Closed evansiroky closed 1 month ago
Hi @evansiroky & @charlie-costanzo, I've just seen this issue and wanted to let you know that we currently use card_no to track chargeback transactions back to the original payment. There is no other way of figuring out whether a chargeback occurred, and this is quite important for the transit agencies (at least we know it is for CCJPA) not to pay a refund for a transaction that was already been paid through Visa/Mastercard (a.k.a. a chargeback).
(We definitely use customer_name, in almost all Elavon-related reports, that is the merchant's name.) We don't use account_number, that is the last four digits of the masked PAN (the masked card number). We don't use routing number.
Is it possible to keep card_no in the dataset? It is masked, it is not sensitive data, we do see this kind of data in other transit agencies data warehouses and reports too.
@akosmatzon, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I will relay this information to Caltrans IT Security and see what we can do.
As of 9/10 awaiting confirmation from Caltrans Security that it is ok to keep this data since there is a legitimate business need for keeping this information.
Assuming that no response on this matter since July 28, 2024 means that this can be closed. I'll re-open if needed.
User story / feature request
In order to comply with Caltrans security parameters, we should remove all sensitive Elavon data from our data pipeline.
Acceptance Criteria
The sensitive data that needs to be removed includes:
account_number
routing_number
- appears to be the name of the Tap-to-ride program and not individual customer names.customer_name
card_no
Notes
This issue can be separated into 2 phases: