3 ms·

But your risk exposure is much much higher. When a mugger steals $70 from me, my maximum exposure is $70. There is no way that mugger can use those bills to ext

But your risk exposure is much much higher. When a mugger steals $70 from me, my maximum exposure is $70. There is no way that mugger can use those bills to extract any more money from me or as a launchpad for fraud. When a mugger steals my card (and then commits a little fraud) my maximum exposure is my bank account + overdraft + other accounts I have with the same bank + whatever loans they could get.

gtirloni 13y ago
When a mugger steals my card (and then commits a little fraud) my maximum exposure is my bank account + overdraft + other accounts I have with the same bank + whatever loans they could get Your practical maximum exposure is zero, if you follow the correct process. Call your bank and report the stolen card. Any transactions will be undone and the bank will take the hit, in the name of keeping the public's faith in the banking system. This is an ordinary business day for the bank.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rhino369 13y ago
You aren't on the hook for any of that.
hahainternet 13y ago
My card requires a second factor they didn't have. A credit card is not sufficient ID for a loan or withdrawl. They got nothing from it.
- polymatter 13y ago
  "A credit card is not sufficient ID for a loan or withdrawl" Not completely no. A little fraud is normally necessary. A little social pressure, just one person not following proper security procedures. Note how Jeremy Clarkson published his credit card number to prove that leaking credit card numbers wasn't a security issue, and someone promptly withdrew £500 from his account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm). I understand that the bank takes the hit in cases like that, but in the meantime you are out of pocket of far more money than you were carrying in cash. My point is there is a non-0 (albeit small) risk that they do get something from it. And then its a hassle to sort it out (check statements carefully for the next few months, phone bank on any suspicious items). I realize I ought to be doing that anyway, but it normally falls so low on the priority list I end up checking once every 3 or 4 months.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    Clarkson did not publish his credit card number afaik, he published his bank account number and is a public personality where his personal details are easy to find. That's not really relevant, and you don't check statements, you phone them and they send you an entirely new card and deactivate the old one.
pessimizer 13y ago
As someone who was just caught up in the Target breach through his debit(gasp!) card, and had a random Londoner or Londoners go on an $1400 internet shopping spree for designer jeans and hair extensions, I was liable for exactly $0.00 of it. It was annoying to rearrange my automatic bill paying, but that's what I get for only having one checking account.

gtirloni 13y ago

When a mugger steals my card (and then commits a little fraud) my maximum exposure is my bank account + overdraft + other accounts I have with the same bank + whatever loans they could get Your practical maximum exposure is zero, if you follow the correct process. Call your bank and report the stolen card. Any transactions will be undone and the bank will take the hit, in the name of keeping the public's faith in the banking system. This is an ordinary business day for the bank.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rhino369 13y ago

You aren't on the hook for any of that.

hahainternet 13y ago

My card requires a second factor they didn't have. A credit card is not sufficient ID for a loan or withdrawl. They got nothing from it.

polymatter 13y ago
"A credit card is not sufficient ID for a loan or withdrawl" Not completely no. A little fraud is normally necessary. A little social pressure, just one person not following proper security procedures. Note how Jeremy Clarkson published his credit card number to prove that leaking credit card numbers wasn't a security issue, and someone promptly withdrew £500 from his account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm). I understand that the bank takes the hit in cases like that, but in the meantime you are out of pocket of far more money than you were carrying in cash. My point is there is a non-0 (albeit small) risk that they do get something from it. And then its a hassle to sort it out (check statements carefully for the next few months, phone bank on any suspicious items). I realize I ought to be doing that anyway, but it normally falls so low on the priority list I end up checking once every 3 or 4 months.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  Clarkson did not publish his credit card number afaik, he published his bank account number and is a public personality where his personal details are easy to find. That's not really relevant, and you don't check statements, you phone them and they send you an entirely new card and deactivate the old one.

pessimizer 13y ago

As someone who was just caught up in the Target breach through his debit(gasp!) card, and had a random Londoner or Londoners go on an $1400 internet shopping spree for designer jeans and hair extensions, I was liable for exactly $0.00 of it. It was annoying to rearrange my automatic bill paying, but that's what I get for only having one checking account.