4 ms·
Even though there's no choice (here at least, when you want to use your Visa over the internet) I HATE, HATE, HATE the concept and here's why: For starters I t
by CaptainZapp 16y ago
Even though there's no choice (here at least, when you want to use your Visa over the internet) I HATE, HATE, HATE the concept and here's why:
For starters I thought it's a phishing attack, when the frame popped up for the first time.
But the worst is that I don't feel it protects me, despite the marketing crap dished out by CC companies. The only reason is to protect Visa.
What happens if I book a flight at a badly infected internet cafe computer in Chiang Mai and a key logger reads my password?
"No, Mr. Zapp, our logs show irrefutable proof that your password was typed with suchandsuch transaction. Sorry, you're liable, you obviously didn't protect the password."
Scary stuff.
- henrikschroder 16y agoI'm happy I have some choice. With my bank I can refuse to enable it for my VISA, and there are some merchants I use where I can choose to use Secure3D or not when paying. It's unfortunately obvious that the CC companies are pushing this as hard as they can, with no concern for customers, banks or merchants. :-/
- robin_reala 16y agoThe first time I saw VbV I checked the frame URI. When it came up as securesite.net I phoned up the merchant to tell them their site had been hacked. It’s unbelievable that they thought that was a good idea.
- frou_dh 16y agoHaving the word 'secure' as part of the domain name is the same type of nonsense as putting a GIF image of a padlock in the page content. Guarantees nothing and promotes ignorance about how things actually work.
- omh 16y agoWhat happens if I book a flight at a badly infected internet cafe computer in Chiang Mai and a key logger reads my password Does VbV make this any worse? It's very difficult to protect against (other than "never use untrusted computers").
- patio11 16y agoThat is, in fact, the exact opposite of how the banks operate. You are limited to $50 in liability for any fraudulent transaction in your account that you report in a timely fashion, guaranteed by law (in the US at least), and every bank I am aware of waives the $50 for marketing purposes. Essentially all financial risk for credit card transactions is borne by the merchants. (Which is one reason why the banks don't seem to do much about fraud -- why should they inconvenience their customers to protect someone off of the balance sheet who doesn't get a choice to not use their bank?)
- mechanical_fish 16y agoWhile we are in public-service-announcement mode: I believe that the above protections are still a lot smaller for debit cards than credit cards. You still have $50 limit on liability with debit cards, but you must report the theft very quickly indeed and the thief is emptying your personal account in the meantime: http://banking.about.com/od/checkingaccounts/a/stolendebitcard.htm http://banking.about.com/od/checkingaccounts/a/stolendebitca... This is why I never use a debit card for anything. We now return you to your regular HN programming.
- Vivtek 16y agoIn defense of debit cards, in the event you do lose it and someone's emptying your account, your bank should still restore your funds after the theft. I say this because it happened to my wife; Chase's fraud prevention kicked in after about $300, all of which was refunded as soon as she figured out what had happened.
- mechanical_fish 16y agoThanks, good to know. I've been waiting for these policies to kick in as debit cards become more popular.
- camiller 16y agoIt has actually been that way for awhile. Back about 9-10 years ago someone used my wife's debit card number and after reporting it the bank restored the funds.