4 ms·

The title of this post is clickbait. Uber is not being shut down in India. The RBI rule requiring a one time pin for all online transactions is unwise, a huge

by ajju 12y ago

The title of this post is clickbait. Uber is not being shut down in India. The RBI rule requiring a one time pin for all online transactions is unwise, a huge barrier to good UX, and should be removed. Having said that, Uber is not being shutdown in India. Even if no changes are made to this rule by the Oct 31 deadline, which of the following is more likely: Uber leaving a country with several hundred million potential users, or Uber (and every other company who does online transactions) changing their UI flow to accommodate the RBI requirement? Disclaimer: My company Summon competes directly with Uber.

deepGem 12y ago
"The RBI rule requiring a one time pin for all online transactions is unwise, a huge barrier to good UX, and should be removed" - That rule is only in place because India does not have enough consumer protection laws. In case of credit card fraud, the consumer is screwed. Neither the bank nor Uber will own the responsibility for the fraud. Yes,the chances of such a fraud are low but the risk of losing a ton of money is very high. Also the interest rate on credit careds in India is massive - 36% p.a. So a potential loss to a consumer because of a fraudulent transaction is immensely high. So yes, this two factor authentication is a royal pain in the ass but it's very much required in a country in which the consumer is not the king.
- alamtabrez 12y ago
  "That rule is only in place because India does not have enough consumer protection laws. In case of credit card fraud, the consumer is screwed. Neither the bank nor Uber will own the responsibility for the fraud.". So what should we do? Instead of ensuring that consumer protection laws are improved and banks+law enforcement agencies and made answerable; let us make the consumer's life tougher. I am sure that it is always easy to make laws that can control sections/units than to control masses. Now let us see if it a slight inconvenience to the consumer of there is a bigger picture behind. All these security measures (such as two factor authentication, chip based cards etc etc) involve costs. So who is going to pay for the costs? Would RBI pay for it? Would the banks pay for it? I do not think so. It is going to be the end consumer who is going to pay for all this. If you do not believe me, read this article on timesofindia (titled: Banks seek to cap free ATM use at 5 times per month), you would realize that you would need to pay in case you took out money from your account (from your very own bank's ATM) from an ATM more than 5 times a month. What does this mean? I need to pay for taking out MY OWN MONEY! So let us get real! Look for solutions for betterment of people in reality and not just in a phony manner!
  - deepGem 12y ago
    Well, improving consumer protection laws is not that straightforward. It involves government and their shitty decision making abilities. You have to pass a bill blah blah. RBI cannot wait for these laws to be enacted. In the interim they've taken these steps and this is not done in a phony manner. Regarding costs - ultimately the consumer will pay for added security - be it the two factor authentication or the chip cards or any other security or protection measure. There's no debate about that. However, in case of a disputed transaction the cards company/Uber will need to own up responsibility which they won't. Well, this authentication is RBI's solution for betterment of people, comes at a convenience cost though. If you think there are better alternatives, it wouldn't hurt to shoot an email to the RBI team. Actually let me see if that's even possible.

by ajju 12y ago

deepGem 12y ago

"The RBI rule requiring a one time pin for all online transactions is unwise, a huge barrier to good UX, and should be removed" - That rule is only in place because India does not have enough consumer protection laws. In case of credit card fraud, the consumer is screwed. Neither the bank nor Uber will own the responsibility for the fraud. Yes,the chances of such a fraud are low but the risk of losing a ton of money is very high. Also the interest rate on credit careds in India is massive - 36% p.a. So a potential loss to a consumer because of a fraudulent transaction is immensely high. So yes, this two factor authentication is a royal pain in the ass but it's very much required in a country in which the consumer is not the king.

alamtabrez 12y ago
"That rule is only in place because India does not have enough consumer protection laws. In case of credit card fraud, the consumer is screwed. Neither the bank nor Uber will own the responsibility for the fraud.". So what should we do? Instead of ensuring that consumer protection laws are improved and banks+law enforcement agencies and made answerable; let us make the consumer's life tougher. I am sure that it is always easy to make laws that can control sections/units than to control masses. Now let us see if it a slight inconvenience to the consumer of there is a bigger picture behind. All these security measures (such as two factor authentication, chip based cards etc etc) involve costs. So who is going to pay for the costs? Would RBI pay for it? Would the banks pay for it? I do not think so. It is going to be the end consumer who is going to pay for all this. If you do not believe me, read this article on timesofindia (titled: Banks seek to cap free ATM use at 5 times per month), you would realize that you would need to pay in case you took out money from your account (from your very own bank's ATM) from an ATM more than 5 times a month. What does this mean? I need to pay for taking out MY OWN MONEY! So let us get real! Look for solutions for betterment of people in reality and not just in a phony manner!
- deepGem 12y ago
  Well, improving consumer protection laws is not that straightforward. It involves government and their shitty decision making abilities. You have to pass a bill blah blah. RBI cannot wait for these laws to be enacted. In the interim they've taken these steps and this is not done in a phony manner. Regarding costs - ultimately the consumer will pay for added security - be it the two factor authentication or the chip cards or any other security or protection measure. There's no debate about that. However, in case of a disputed transaction the cards company/Uber will need to own up responsibility which they won't. Well, this authentication is RBI's solution for betterment of people, comes at a convenience cost though. If you think there are better alternatives, it wouldn't hurt to shoot an email to the RBI team. Actually let me see if that's even possible.