3 ms·
The point is that requiring cvv for a login is stupid, not that the risk levels are different. Does it become acceptable to require the blood of my first-born
by P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
The point is that requiring cvv for a login is stupid, not that the risk levels are different.
Does it become acceptable to require the blood of my first-born because the risk levels are different?
Of course not. They're not even allowed to store that in the US (PCI-DSS), so the other poster must not be in the US.
- jefftk 4y agoYour GP had "it meant they were sufficiently convinced about my identity to let me transfer money out, but not enough to let me login in. Insane", and your parent is explaining why that's a non-insane thing.
- rippercushions 4y agoGP here. I found every part of the process insane. To enumerate: 1) getting locked out for not having the CVV of some random card that expired a decade earlier 2) being allowed to transfer money out, but not to login into the account 3) being allowed to keep my second account, even though they don't trust me enough to give me access to the first None of these make sense individually, and they make even less sense as a whole.
- ballenf 4y agoThey probably couldn't see the CVV but were going to run the card and see if it verified.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agofair enough