5 ms·

For all the words, I still don’t get your point. The banks introduced an improved system that we can all agree is more secure than the old one, and consumer pro

For all the words, I still don’t get your point. The banks introduced an improved system that we can all agree is more secure than the old one, and consumer protection did not change, but apparently you think this makes it worse for the consumer? What on earth do you want banks to do? Make their systems less secure, so it’s easier for people to convince a court that their disputed transaction was fraudulent? It’s natural and predictable that banks will argue that security improvements make it more difficult for thieves to make fraudulent transactions, but since these systems aren’t 100% secure, people will always be able to dispute these events and win their challenges.

gnode 9y ago
Consumer protection effectively does change if its enforceability changes. If a system's security is improved (or at least the security theatre is improved), it's easier to disbelieve victims of fraud, and even accuse them themselves of fraud. This is especially true when existing known vulnerabilities are closed, and fraudsters begin using new vulnerabilities. To use an analogy, it would be like if you improve the reliability of a product you make, then start saying those who RMA your product must have damaged or mishandled it for it to be broken, and deny them their warranty.
panzagl 9y ago
What you're missing is that once you have a PIN the deniability goes out the window, so you're now on the hook for the fraudulent purchases. So as a card user you're trading a high percentage of fraud with no liability for a low percentage of fraud with absolute liability. Things are better for the bank, not the customer.