5 ms·

> I understand that porn payments are a bit more risky but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category and shift the risk to th

> I understand that porn payments are a bit more risky but the providers can simply have a policy to deny chargebacks for this category and shift the risk to the customer. Similar to the way returns of sex toys are not accepted for hygiene reasons. But chargebacks have nothing to do with return policies [1]. In theory, when you issue a chargeback you are basically saying "I didn't authorize this purchase". How do you have a general policy that says "you won't get charged for fraudulent charges, unless those fraudulent charges are porn"? [1] If I buy a sandwich with my credit card, I can't then return it if I decide I'm not hungry 15 minutes later. But I can dispute the charge (dishonestly) and say that I never bought a sandwich in the first place.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
But isn't that what 3D secure and SecureCode are supposed to solve? They confirm the customer gave personal authorisation. They can offer it only with those.
- eru 4y ago
  'Supposed' being the keyword here. The last time I looked into them, they weren't actually very secure.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Maybe it depends on the country, but here in the EU with the latest regulations we have MFA for payments, with either an SMS, or authorising in the bank's app all payments over a certain sum. So the merchant, the payment processor and the bank are a 100% sure it's you. The only case remaining is "i did initiate the transaction, but the merchant scammed me by not providing what was agreed".
    - eru 4y ago
      Well, SMS is not really secure. Eg it's relatively easy to use social engineering on the phone company.
      - sofixa 4y ago
        You need to steal someone's bank card, know their phone number and operator, socially engineer your way through it, execute a payment and validate it with the code received by SMS, before the victim realises either their card is missing or their SIM card no longer works? That's a stretch, and in any case that's why most banks do MFA with their app.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

But isn't that what 3D secure and SecureCode are supposed to solve? They confirm the customer gave personal authorisation. They can offer it only with those.

eru 4y ago
'Supposed' being the keyword here. The last time I looked into them, they weren't actually very secure.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Maybe it depends on the country, but here in the EU with the latest regulations we have MFA for payments, with either an SMS, or authorising in the bank's app all payments over a certain sum. So the merchant, the payment processor and the bank are a 100% sure it's you. The only case remaining is "i did initiate the transaction, but the merchant scammed me by not providing what was agreed".
  - eru 4y ago
    Well, SMS is not really secure. Eg it's relatively easy to use social engineering on the phone company.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      You need to steal someone's bank card, know their phone number and operator, socially engineer your way through it, execute a payment and validate it with the code received by SMS, before the victim realises either their card is missing or their SIM card no longer works? That's a stretch, and in any case that's why most banks do MFA with their app.