Today's front-page centerpiece story is about credit card "skimmers," illicit devices that thieves can hide in card-reading machines to capture people's private banking information.
The story mentions a local case where a skimmer was traced to a service station on State Line Road. So why doesn't The Star's story name the station?
Here I don't think that's a question that needs to be answered, because the station is the victim of a crime. If the device was found there, it would have been removed, obviously. That isn't stated directly in the story, but maybe it should have been (though the flip side is that it's implicitly obvious).
Naming the station could quite easily have a negative effect on its business, so I agree with not identifying it.
Maybe the station is a victim
From what little I know, it remains to be seen if the station was involved or not. No one seems to know who installed the skimmer and who benefited. Maybe a station employee was paid off to look the other way?
Certainly, unless or until the station is found to be at fault, they would be a victim if the name were revealed. I agree with not publishing the name.
Also, with the name withheld, the article becomes a blanket warning to beware. With the name published, some might simply say, "Well, I won't go there!" and think the problem is solved.
Who is the victim?
I'm not sure, but I don't think the station is the victim here. If I understand skimming it is the customers information, not the stations, that is stolen when the bank transaction occurs. The station did not loose money, nor was it the actual victim of the theft of information. If a pickpocket was operating in the parking lot of the station, would it not be appropriate to the story to name the station, or at least the location where the pickpocket was operating? Furthermore, is there not a duty on the part of the station to secure thier equipment to prevent it from being altered to collect information from innocent customers. I'm not convinced by the explanation.
Another reader emailed me
Another reader emailed me with a similar counter: "I understand the concern with naming the gas station with the card skimmer noted in today's story. But calling the gas station a crime victim is a bit off base. Yes, the gas station owner's pump was tampered with and might even require minor repair. But the real crime victims are the customers/debit card holders who may lose lots of money because the skimmer was located on this specific pump."
For the record, I'd say both the station and consumers are victims here.