4 ms·

I don't see what the big deal is. If you use a credit card (not debit card), you aren't the one be defrauded. In the U.S., consumer protection laws limit the li

by coin 13y ago

I don't see what the big deal is. If you use a credit card (not debit card), you aren't the one be defrauded. In the U.S., consumer protection laws limit the liability due to credit card fraud. If the fraudulent change is more than $50, the customer can dispute the charge within 60 days. During the investigation period the credit card company cannot collect on the disputed amount nor can they report this to the credit collection agencies. In other words it's the bank that out the money. This is why I prefer credit cards over debit cards. With a debit card the money is yanked out of your account. The onus is then on you to recover the funds.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 13y ago
I've always liked this too. Let the bank figure out how not to have their money stolen. (Yes, this adds cost to the transaction. But as long as people want to take each other's money without permission, there is always going to be a cost to using money, whether it's an interchange fee, higher taxes, or just getting $500 bucks stolen on the subway from time to time.)
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  At the end of the day, it's not their money, its your money. You're paying the transaction and fraud costs built into purchases, which flows to merchants, which flows back to the banks and processors. Just because its not a line item somewhere on your bank statement doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
  - dagw 13y ago
    Sure, but at the end of the day its service that is so convenient and useful at a price that is so low I'm happy to pay for it.
  - superuser2 13y ago
    If you are taking unique and extraordinary steps to protect yourself, you're actually paying twice - with the effort to protect yourself and the money for your bank to protect you. This sort of action isn't meaningful unless it's collective. Even then, do you think businesses would lower prices or simply take home more money?

by coin 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jrockway 13y ago

I've always liked this too. Let the bank figure out how not to have their money stolen. (Yes, this adds cost to the transaction. But as long as people want to take each other's money without permission, there is always going to be a cost to using money, whether it's an interchange fee, higher taxes, or just getting $500 bucks stolen on the subway from time to time.)

toomuchtodo 13y ago
At the end of the day, it's not their money, its your money. You're paying the transaction and fraud costs built into purchases, which flows to merchants, which flows back to the banks and processors. Just because its not a line item somewhere on your bank statement doesn't mean you're not paying for it.
- dagw 13y ago
  Sure, but at the end of the day its service that is so convenient and useful at a price that is so low I'm happy to pay for it.
- superuser2 13y ago
  If you are taking unique and extraordinary steps to protect yourself, you're actually paying twice - with the effort to protect yourself and the money for your bank to protect you. This sort of action isn't meaningful unless it's collective. Even then, do you think businesses would lower prices or simply take home more money?