As the website does not work unless you enable Javascript and let them cookie-stuff you until you explode, here is an archive for privacy aware people: http://archive.today/EUq4H
I don't fully understand it. What exactly did Se & Hør pay for access for? Some nation-wide (or bank-wide) database of credit card transactions? If so, awesome! I wish more people who expose what kind of databases are available if you are capable to pay.
PBS (Pengeinstitutternes Betalingsservice) was created in the 1980s by the Danish banks and the National Bank, originally to facilitate the Danish national credit card, Dankort. Eventually PBS also took control of all credit cards by Danish card holders including Visa and MasterCard through arrangements with said credit card companies.
Eventually PBS got privatised and joined with the Norwegian equivalent and became Nets (yes, the name is stupid). Nets - in Denmark at least - has access to all credit card transactions by Danish credit card holders.
At least since 1996, Se og Hør has been doing something like this, but it was not until 2008 the process got streamlined. Effectively they paid an IBM employee (because Nets had outsourced that department to IBM Denmark) 10.000 DKK a month to trace credit cards and send journalists at Se og Hør updates when specific cards were in use.
In addition to celebrities, royals and politicians, also regular persons were targeted in cases related to murder, traffic accidents and so forth.
In 2008, the use of this information meant that a Se og Hør journalist knew the heir and his wife bought a ticket to Canada, so he could be on the same plane (much to the surprise of the Prince).
In addition to the data originating from Nets, it is now clear that Se og Hør had sources at SAS (Scandinavian Airlines) and the CPH airport, so they could verify the passenger lists for each flight. And that's how the journalist managed to be on the right plane.
Moreover, it is now apparent that not only journalists at Se og Hør were aware of it, but also editors and owners as well. New information in this scandal is practically coming in by the hour.
EDIT -- See the response by Svips. It gives a better overview.
In Denmark(and Scandinavia) we have a company called Nets who is a provider for credit card and banking transaction services. They thus have a lot of personal information on everybody
There was a highly ranked entrusted person within Nets who leaked personal information from a database containing banking transactions to the magazine "Se & Hør". This magazine is probably something like "The Sun" in Britain. I'm not entirely sure about the comparison, but I think it's about the same.
Anyways, the person who leaked the information provided information about the location of several celebrities and the royal family to a journalist within the magazine. This allowed the paper to locate people when they were traveling or on honeymoon. After looking at the information the person could, due to his high ranking, delete all traces of having looked at the information.
Huh. So basically this means that every Norwagian and Dane's credit & debit card usage has been up for sale to the highest bidder since 2008 at least. And since Nets operates out of Singapore, the authorities don't have a say in it. I truly hope this stirs up a major shitstorm, I am very much not okay with this.
Doen't suprise me one bit. In Holland even the parking lots sell your data. Your licence plate, time spend and date. The buyer? Well the government and tax-department af course.
There's been talk of shops actually abolishing the use of cash. So far without success, but most transactions still happen through a nationalised credit card system.
Cash use is about on par with most other countries. Credit cards & mobile solutions are slowly rising, but cash is still widely spread and necessary in some cases (like paying for public transport in certain cities, etc.).
Not in my experience. I almost never carry cash when in Denmark. In Copenhagen at least, it feels like the only place where cash is required is the pølsevogn (hotdog stands).
In Spain where I am based now, and in New York where I spend a lot of my time as well, I always have a bit of cash on me because small purchases have to be made with cash.
Definitely not. Considering myself quite the traveler, I'd say Denmark is the country I've visited that by far has the best support for credit cards, especially Copenhagen.
Just spent 6 months in the US and we in Denmark are way ahead in regards to a "cashless system".
Why should Snowden have cared about Ukraine during that interview? It has nothing to do with what he's known for and the information he released. The man has ruined his entire life to bring evidence of government abuse to the public and because he did a shitty interview on a Russian TV show he's lost all credibility to you???
Have you seen the interview or you cast down voting because you don't like my opinion?
Snowden is pictured as a person who tell the truth about invigilation in internet, yet he cowardly asked only preselected questions to Putin.
To be fair, Snowden lost all credibility for a lot of us really early on. If you want Snowden as your spokesman, that's fine--you're entitled to elect your own representatives--, but recognize that he isn't everyone's spokesman.
He never claimed to be anyones spokesman - and I'm pretty sure my comment doesn't say he is one -. He released documents to the press and let them do the talking.
I am really not sure about what you mean with this comment. Would you care to elaborate?
Why would Snowden comment on the Ukraine case in this letter? This is a letter to a danish news agency about privacy, not about the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. And how does that connect with Snowden losing his credibility?
He probably would've lost more if he would've told the blatant truth about Putin.
Everyone knows that his statement regarding the Russian leader are to be taken with a grain of salt.
As they say, you do not bite the hand that feeds you. I doubt Snowden was particularly happy about doing that interview, but considering his circumstances he didn't really have a choice.
What about his early claim that he had access to everybody's email inboxes through Prism? He lost credibility at the very beginning because he didn't read or understand the documents he leaked. There was just so much interesting stuff to look at in his leaks that we gave him a pass.
