4 ms·
> I don’t get it, do US citizens prefer being defrauded over what is perceived as a slight inconvenience? Do you think we are requesting to have less secure pa
by fckgw 6mo ago
> I don’t get it, do US citizens prefer being defrauded over what is perceived as a slight inconvenience?
Do you think we are requesting to have less secure payment methods or something?
No, we don't "prefer to get defrauded", but things like this are a matter of negotiation between the card issuers and the merchants.
- Denvercoder9 6mo ago> but things like this are a matter of negotiation between the card issuers and the merchants. Not necessarily, the EU has mandated strong customer authentication by law (PSD2), and as a result has practically universal 3DSecure support.
- Hupriene 6mo agoBold of you to assume that the public has more influence on legislation than lobbyists do in the US.
- idiotsecant 6mo agoAh, the natural call of the wild European: blaming individual Americans for a century of policy failures with truly majestic smugness.
- M95D 6mo agoWho should be blamed then? Do you not vote your lawmakers? Do you not vote with your wallet by buying from non-3d-secure merchants?
- idiotsecant 6mo agoYes, I vote for leaders. So does everyone else, unfortunately.
- jonathanlydall 6mo agoExactly, if citizens could convince US lawmakers to make it mandatory, it would be a huge net benefit to society as a whole. I suspect that banks and merchants would lobby against it due the work involved. After all, they’ve already marked up their services and goods to cover the cost of fraud/insurance. So right now they don’t pay the cost of it, instead all their customers do through higher prices than they would otherwise have needed to pay.
- toast0 6mo ago> Exactly, if citizens could convince US lawmakers to make it mandatory, it would be a huge net benefit to society as a whole. That's not obviously true. Adding security would likely reduce fraud, but would also make transactions more difficult and time consuming, and may also make recovering from fraud more difficult and time consuming. The costs may not justify the benefits.
- eterm 6mo agoLegislate that the banks are liable for refunding this class of fraud and you'll find they suddenly take this stuff a lot more seriously and "discover" the technology.
- dboreham 6mo agoQuite hard to do when banks are major bribers of politicians.
- gustavus 6mo agoI don't understand your point. The banks and credit card companies are already responsible. If I have a fraudulent charge I call and tell them it's fraudulent and they say okay and take it off and either getit back from the issuer or eat the difference.
- rvnx 6mo agoThey can also punish you for doing so, like banning you from the bank. They also report account closures to ChexSystems, which can make it harder to open accounts at other banks for years. Credit card issuers can drop you and ding your credit. Definitively not your fault, but still your problem, and the consequences are for you.
- rstupek 6mo agoI think what you're missing is the bank and credit card companies rarely eat the difference. The business who sold the item which was charged back is the one paying the cost of the transaction (no income, lost item) plus a chargeback processing fee (typically $15 per chargeback).