4 ms·

BoA just got rid of their temporary credit card number feature, and since it was flash based it was extremely difficult to get to run anyway.

braindeath 7y ago
Needing flash is an annoyance, I wouldn’t call it “extremely difficult” (especially on HN) though. Luckily Citi still offers the service. It also requires flash. However the feature is worth the inconvenience. I’ll run a small windows vm for the purpose if I had to.
- abawany 7y ago
  Citi is weird: the Citi Costco card does not support this functionality. Not sure why.
koolba 7y ago
It’s laughable that they could not find anyone in the past ten years to write a JS version. For reference, they spend about $10B (billion with capital “B”) last year on tech projects: https://www.ciodive.com/news/bank-of-america-keeps-pace-with-yearly-3b-spend-on-new-tech-initiatives/553647/ https://www.ciodive.com/news/bank-of-america-keeps-pace-with...
- organsnyder 7y ago
  Shows how valuable they considered it to their business (i.e. zero).
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    ADP is still using flash for their web app. Their entire business revolves around it.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    I wonder how much profit they make from fraudulent transactions that people don’t notice. Question: when there’s a chargeback, does the customer|fraud victim’s bank lose out, or do they get a part of the chargeback fee that Visa/MasterCard levy into the merchant?
    - mmerlin 7y ago
      Chargeback fees are a profit centre for banks from what I have observed over many years. The one who loses out is the product seller's business (i.e. the company who processed the charged-back transaction, via their their merchant account). IME, regardless of who is at fault and who perpetrated the fraud, and regardless of merchant sending irrefutable proof to the bank, the merchant account owner always loses out. First it pays back the bank for the missing funds. Secondly the business loses the value of the goods they shipped Thirdly, the bank slaps a significant fraud fee on the business as well e.g. $35 penalty applied for every chargeback, which is where the bank profits from chargebacks (by never reviewing merchant submitted evidence in chargeback claims, and simply making the merchant business pay for the fraud plus penalty fee on top of that, every single time)

braindeath 7y ago

Needing flash is an annoyance, I wouldn’t call it “extremely difficult” (especially on HN) though. Luckily Citi still offers the service. It also requires flash. However the feature is worth the inconvenience. I’ll run a small windows vm for the purpose if I had to.

abawany 7y ago
Citi is weird: the Citi Costco card does not support this functionality. Not sure why.

koolba 7y ago

It’s laughable that they could not find anyone in the past ten years to write a JS version. For reference, they spend about $10B (billion with capital “B”) last year on tech projects: https://www.ciodive.com/news/bank-of-america-keeps-pace-with-yearly-3b-spend-on-new-tech-initiatives/553647/ https://www.ciodive.com/news/bank-of-america-keeps-pace-with...

organsnyder 7y ago
Shows how valuable they considered it to their business (i.e. zero).
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  ADP is still using flash for their web app. Their entire business revolves around it.
- DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
  I wonder how much profit they make from fraudulent transactions that people don’t notice. Question: when there’s a chargeback, does the customer|fraud victim’s bank lose out, or do they get a part of the chargeback fee that Visa/MasterCard levy into the merchant?
  - mmerlin 7y ago
    Chargeback fees are a profit centre for banks from what I have observed over many years. The one who loses out is the product seller's business (i.e. the company who processed the charged-back transaction, via their their merchant account). IME, regardless of who is at fault and who perpetrated the fraud, and regardless of merchant sending irrefutable proof to the bank, the merchant account owner always loses out. First it pays back the bank for the missing funds. Secondly the business loses the value of the goods they shipped Thirdly, the bank slaps a significant fraud fee on the business as well e.g. $35 penalty applied for every chargeback, which is where the bank profits from chargebacks (by never reviewing merchant submitted evidence in chargeback claims, and simply making the merchant business pay for the fraud plus penalty fee on top of that, every single time)