3 ms·
If I want to make my financial life difficult in the sake of security, that should be my choice. I'm sick of banks saying, either implicitly or outright, "we d
by hakfoo 8y ago
If I want to make my financial life difficult in the sake of security, that should be my choice. I'm sick of banks saying, either implicitly or outright, "we don't want to ratchet up security measures because people will find it inconvenient. You can say that because it's not your money on the line.
Why can't I ask for chip-and-pin or nothing? No chip-and-signature, no swipe-and-pin, no swipe-and-signature,no it's-less-than-$50-so-nobody-cares-and-we-don't-even-ask-that.
Why can't I have a card inactive by default-- if not used in a week, you have to press a button in the app to re-activate it before it works again? Then you could potentially add "the next charge will be $120 +/- 10. Those would make for a smaller target for spray-and-pray fraud.
Conversely, when they do try to protect you, they do a terrible job of it. My bank (one of the largest in the county) has a particular hard-on for the website of a large regional electronics retailer. In person, fine, but if you order from their site, odds are 50:50 it will fail and your card will get fraud locked. I am significantly less likely to order from them because I know it's going to be a hassle, even when I see an offer I want. If I could white-list the merchant, problem solved. If many customers whitelist them, it might provide better information for their automated anti-fraud systems.
- perl4ever 8y ago"I'm sick of banks saying, either implicitly or outright, "we don't want to ratchet up security measures because people will find it inconvenient. You can say that because it's not your money on the line." But my money is not on the line. That's what a credit card is - I'm using the bank's money, and I am not charged for fraud. If the bank was seeing excessive amounts of fraud, they would ratchet up security measures. However, any security measures should be treated with skepticism - do they measurably increase security, or do they serve merely to transfer responsibility away from the banks? "Why can't I have a card inactive by default-" You can get single use numbers on many cards, which I think would solve your use case.
- hakfoo 8y ago> But my money is not on the line. Well, I tend to think in context of a debit card, but covering your ears and screaming "zero fraud liability" doesn't solve everything. You're still incurring costs and hassle getting your account detangled after a fraud, and the trouble for getting the cards reissued. The bank itself is going to have to deal with the costs of insurance and payments it was unable to recover. Eventually, somehow we're paying for that in higher fees or worse rates. It also tends to undermine the fundamental legitimacy of the bank. Remember when banks tended to be big free-standing buildings with huge visible vaults? The message was "we're keeping your money safe." Not "we don't keep it safe, but we have really awesome insurance when we inevitably mess it uo!"