Comments on: Impark’s Scheme to Force People to Use Their Parking Lots [Updated] http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/ Joey deVilla's Personal Blog Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:49:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Anonymous http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-11852 Anonymous Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:20:21 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-11852 The parking meters in Toronto (pay and display) are not real-time. They batch transactions before actually processing the credit cards. Any card with a valid checksum and valid bin number on the card mag track has the ability to be used on the machine. Andrew is correct. If the machines do not validate the transaction prior to printing the ticket, the vendor is at fault for not verifying. The Eurocard is it's own type of card using a specific bin range that is accepted on the machines. The parking meters in Toronto (pay and display) are not real-time. They batch transactions before actually processing the credit cards. Any card with a valid checksum and valid bin number on the card mag track has the ability to be used on the machine. Andrew is correct. If the machines do not validate the transaction prior to printing the ticket, the vendor is at fault for not verifying. The Eurocard is it’s own type of card using a specific bin range that is accepted on the machines.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10558 Andrew Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:39:17 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10558 I noticed the debate on parking, and had to join in. I work for a parking company (and leave it at that). The company we outsource to supply the meters which we use on our lots, does the programming of the meter firmware. What Mike stated about the cards is essentially correct, a little more complex then that actually, as Ivan the programmer, says our card readers employ verifications, which are not known by individuals outside the industry, and are rarely utilized anymore, as almost all forms of transactions are live nowadays. He says that attempting to create a card with all the correct information (without stolen data), is not as easy as it sounds. Even with stolen data, the problem remains with the timing. The machines we use have readers which suck the card in at a constant rate and have been programmed to reject the card if the written data is not the correct density. So even those that can get their hands on stolen data, if they use a manual swipe writer, the data density wouldn't match, and it would not accept the card as valid. The supplier of our meters is friends with the regional manager, so they create "VIP passes" for us, which we give as incentives to lot owners (to let us manage or lease the lot from them), since it basically gives them free parking all over the GTA, including TPA and private lots (which use the same machines that are supplied to us). We did have an issue a while back, in which some of the machines did not do any checks and even allowed non-valid algorithms (they said it was faulty firmware) to print out a valid ticket. We attempted to get the police involved, but they stated there was nothing they could do about it, as people using these cards were not breaking any laws. I don't get that! According to them, it's our problem, and we should use attendants or employ meters which do real time verifications. The only time they actually helped us was when people were selling tickets on our lots (using stolen credit cards, before limiters were put on the machines...which allowed one card to print out hundreds of tickets). The only thing they could charge them with was selling without a vendors license. What a joke! I noticed the debate on parking, and had to join in. I work for a parking company (and leave it at that). The company we outsource to supply the meters which we use on our lots, does the programming of the meter firmware. What Mike stated about the cards is essentially correct, a little more complex then that actually, as Ivan the programmer, says our card readers employ verifications, which are not known by individuals outside the industry, and are rarely utilized anymore, as almost all forms of transactions are live nowadays. He says that attempting to create a card with all the correct information (without stolen data), is not as easy as it sounds. Even with stolen data, the problem remains with the timing. The machines we use have readers which suck the card in at a constant rate and have been programmed to reject the card if the written data is not the correct density. So even those that can get their hands on stolen data, if they use a manual swipe writer, the data density wouldn’t match, and it would not accept the card as valid.

The supplier of our meters is friends with the regional manager, so they create “VIP passes” for us, which we give as incentives to lot owners (to let us manage or lease the lot from them), since it basically gives them free parking all over the GTA, including TPA and private lots (which use the same machines that are supplied to us). We did have an issue a while back, in which some of the machines did not do any checks and even allowed non-valid algorithms (they said it was faulty firmware) to print out a valid ticket. We attempted to get the police involved, but they stated there was nothing they could do about it, as people using these cards were not breaking any laws. I don’t get that!

According to them, it’s our problem, and we should use attendants or employ meters which do real time verifications. The only time they actually helped us was when people were selling tickets on our lots (using stolen credit cards, before limiters were put on the machines…which allowed one card to print out hundreds of tickets). The only thing they could charge them with was selling without a vendors license. What a joke!

]]> By: Mike O'Connor http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10548 Mike O'Connor Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:00:25 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10548 @Vlad IANAL, but the way that card works, based on my education in electrical engineering and computer science, is that it says to the machine "I am a credit card issued by the following bank with account number X." You put it into the slot labeled "Credit card". The machine is clearly not verifying this information in real time, which is why it works. If you use this card and get caught, you are going down. If it's not 342 it'll be some other fraud or theft of service charge. Believe me, the free parking is not worth the criminal record. @Vlad

IANAL, but the way that card works, based on my education in electrical engineering and computer science, is that it says to the machine “I am a credit card issued by the following bank with account number X.” You put it into the slot labeled “Credit card”. The machine is clearly not verifying this information in real time, which is why it works.

If you use this card and get caught, you are going down. If it’s not 342 it’ll be some other fraud or theft of service charge. Believe me, the free parking is not worth the criminal record.

]]> By: Vlad http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10539 Vlad Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:54:15 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10539 Mike, Use or possession of stolen credit card (as per section 342(c) of the criminal code), refers to possession of a physical card, in which you maintain "unauthorized" possession, this can and does include individuals who have possession of their "own" card after declaring the card stolen. Since the customer does not hold "full ownership", once the card is declared stolen, the "title" of the card passes back to the issuer. In the case of a "forged credit card", that refers to either credit card data that has been duplicated from an existing card, or an actual card that is made to look and indicates it is an actual "credit card" on the card itself. That being said, I looked at the site, and unless those cards have skimmed data, I personally do not think those cards actually work. The video never shows the back of the card, it could be real card with a sticker pasted on the front, made to give the illusion they function. Mike,

Use or possession of stolen credit card (as per section 342(c) of the criminal code), refers to possession of a physical card, in which you maintain “unauthorized” possession, this can and does include individuals who have possession of their “own” card after declaring the card stolen. Since the customer does not hold “full ownership”, once the card is declared stolen, the “title” of the card passes back to the issuer.

In the case of a “forged credit card”, that refers to either credit card data that has been duplicated from an existing card, or an actual card that is made to look and indicates it is an actual “credit card” on the card itself.

That being said, I looked at the site, and unless those cards have skimmed data, I personally do not think those cards actually work. The video never shows the back of the card, it could be real card with a sticker pasted on the front, made to give the illusion they function.

]]> By: Mike O'Connor http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10504 Mike O'Connor Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:43:47 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10504 @Jacob I looked at the website you referred to. The way that card works is that it masquerades as a valid credit card. Have a look at section 342(c) of the Criminal Code. Use or possess stolen or forged credit card - up to 6 months/$2000 for a first offence. Up to 10 years if the Crown elects to pursue it as an indictable offence. @Jacob

I looked at the website you referred to. The way that card works is that it masquerades as a valid credit card. Have a look at section 342(c) of the Criminal Code. Use or possess stolen or forged credit card - up to 6 months/$2000 for a first offence. Up to 10 years if the Crown elects to pursue it as an indictable offence.

]]> By: Jacob http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10502 Jacob Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:56:34 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-10502 The bad news is that Impark are still issuing illegal parking tickets even though they claim they don't. The good news is that the consumer is now better equipped to a hassle free time when parking at an Impark lot. www.europark.ca is your one stop shop to be educated and a chance to stop this furor of illegal parking tickets. I have linked to the website through my name. Happy parking to all and to all a great 2008! The bad news is that Impark are still issuing illegal parking tickets even though they claim they don’t.

The good news is that the consumer is now better equipped to a hassle free time when parking at an Impark lot.

http://www.europark.ca is your one stop shop to be educated and a chance to stop this furor of illegal parking tickets.

I have linked to the website through my name. Happy parking to all and to all a great 2008!

]]> By: Chester Pape http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1436 Chester Pape Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:37:21 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1436 At least some of the parking down there was run by "Unit Park" not Impark, I don't recall ever seeing Impark's logo down there. At least some of the parking down there was run by “Unit Park” not Impark, I don’t recall ever seeing Impark’s logo down there.

]]> By: Daryl http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1268 Daryl Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:57:37 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1268 "The actual pylon incident did happen, didn’t it?" I think that's the most important question! I could care less who owns the parking lot; If the issue exists, and I believe it does, it should be addressed by the city! “The actual pylon incident did happen, didn’t it?”

I think that’s the most important question! I could care less who owns the parking lot; If the issue exists, and I believe it does, it should be addressed by the city!

]]> By: Joey deVilla http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1264 Joey deVilla Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:35:26 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1264 <strong>@P:</strong> Thanks for the heads-up! @P: Thanks for the heads-up!

]]> By: The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century › Curiouser and Curiouser http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1263 The Adventures of Accordion Guy in the 21st Century › Curiouser and Curiouser Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:34:29 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1263 [...] Toronto Star has yanked both the pieces about the parking lot scheme I wrote about in this entry, replacing it with a cryptic correction that leaves only questions. More [...] [...] Toronto Star has yanked both the pieces about the parking lot scheme I wrote about in this entry, replacing it with a cryptic correction that leaves only questions. More [...]

]]> By: P http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1262 P Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:58:31 +0000 http://www.joeydevilla.com/2007/10/22/imparks-scheme-to-force-people-to-use-their-parking-lots/#comment-1262 Looks like The Star pulled all the articles off their site and have this up today: http://www.thestar.com/article/269212 You can still find the originals via Google cache. Of course, the "correction" doesn't say who *does* own the lots... -P Looks like The Star pulled all the articles off their site and have this up today: http://www.thestar.com/article/269212

You can still find the originals via Google cache. Of course, the “correction” doesn’t say who *does* own the lots…

-P

]]>