james.laver at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 23:09:02 BST 2009
On 2 Oct 2009, at 22:16, Ovid wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Peter Corlett <abuse at cabal.org.uk>
>> It's not *quite* so clear-cut.
>> The costs due to fraud might be less than the costs of losing sales
>> due to
>> VBV/3DSecure, in which case the retailer might be happy to risk the
>> especially if they have other fraud-avoidance mechanisms in place.
> This has to be one of the most important comments about all of
> this. When I originally went to uni to be an economist, I was
> amazed to discover in research how much in-house accounting dealt
> with "which costs us less" rather than "which is right". It's
> rather sad.
Yes, but you have to balance both viewpoints here.
Personally, I'm on the side of people not being forced to use 3dsecure
(I want to be fully opted out). I don't want to be lumbered with the
costs of fraud because I know how to take care of my end and if my
details get out, it's not me that did it. I don't think it's
reasonable I get charged because the bank or retailer messes up.
On the other hand, the retailer wants to not be liable when there's
any fraud because they shouldn't have to lose out on the goods. They
don't think it's reasonable they lose out on the goods because the
bank or customer messes up.
Which side wins? Well, the retailer gets to choose. And it'll come
down to a strict profit sum, whether costs of lost revenue is greater
than costs of potential fraud. If you don't like it, there are other
retailers waiting to take your money.
More information about the london.pm