market."
Comment: Ok, this one is easy enough... Yes, competition can have an impact on incumbents. But, the incumbents referenced - based in France and Finland/Germany and both with significant operations in China - have been cutting American jobs and investments in the U.S. for years now while Huawei has been adding thousands of jobs, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. innovation, and procuring billions of dollars worth of goods and services from U.S. based technology companies.
WOLF: "The Chinese government has Catholic bishops on house arrest. The Chinese government's connection to Huawei, the People's Liberation Army, has Protestant pastors -- house Protestant pastors in jail... They have a 2010 Nobel Prize winner, Xiabo in jail. They were not allowed to go to Oslo to pick up the award nor would they let his wife go. Based on the policies of the Chinese government and the People's Liberation Army in connection to Huawei too, we have to keep in mind all the time."
Comment: Huh?
WOLF: "We cannot disregard the fundamental connection that Huawei's doing and that they're connected within the Chinese government and the activities of the Chinese government and lastly, there was a lot of news last week when George Clooney who was (inaudible) went to Sudan. I was in Southern Sudan, in that refugee camp in (Nuba). The Chinese, the People's Liberation Army, connected to Huawei, are putting Chinese rockets that go 100 kilometers that are killing people..."
Comment: WTF?
WOLF: "...I saw that the president met with George Clooney, so there's no breakdown. I think it's important that the White House understand the whole Huawei connection so that this company doesn't hire Washington lawyers and lobbyists and people plugged in to begin to approach the White House to bypass the good work that you're going to be doing with regard to Huawei and go around you by going into the White House because as you can remind the White House, when the president met with George Clooney and that's on this issue. That has connectivity to the whole Huawei issue."
Comment: I am speechless...
To the extent that Rep. Wolf's credibility may have been undermined by his curtsy to Cisco, it seems utterly blown away by the flights of fancy featured in his remarks on the record above. Indeed, one really has to wonder what Secretary Bryson and anyone else in the room must have been thinking as the words spewed forth...
Recently, as reported by The National Journal (link) and others, Rep. Wolf wrote to a Managing Partner at a D.C. law firm calling on that Partner to drop representation of China-based multinational Huawei, my employer (Please note that the comments in this blog are my personal reflections).
Rep. Wolf's letter rehashes oft-cited, never-substantiated disinformation about Huawei, including purported ties to the Chinese Government, as justification for his request of the law firm. He further cites as some sort of factual basis for his opinion an April 6, 2012 Wall Street Journal article that quoted Cisco CEO John Chambers saying that Huawei is Cisco's "toughest rival" and that Huawei doesn't always "play by the rules."
Among multiple ironies associated with Rep. Wolf's seeming support for Cisco's commercial de-positioning campaign, is the fact that Cisco conducts significant research and development, codes software, builds products and invests billions of dollars annually in China, Chinese-based innovation, and Chinese education and jobs.
There has never been a shred of proof of Huawei having any undue connection to the Chinese Government. Notably, Huawei, which bears some responsibility for having allowed disinformation to fester for the better part of a decade, has since its February 2011 "Open Letter" (link) continually and proactively communicated detailed facts about the company, and has consistently been met with nothing more than unsubstantiated politically- or competitively-inspired myth and innuendo.
But this isn't Rep. Wolf's first run at the company. On March 19, 2012, Wolf made remarks for the Congressional Record (link), yet again undermining his concerns about China-based cyber activities by purporting links between Huawei and the Chinese Government (citing numerous never-substantiated sources, U.S. Government and otherwise), and almost amusingly warning that "U.S. network carriers should not be selling Huawei devices...but if they do, they have an obligation to inform their customers of these threats." Given that virtually every mobile device (and computer, for that matter) is made in China, the carriers are going to have to cede a lot of display space to Rep. Wolf's proposed warning brochures...
Wolf's letter also quotes U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson making fuzzy observations about Huawei, including the quizzical statement: "It appears that Huawei has capabilities that we may not fully detect to divert information." Sadly, Rep. Wolf's letter is too brief to include yet more "fun with facts" from his exchange with the Secretary that took place during a March 20, 2012 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Subcommittee meeting. So, it seems only fair that we review some highlights (errors are not mine, they come verbatim from the transcript), with comments. I'll ignore all of the tired references to Huawei's "close connections" to Chinese intelligence, given that they are backed with zero substance and fly in the face of well-publicized facts:
WOLF: "...The Wall Street Journal reported that quote, 'Huawei's network business has stride at the expense of struggling Western network companies such as Alcatel, Lucent Company and the Korea's Siemens networks.' The bottom line is that these subsidies are costing American jobs and distorting the global market."
Comment: Ok, this one is easy enough... Yes, competition can have an impact on incumbents. But, the incumbents referenced - based in France and Finland/Germany and both with significant operations in China - have been cutting American jobs and investments in the U.S. for years now while Huawei has been adding thousands of jobs, investing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. innovation, and procuring billions of dollars worth of goods and services from U.S. based technology companies.
WOLF: "The Chinese government has Catholic bishops on house arrest. The Chinese government's connection to Huawei, the People's Liberation Army, has Protestant pastors -- house Protestant pastors in jail... They have a 2010 Nobel Prize winner, Xiabo in jail. They were not allowed to go to Oslo to pick up the award nor would they let his wife go. Based on the policies of the Chinese government and the People's Liberation Army in connection to Huawei too, we have to keep in mind all the time."
Comment: Huh?
WOLF: "We cannot disregard the fundamental connection that Huawei's doing and that they're connected within the Chinese government and the activities of the Chinese government and lastly, there was a lot of news last week when George Clooney who was (inaudible) went to Sudan. I was in Southern Sudan, in that refugee camp in (Nuba). The Chinese, the People's Liberation Army, connected to Huawei, are putting Chinese rockets that go 100 kilometers that are killing people..."
Comment: WTF?
WOLF: "...I saw that the president met with George Clooney, so there's no breakdown. I think it's important that the White House understand the whole Huawei connection so that this company doesn't hire Washington lawyers and lobbyists and people plugged in to begin to approach the White House to bypass the good work that you're going to be doing with regard to Huawei and go around you by going into the White House because as you can remind the White House, when the president met with George Clooney and that's on this issue. That has connectivity to the whole Huawei issue."
Comment: I am speechless...
To the extent that Rep. Wolf's credibility may have been undermined by his curtsy to Cisco, it seems utterly blown away by the flights of fancy featured in his remarks on the record above. Indeed, one really has to wonder what Secretary Bryson and anyone else in the room must have been thinking as the words spewed forth...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)