3 ms·
That's implausible. Using finger printing for fraud detection would only catch someone using different cards on the same machine. Once a card is deemed stolen
by ipaddr 3y ago
That's implausible. Using finger printing for fraud detection would only catch someone using different cards on the same machine. Once a card is deemed stolen it stops working so it's unnecessary for that scenario. That doesn't even go into fake fingerprinting some browsers/plugins.
The price is the highest the market will pay. Increasing that price means few customers lower revenue. Fraud is a cost to the business they must pay out of profits because if they tried to increase prices demand would drop.
- ficklepickle 3y agoIt can be an aspect of it. For example, if there are suddenly many unique fingerprints making purchases from the same residential IP, that might look suspicious. Granted, I'm not aware of a lack of fingerprint being penalized. That said, there are products that allow custom rules, in which case anything is possible. I work for a company in this space. Opinions are my own.
- charcircuit 3y ago>Using finger printing for fraud detection would only catch someone using different cards on the same machine. In this context the goal of fingerprinting is to detect requests coming from an attacker. It does not care about the ability to distinguish between individual machines. >Once a card is deemed stolen it stops working so it's unnecessary for that scenario. The whole point of automating it is so you can cash out many stolen credit cards. If you only have one you might as well do it manually. >Increasing that price means few customers lower revenue Making more revenue doesn't matter if that extra revenue ends up getting eaten by chargebacks.