Topic: Quantum physics can fight fraud by making card verification unspoofable
Anonymous A started this discussion 11 years ago #40,019
This is really fucking stupid.http://theconversation.com/quantum-physics-can-fight-fraud-by-making-card-verification-unspoofable-35632
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| I agree. | 4 | 80% | |
| I disagree. | 1 | 20% |
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #532,888
Eagerly awaiting syntax to chime in and talk about how he helped develop this very same technology in the 70's
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 39 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #532,892
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #532,896
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #532,907
@532,888 (B)@532,892 (C)
@previous (D)
I read the article top to bottom and it has a HUGE GIANT BUILT IN FAIL - I cannot believe author wrote that out without adding an obvious Fail of his technology
Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure the fail out
Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #532,908
@previous (Syntax)
> I read the article top to bottom and it has a HUGE GIANT BUILT IN FAIL - I cannot believe author wrote that out without adding an obvious Fail of his technology
>
> Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure the fail out
oh look! right on time
> I read the article top to bottom and it has a HUGE GIANT BUILT IN FAIL - I cannot believe author wrote that out without adding an obvious Fail of his technology
>
> Nor does it take a rocket scientist to figure the fail out
oh look! right on time
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #532,909
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 57 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,921
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,923
@previous (F)Two word famous Golf Courses minutes away
Lots of Holes for everyone cept Tiger Woods who just failed the Farmers Open at Torrey Pines
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,927
@previous (Syntax)
I once bought this DVD entitled Tiger Woods: 18 Holes-- I ended up returning it as it was some golf bullshit.
I once bought this DVD entitled Tiger Woods: 18 Holes-- I ended up returning it as it was some golf bullshit.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,930
@previous (A)
LOL
So you thought it was a sex tape
LOL
Back when he was playing and I think he won that year at La Costa - Friend with a view of one of the holes threw a party and we could see Tiger Woods - Me Golf is just a Yawn
Back as an employee at Qualcomm the CEO's secretary calls me with an invite to play Golf with the CEO and I broke out in major laughter - I figured it was a mistrake re the invite but found out it wasn't
Bugs me that people assume everyone plays that game.
LOL
So you thought it was a sex tape
LOL
Back when he was playing and I think he won that year at La Costa - Friend with a view of one of the holes threw a party and we could see Tiger Woods - Me Golf is just a Yawn
Back as an employee at Qualcomm the CEO's secretary calls me with an invite to play Golf with the CEO and I broke out in major laughter - I figured it was a mistrake re the invite but found out it wasn't
Bugs me that people assume everyone plays that game.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,933
> The PUF can be as simple as a layer of paint.
Annnnnd... What happens when wear and tear of said card or time or dry climate or whatever change the topography of this?
> as long as the number of photons in the pulse is small enough. Laser diodes, as found in CD players, are widely available and cheap. SLMs are already present in modern projectors. A sensitive photodiode or image sensor can serve as the photon detector.
Yeah, cute idea, but people aren't shoving CDs into their wallets and sitting on them all day. Nor are they pulling them from their pockets all the time to pay for this or that. What happens when this "key" layer of molecules is only half there because I draw out my card (and it scrapes my pocket) to buy everything? What about the wear and tear? Do you have magic paint that doesn't lose molecules when in contact with other things? If I take my card out of my wallet a thousand times will it still work or will the top level of molecules get sheared off? Where is your finger print now? Where is the recognition? How far will you let that recognition degrade? If attackers to POS units (see: recent history) got ahold of my information they would be able to at least clone a degraded version of my card, no?
For now, I'm going to say "stupid idea" at best. With some advances in technology, like multiple-factor varification, it could probably work. Or, it might fail like the Hindenberg. It sounds dodgy, but it's probably a good start to thinking about personal information security.
Annnnnd... What happens when wear and tear of said card or time or dry climate or whatever change the topography of this?
> as long as the number of photons in the pulse is small enough. Laser diodes, as found in CD players, are widely available and cheap. SLMs are already present in modern projectors. A sensitive photodiode or image sensor can serve as the photon detector.
Yeah, cute idea, but people aren't shoving CDs into their wallets and sitting on them all day. Nor are they pulling them from their pockets all the time to pay for this or that. What happens when this "key" layer of molecules is only half there because I draw out my card (and it scrapes my pocket) to buy everything? What about the wear and tear? Do you have magic paint that doesn't lose molecules when in contact with other things? If I take my card out of my wallet a thousand times will it still work or will the top level of molecules get sheared off? Where is your finger print now? Where is the recognition? How far will you let that recognition degrade? If attackers to POS units (see: recent history) got ahold of my information they would be able to at least clone a degraded version of my card, no?
For now, I'm going to say "stupid idea" at best. With some advances in technology, like multiple-factor varification, it could probably work. Or, it might fail like the Hindenberg. It sounds dodgy, but it's probably a good start to thinking about personal information security.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,935
@previous (G)
To a degree some of those tekky problems can be over come - currently the mag strip ends up worn out quickly - Soon to be replaced by buried chip in USA as Eu has been doing this for a while now.
A key fail is that on the server side there are low paid IT people who can hand over pass words SS# KEY account info and its been this way for eons -
They could say current net structure and O/S n Browsers suck re security and re do the net to force a GEO verification and user ID and a host of other things to make the net open but secure from bad guys - Not perfect cause crime pays - Just harder to crack the net
Computer O/S and browsers could be designed for lots more protection - Inside thief is always a problem which will always exist
Work nite is done n getting close to beginning of terrific Mardi Gra season
To a degree some of those tekky problems can be over come - currently the mag strip ends up worn out quickly - Soon to be replaced by buried chip in USA as Eu has been doing this for a while now.
A key fail is that on the server side there are low paid IT people who can hand over pass words SS# KEY account info and its been this way for eons -
They could say current net structure and O/S n Browsers suck re security and re do the net to force a GEO verification and user ID and a host of other things to make the net open but secure from bad guys - Not perfect cause crime pays - Just harder to crack the net
Computer O/S and browsers could be designed for lots more protection - Inside thief is always a problem which will always exist
Work nite is done n getting close to beginning of terrific Mardi Gra season
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,950
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,960
A bunch of crap.
People can just steal the damn cards.
People can write down all the numbers on the front and back of the cards and order stuff online.
Cardholders can still buy shit, lie and say they didn't, and screw the merchants out of money.
Cards have computer chips in them nowadays anyway that do this same stuff as quantum bullshit.
People can just steal the damn cards.
People can write down all the numbers on the front and back of the cards and order stuff online.
Cardholders can still buy shit, lie and say they didn't, and screw the merchants out of money.
Cards have computer chips in them nowadays anyway that do this same stuff as quantum bullshit.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 44 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,963
@previous (I)
Most fraud these days takes place with counterfeit cards. The physical cards are rarely stolen. Less than 1 in 100 fraud cases I look at involve the perpetrator getting their hands on the real card. This is why we need to switch over to the digital chip.
With online transactions, you need the three digit security code off the back of the card, and you usually also need the card holder's full name and address for verification. Online fraud isn't nearly as big a problem as counterfeit fraud is, which is why we need to switch over to the chip as quickly as possible. If online fraud starts to become a bigger problem, we have plans to take care of that as well.
Most fraud these days takes place with counterfeit cards. The physical cards are rarely stolen. Less than 1 in 100 fraud cases I look at involve the perpetrator getting their hands on the real card. This is why we need to switch over to the digital chip.
With online transactions, you need the three digit security code off the back of the card, and you usually also need the card holder's full name and address for verification. Online fraud isn't nearly as big a problem as counterfeit fraud is, which is why we need to switch over to the chip as quickly as possible. If online fraud starts to become a bigger problem, we have plans to take care of that as well.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 26 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,967
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
imagine how shocked i was when i went to us of a, the land of freedom and five guys fries, and my fucking debit card didn't need anything to work, they just fucking swiped it and i had to sign a bit of paper
wtfffffff
imagine how shocked i was when i went to us of a, the land of freedom and five guys fries, and my fucking debit card didn't need anything to work, they just fucking swiped it and i had to sign a bit of paper
wtfffffff
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,988
@previous (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
5 guys keeps winning ever official taste test or ties with In & Out - I need to try 5 guys and they are 13 minutes away - On my Radar for Next week after Mardi Gra.
5 guys keeps winning ever official taste test or ties with In & Out - I need to try 5 guys and they are 13 minutes away - On my Radar for Next week after Mardi Gra.
Anonymous G replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,989
@previous (Syntax)
The one nearest me is done out like a warehouse and every inch of decor is just posters quoting positive food reviews. The food looks okay, but not great. The decor really bugs me. If your food is that fucking good, you shouldn't need to try to convince me so hard; it should speak for itself. I brought some to a friend to try outside the cognitive dissonance inducing machine that is their restaurant, and he said the burger was okay but the buns were way too soggy. So, meh. If you charge more for a burger and then convince your customers that everyone thinks you're the shit, then your customers will eventually rationalize paying more by thinking they got great food.
The one nearest me is done out like a warehouse and every inch of decor is just posters quoting positive food reviews. The food looks okay, but not great. The decor really bugs me. If your food is that fucking good, you shouldn't need to try to convince me so hard; it should speak for itself. I brought some to a friend to try outside the cognitive dissonance inducing machine that is their restaurant, and he said the burger was okay but the buns were way too soggy. So, meh. If you charge more for a burger and then convince your customers that everyone thinks you're the shit, then your customers will eventually rationalize paying more by thinking they got great food.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 15 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #532,993
@previous (G)
Until this subject first came up on TC - I had driven by the 5 guys near me 100 times with no clue I should try.
Only a new b to in and out which was the gal I had a baby with 20 years ago - I am wary of fast food burgers.
Now past virgin with In n Out - and getting it exactly as I want it my way - Full convert - takes a while to learn the system re wot is off the menu and how far they will go to make it exactly as wanted - who new they wood grill onions per request EXCEPT I doubt I will give that a try
Until this subject first came up on TC - I had driven by the 5 guys near me 100 times with no clue I should try.
Only a new b to in and out which was the gal I had a baby with 20 years ago - I am wary of fast food burgers.
Now past virgin with In n Out - and getting it exactly as I want it my way - Full convert - takes a while to learn the system re wot is off the menu and how far they will go to make it exactly as wanted - who new they wood grill onions per request EXCEPT I doubt I will give that a try
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 3 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,039
@532,963 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Online fraud is usually "friendly fraud". A cardholder gets tons of stuff delivered to their home and then claims they didn't do it. The merchant then gets the money taken from them and plus huge chargeback fees. Banks typically pretend this stuff doesn't go on all the time and always side with the cardholder.
Though friendly fraud can happen from IRL purchases too. The cashier checks the driver's license but the store doesn't save a copy of it, just the signature which the cashier never looks at.
Online fraud is usually "friendly fraud". A cardholder gets tons of stuff delivered to their home and then claims they didn't do it. The merchant then gets the money taken from them and plus huge chargeback fees. Banks typically pretend this stuff doesn't go on all the time and always side with the cardholder.
Though friendly fraud can happen from IRL purchases too. The cashier checks the driver's license but the store doesn't save a copy of it, just the signature which the cashier never looks at.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,048
@532,967 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
Nobody even checks if the signatures are correct. It's a total sham part of the process.
Nobody even checks if the signatures are correct. It's a total sham part of the process.
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,052
@previous (H)
The signature is the main way merchants can prove the cardholder was the one who made the purchase so should the cardholder claim they didn't, that signature better match or the merchant loses money. Then again, they don't get that chargeback fee refunded unless they're on PayPal (and yeah PayPal has a system for physical card swipe transactions too).
The signature is the main way merchants can prove the cardholder was the one who made the purchase so should the cardholder claim they didn't, that signature better match or the merchant loses money. Then again, they don't get that chargeback fee refunded unless they're on PayPal (and yeah PayPal has a system for physical card swipe transactions too).
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 37 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,072
@previous (I)
> The signature is the main way merchants can prove the cardholder was the one who made the purchase so should the cardholder claim they didn't, that signature better match or the merchant loses money.
a forger is going to forge a signature. Of course they need a copy
My sig on file with bank was yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssss ago and currently does not match how I sign my name.
Few years ago someone broke into my car and found some blank checks - They filled one out for $500 cash and took it into one of my bank branches and cashed the check - Signature in no way matched my sig - they got the money - bank caught it later and called me - My account was credited without asking - Crook has face on camera - no clue if crook was busted
Recently 2 of my credit cards have been compromised with only one with charges - most they got away with was 99 cents!!! Bank blocked a less then $5 charge and I spotted a Spotify 99cents bank failed to catch
> The signature is the main way merchants can prove the cardholder was the one who made the purchase so should the cardholder claim they didn't, that signature better match or the merchant loses money.
a forger is going to forge a signature. Of course they need a copy
My sig on file with bank was yearrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssss ago and currently does not match how I sign my name.
Few years ago someone broke into my car and found some blank checks - They filled one out for $500 cash and took it into one of my bank branches and cashed the check - Signature in no way matched my sig - they got the money - bank caught it later and called me - My account was credited without asking - Crook has face on camera - no clue if crook was busted
Recently 2 of my credit cards have been compromised with only one with charges - most they got away with was 99 cents!!! Bank blocked a less then $5 charge and I spotted a Spotify 99cents bank failed to catch
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 30 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,080
@previous (Syntax)
> a forger is going to forge a signature. Of course they need a copy
Yep but it only needs forging for checks where a bank can reverse the transfer if they find fraud. For credit card fraud, the bank isn't going to send someone to get back all the merchant's handbags and jewelry.
> a forger is going to forge a signature. Of course they need a copy
Yep but it only needs forging for checks where a bank can reverse the transfer if they find fraud. For credit card fraud, the bank isn't going to send someone to get back all the merchant's handbags and jewelry.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 20 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,088
@previous (I)
Having no memory of the numbers I just looked it up
Now notice they give a number re losses - BUUUUUUUT its not the bank that is taking that loss sitting down - Its just passed along to you and I
I don't think I end up helping the bank with the loss because I never ever carry a balance - BUTTTTTT Perhaps instead of giving me Cash Back at 2% they wood offer me 2.5% if the losses were lower?
In USA Capitol one advertises cash back 1.5% on EVERYTHING and they mean Everything - and its World Class Customer service - Never exceeds one ring and the person who answers is a Bank person in a bank branch 24 hours a day - Even VP's will pick up the line - Its amazing service
I switched to Amex card from Fidelity because they offer 2% cash back on EVERYTHING and Customer service is 3 or 4 rings and is also 100% USA based - No India or Philippians
Downside is that not all merchants take AMEX - So Capitol One still gets some of my business
Having no memory of the numbers I just looked it up
Although incidence of credit card fraud is limited to about 0.1% of all card transactions, this has resulted in huge financial losses as the fraudulent transactions have been large value transactions. In 1999, out of 12 billion transactions made annually, approximately 10 million—or one out of every 1200 transactions—turned out to be fraudulent.
Also, 0.04% (4 out of every 10,000) of all monthly active accounts were fraudulent. Even with tremendous volume and value increase in credit card transactions since then, these proportions have stayed the same or have decreased due to sophisticated fraud detection and prevention systems. Today's fraud detection systems are designed to prevent one twelfth of one percent of all transactions processed which still translates into billions of dollars in losses.
In the decade to 2008, general credit card losses have been 7 basis points or lower (i.e. losses of $0.07 or less per $100 of transactions).
In 2007, fraud in the United Kingdom was estimated at £535 million.
Also, 0.04% (4 out of every 10,000) of all monthly active accounts were fraudulent. Even with tremendous volume and value increase in credit card transactions since then, these proportions have stayed the same or have decreased due to sophisticated fraud detection and prevention systems. Today's fraud detection systems are designed to prevent one twelfth of one percent of all transactions processed which still translates into billions of dollars in losses.
In the decade to 2008, general credit card losses have been 7 basis points or lower (i.e. losses of $0.07 or less per $100 of transactions).
In 2007, fraud in the United Kingdom was estimated at £535 million.
Now notice they give a number re losses - BUUUUUUUT its not the bank that is taking that loss sitting down - Its just passed along to you and I
I don't think I end up helping the bank with the loss because I never ever carry a balance - BUTTTTTT Perhaps instead of giving me Cash Back at 2% they wood offer me 2.5% if the losses were lower?
In USA Capitol one advertises cash back 1.5% on EVERYTHING and they mean Everything - and its World Class Customer service - Never exceeds one ring and the person who answers is a Bank person in a bank branch 24 hours a day - Even VP's will pick up the line - Its amazing service
I switched to Amex card from Fidelity because they offer 2% cash back on EVERYTHING and Customer service is 3 or 4 rings and is also 100% USA based - No India or Philippians
Downside is that not all merchants take AMEX - So Capitol One still gets some of my business
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,089
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,090
@previous (M)
Think you're going a little too far, bud.
Don't get me wrong, it is a funny meme, but posting it in response to every other post that Syntax makes is just going to wear it out. Pace yourself a bit.
Think you're going a little too far, bud.
Don't get me wrong, it is a funny meme, but posting it in response to every other post that Syntax makes is just going to wear it out. Pace yourself a bit.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,091
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Unless I am in the mood OR OR I have something on my limited mind and want to vent
I doubt anyone going 2 C me do lots of replies and Y Y Y?
Now its spilled over to TC
And I no for a fact re a leak that a banned person here uses a proxy to look in to keep up with wots up here - and is taking the 15 back to TC
So U can be sure I will limit my replies to such on a VERY VERY Limited basis from now on.
Unless I am in the mood OR OR I have something on my limited mind and want to vent
I doubt anyone going 2 C me do lots of replies and Y Y Y?
Now its spilled over to TC
And I no for a fact re a leak that a banned person here uses a proxy to look in to keep up with wots up here - and is taking the 15 back to TC
So U can be sure I will limit my replies to such on a VERY VERY Limited basis from now on.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 26 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,092
Fuck off and die replied with this 11 years ago, 5 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,094
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,097
@previous (Fuck off and die)Tell ya wot I am going 2 do 4 U
Bank appoit in a few minutes
I hope to die happy as I walk out their door with some more free money
Just hope they up the last offer - Going to take wot ever they give me but no harm asking 4 more eh
Fuck off and die replied with this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,099
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #533,140
@533,088 (Syntax)
The banks directly pass the loss onto merchants instead of something hidden like with consumers. The money is just deducted from the merchant's account.
The banks directly pass the loss onto merchants instead of something hidden like with consumers. The money is just deducted from the merchant's account.
Anonymous H replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,154
@previous (I)
This is the factually correct answer, rather than some made up conclusions meant to make Syntax look smart and involved in this conversation.
This is the factually correct answer, rather than some made up conclusions meant to make Syntax look smart and involved in this conversation.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,161
@533,039 (I)
No. I am a fraud analyst for major bank and there are several things wrong with what you just said. First of all, if a customer orders a bunch of stuff and then claims they didn't order it, that goes to billing disputes, not fraud, because we can tell from the merchant where it was shipped and the merchant can verify that the goods were shipped. We do not always side with the customer. The customer only wins if they prove they didn't order it, or prove it was never delivered, or prove that they requested a refund and sent it back or canceled or whatever and the merchant is not cooperating. Customers get hit with free trials expiring all the time and try to dispute it when they get hit with the bill and we deny it every time.
If they claim it's fraud and we find out that they actually did order it, then we persecute them for fraud.
Most of the online fraud I see on a daily basis is clearly not the customer. It's often very aggressive activity with merchants they typically don't do business with, it's often outside the country, and it's often accompanied by weird test charges at gas stations, vending machines, and fake merchants set up by perpetrators that we almost immediately spot. I know a lot of customers try to pull bullshit on us, but I can assure you that there is way more real fraud online than fake fraud online. We catch most of it before the customer even does.
Also, you are flat out wrong in your statement that the merchants eat most of the fraud. We can't just take money back from the merchants when we find out it's fraud. Most of the fraud gets eaten by the banks, not the merchants.
No. I am a fraud analyst for major bank and there are several things wrong with what you just said. First of all, if a customer orders a bunch of stuff and then claims they didn't order it, that goes to billing disputes, not fraud, because we can tell from the merchant where it was shipped and the merchant can verify that the goods were shipped. We do not always side with the customer. The customer only wins if they prove they didn't order it, or prove it was never delivered, or prove that they requested a refund and sent it back or canceled or whatever and the merchant is not cooperating. Customers get hit with free trials expiring all the time and try to dispute it when they get hit with the bill and we deny it every time.
If they claim it's fraud and we find out that they actually did order it, then we persecute them for fraud.
Most of the online fraud I see on a daily basis is clearly not the customer. It's often very aggressive activity with merchants they typically don't do business with, it's often outside the country, and it's often accompanied by weird test charges at gas stations, vending machines, and fake merchants set up by perpetrators that we almost immediately spot. I know a lot of customers try to pull bullshit on us, but I can assure you that there is way more real fraud online than fake fraud online. We catch most of it before the customer even does.
Also, you are flat out wrong in your statement that the merchants eat most of the fraud. We can't just take money back from the merchants when we find out it's fraud. Most of the fraud gets eaten by the banks, not the merchants.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 11 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,163
@533,140 (I)
Wrong. Banks eat most of the fraud. We have to prove that the merchant was negligent to pin the costs on them and get our money back.
Wrong. Banks eat most of the fraud. We have to prove that the merchant was negligent to pin the costs on them and get our money back.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,168
@533,140 (I)
@533,161 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I really did or do not know what Broseph just explained. I have not been on the Merchants side (was years ago b4 the age of credit cards) So wood have no clue who eats wot when something goes wrong.
All the cards I use come with a guarantee that if one of my cards ends up being used by a thief I am not stuck with the charge - Of course as Bro explained if I played my card for fraud then its going to fall on me -
Broseph I go back a lot of years and the very first ATM card a bank manager talked me into getting - Never got it in mail and one day at the bank I discover my account is near zero - Bank looks into it and Sees someone has intercepted my ATM card and has gone bank to bank day after day to pull out Max allowed - Investigation ended up with a VP of the bank ripping off my account and they ended up in Prison because VP did that to a number of people
Few years later I was off to a one week course in Management with people from lots of industries and I end up with class project partner who was the VP in charge of B 0 A fraud - Told him my story and he said its just a tiny drop in the bucket - That the profit margin on ATM's is extraordinary high - Cash people put in is used instantly to make a lot of money on other peoples money and the fraud element and that was back around 1985 - 87 Profit was so high the fraud just did not count
I said hey I have been short a $20 and just go inside bank and ask for and get my $20 no questions asked - He said of course and I could do it once or so a year and bank just does not care but after a few years they wood catch on LOL - But he knew people do that all the time. Cost to bank is such a small fraction of huge profit margin
@533,161 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I really did or do not know what Broseph just explained. I have not been on the Merchants side (was years ago b4 the age of credit cards) So wood have no clue who eats wot when something goes wrong.
All the cards I use come with a guarantee that if one of my cards ends up being used by a thief I am not stuck with the charge - Of course as Bro explained if I played my card for fraud then its going to fall on me -
Broseph I go back a lot of years and the very first ATM card a bank manager talked me into getting - Never got it in mail and one day at the bank I discover my account is near zero - Bank looks into it and Sees someone has intercepted my ATM card and has gone bank to bank day after day to pull out Max allowed - Investigation ended up with a VP of the bank ripping off my account and they ended up in Prison because VP did that to a number of people
Few years later I was off to a one week course in Management with people from lots of industries and I end up with class project partner who was the VP in charge of B 0 A fraud - Told him my story and he said its just a tiny drop in the bucket - That the profit margin on ATM's is extraordinary high - Cash people put in is used instantly to make a lot of money on other peoples money and the fraud element and that was back around 1985 - 87 Profit was so high the fraud just did not count
I said hey I have been short a $20 and just go inside bank and ask for and get my $20 no questions asked - He said of course and I could do it once or so a year and bank just does not care but after a few years they wood catch on LOL - But he knew people do that all the time. Cost to bank is such a small fraction of huge profit margin
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,184
@previous (Syntax)
If you think banks make so much profit that they don't care about fraud, you're wrong. The bank I work for loses about 100 million dollars a year to fraud at least, and, as you pointed out, most of that gets passed along to customers in the form of higher interest rates on credit cards and stingier fees. The whole banking industry is hemorrhaging money right now because fraud and a lot of it is from merchant compromises. They're pushing as hard as they can to get rid of the magnetic stripe and go to the chip, but merchants are delaying the changeover because they don't want to upgrade their equipment and inconvenience their customers. The merchants don't care because they're not the ones losing money, the banks are.
If you think banks make so much profit that they don't care about fraud, you're wrong. The bank I work for loses about 100 million dollars a year to fraud at least, and, as you pointed out, most of that gets passed along to customers in the form of higher interest rates on credit cards and stingier fees. The whole banking industry is hemorrhaging money right now because fraud and a lot of it is from merchant compromises. They're pushing as hard as they can to get rid of the magnetic stripe and go to the chip, but merchants are delaying the changeover because they don't want to upgrade their equipment and inconvenience their customers. The merchants don't care because they're not the ones losing money, the banks are.
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,186
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Yea I fired off on banks as always in black when as a stock market investor I do notice banking is having issues.
But in rough number that bank you work for that loses about $100 million - What is the over all profit? I do not invest in banks or the grocery biz - But as a teen I worked my way through early high school to first real job as a super market clerk. This was wayyyy b4 you were born and back then shoplifting accounted for 5% off of gross profits - Did a quick look up to see the current number and New York times says it can be up to 7% but look at this - Its 2010 information - Over all loss is $33.5 billion and 43% is from Employee theft
So that comes down to cost of doing business. Ends up as higher cost to the rest of us to cover - Banks? Looking at bank loses on web looks like 2much trouble re the wide range of fails and mergers and forced by Gov buy outs during the crash a few years ago.
And of course the fraud by banks to launder money or bundle those greasy mortgages or down right dangle a cool loan in front of someone who could never pay for it just so the bank can foreclose
That I no first hand having bought 3 of them at one hell of a bargin - two below the cost of materials and lands worth - No more of those available to me now
Bro do you know why banks have held off from doing wot Eu does re imbedded chips? My Amex and a couple of other cards do have the chips in
Yea I fired off on banks as always in black when as a stock market investor I do notice banking is having issues.
But in rough number that bank you work for that loses about $100 million - What is the over all profit? I do not invest in banks or the grocery biz - But as a teen I worked my way through early high school to first real job as a super market clerk. This was wayyyy b4 you were born and back then shoplifting accounted for 5% off of gross profits - Did a quick look up to see the current number and New York times says it can be up to 7% but look at this - Its 2010 information - Over all loss is $33.5 billion and 43% is from Employee theft
So that comes down to cost of doing business. Ends up as higher cost to the rest of us to cover - Banks? Looking at bank loses on web looks like 2much trouble re the wide range of fails and mergers and forced by Gov buy outs during the crash a few years ago.
And of course the fraud by banks to launder money or bundle those greasy mortgages or down right dangle a cool loan in front of someone who could never pay for it just so the bank can foreclose
That I no first hand having bought 3 of them at one hell of a bargin - two below the cost of materials and lands worth - No more of those available to me now
Bro do you know why banks have held off from doing wot Eu does re imbedded chips? My Amex and a couple of other cards do have the chips in
Anonymous D replied with this 11 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,189
@previous (Syntax)
Why are you telling us about your first job? Why are you telling us how many mortgages you have?
Why are you telling us about your first job? Why are you telling us how many mortgages you have?
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 31 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,195
@previous (D)
Excuse me- My reply was to Broseph
If you do not mind me replying to someone? It was not a reply to the pubic at large. Non banker talking to a banker.
Fraud Banking I believe I was on topic. If I However have offended you?
Excuse me- My reply was to Broseph
If you do not mind me replying to someone? It was not a reply to the pubic at large. Non banker talking to a banker.
Fraud Banking I believe I was on topic. If I However have offended you?
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,199
@532,967 (The Owl !KThEOwLwbU)
@533,072 (Syntax)
The US has always been backward when it comes to banking technology. Look how long it's taken to get chip & PIN and it still hasn't really caught on. Sure the chip cards & POS devices cost slightly more to produce but the card issuers would lose much less with the subsequent reduction in fraud if retailers were forced to install them.
@533,072 (Syntax)
The US has always been backward when it comes to banking technology. Look how long it's taken to get chip & PIN and it still hasn't really caught on. Sure the chip cards & POS devices cost slightly more to produce but the card issuers would lose much less with the subsequent reduction in fraud if retailers were forced to install them.
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,234
@533,161 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Customers get hit with free trials expiring all the time and try to dispute it when they get hit with the bill and we deny it every time.
>
> If they claim it's fraud and we find out that they actually did order it, then we persecute them for fraud.
Damn, what bank is this? I've sold lots of things online and found the banks always side with their customers. I've talked with a lot of sellers online. I've read lots of writings from them. Every time both in my experience and everyone else's is the customers can do friendly fraud all the time with no consequences. And no the cardholders cannot be prosecuted--police call it a "civil matter" and the seller who got scammed has to sue them and the only time I've seen it go to court is when the buyer went to the seller's home town to pick something up so the court venue can be in the seller's local venue instead of a far away distance and that was for a "friendly fraud" car purchase, which the banks and police did nothing about.
> Also, you are flat out wrong in your statement that the merchants eat most of the fraud. We can't just take money back from the merchants when we find out it's fraud. Most of the fraud gets eaten by the banks, not the merchants.
Cardholder says "I didn't make the purchase" and the bank then initiates a chargeback. I've had chargebacks come in and I see 100 other merchants on the chargeback report. The bank isn't eating any of the costs, they put it all on the merchants.
> Customers get hit with free trials expiring all the time and try to dispute it when they get hit with the bill and we deny it every time.
>
> If they claim it's fraud and we find out that they actually did order it, then we persecute them for fraud.
Damn, what bank is this? I've sold lots of things online and found the banks always side with their customers. I've talked with a lot of sellers online. I've read lots of writings from them. Every time both in my experience and everyone else's is the customers can do friendly fraud all the time with no consequences. And no the cardholders cannot be prosecuted--police call it a "civil matter" and the seller who got scammed has to sue them and the only time I've seen it go to court is when the buyer went to the seller's home town to pick something up so the court venue can be in the seller's local venue instead of a far away distance and that was for a "friendly fraud" car purchase, which the banks and police did nothing about.
> Also, you are flat out wrong in your statement that the merchants eat most of the fraud. We can't just take money back from the merchants when we find out it's fraud. Most of the fraud gets eaten by the banks, not the merchants.
Cardholder says "I didn't make the purchase" and the bank then initiates a chargeback. I've had chargebacks come in and I see 100 other merchants on the chargeback report. The bank isn't eating any of the costs, they put it all on the merchants.
Anonymous I double-posted this 11 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,236
@533,163 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> Wrong. Banks eat most of the fraud. We have to prove that the merchant was negligent to pin the costs on them and get our money back.
I had one chargeback where a woman bought an item. She dropped it and then demanded I accept a return. She then emails me and says she contacted her credit card company about it.
I then get the chargeback come in where the woman claims she never made the purchase. I then respond to the bank with a long letter about the person and include the emails she has sent me.
The chargeback is reversed but I still have a $35 chargeback fee. Two weeks later I get a second chargeback where the demands I return the item. I then reiterate all the stuff I told the bank and get a second $35 chargeback fee.
And that was one of the few times I won. Usually they get stuff delivered to their home, in their name, and the banks just let them get away with it. The banks never have to prove I was negligent, they just have always sided with the customer.
> Wrong. Banks eat most of the fraud. We have to prove that the merchant was negligent to pin the costs on them and get our money back.
I had one chargeback where a woman bought an item. She dropped it and then demanded I accept a return. She then emails me and says she contacted her credit card company about it.
I then get the chargeback come in where the woman claims she never made the purchase. I then respond to the bank with a long letter about the person and include the emails she has sent me.
The chargeback is reversed but I still have a $35 chargeback fee. Two weeks later I get a second chargeback where the demands I return the item. I then reiterate all the stuff I told the bank and get a second $35 chargeback fee.
And that was one of the few times I won. Usually they get stuff delivered to their home, in their name, and the banks just let them get away with it. The banks never have to prove I was negligent, they just have always sided with the customer.
The Owl !KThEOwLwbU replied with this 11 years ago, 11 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,336
@533,199 (O)
in the uk it was the same situation after the chip&pin machines were invented that retailers didn't want to buy them, especially S
the solution was simple and effective
the law simply changed so that the banks were only liable for card fraud if they used a chip&pin card, and if it happened with a swipy then the business itself was liable
lol everyone bought one
also usa is going to be doing the same thing between 2017 and 2020 iirc
in the uk it was the same situation after the chip&pin machines were invented that retailers didn't want to buy them, especially S
the solution was simple and effective
the law simply changed so that the banks were only liable for card fraud if they used a chip&pin card, and if it happened with a swipy then the business itself was liable
lol everyone bought one
also usa is going to be doing the same thing between 2017 and 2020 iirc
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #533,341
@533,234 (I)
I work in fraud and I have friends who work in billing disputes. We piss off a lot of customers. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express set the rules for what can be charged back and what evidence there needs to be, so it doesn't vary from bank to bank. You have personal anecdotes. I work in the industry and see the big picture. I can tell you we do a lot more to deal with the dickhead customers than you think. We don't side with them.
You are correct that even if you win you still get charged the chargeback fee, but I agree with you that that's bullshit. One of the things the bank is supposed to do is flag and account for "case avoidance" to prevent customers from trying to dispute something twice or pulling that kind of shit on merchants. We also make sure that they have contacted the merchant first, because a lot of times people are just assholes and call us right away before even talking to the merchant, then the merchant gets charged a fee when they weren't even aware that the customer wanted anything. Most of the time we can get the merchant on the phone and settle it right then and there because the merchant knows that even if they win they pay the fee and they want to avoid that. Again, that's Visa/Mastercard/Amex charging the fee, not the bank.
I work in fraud and I have friends who work in billing disputes. We piss off a lot of customers. Visa, Mastercard, and American Express set the rules for what can be charged back and what evidence there needs to be, so it doesn't vary from bank to bank. You have personal anecdotes. I work in the industry and see the big picture. I can tell you we do a lot more to deal with the dickhead customers than you think. We don't side with them.
You are correct that even if you win you still get charged the chargeback fee, but I agree with you that that's bullshit. One of the things the bank is supposed to do is flag and account for "case avoidance" to prevent customers from trying to dispute something twice or pulling that kind of shit on merchants. We also make sure that they have contacted the merchant first, because a lot of times people are just assholes and call us right away before even talking to the merchant, then the merchant gets charged a fee when they weren't even aware that the customer wanted anything. Most of the time we can get the merchant on the phone and settle it right then and there because the merchant knows that even if they win they pay the fee and they want to avoid that. Again, that's Visa/Mastercard/Amex charging the fee, not the bank.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #533,350
@533,039 (I)
This is true.
@533,052 (I)
I have a PayPal debit Mastercard.
@533,048 (H)
And this.
@533,080 (I)
I've been saying this for years! Especially if the person is overseas.
@533,090 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I lol'd.
@533,140 (I)
This is very true.
@533,168 (Syntax)
Bullshit, the victim doesn't get to find out who did it.
@533,184 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
This is fact.
@533,161 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Like I was saying, outside the country.
@533,199 (O)
It'll happen eventually. People are just too stupid to care.
This is true.
@533,052 (I)
I have a PayPal debit Mastercard.
@533,048 (H)
And this.
@533,080 (I)
I've been saying this for years! Especially if the person is overseas.
@533,090 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I lol'd.
@533,140 (I)
This is very true.
@533,168 (Syntax)
Bullshit, the victim doesn't get to find out who did it.
@533,184 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
This is fact.
@533,161 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Like I was saying, outside the country.
@533,199 (O)
It'll happen eventually. People are just too stupid to care.
Anonymous I replied with this 11 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #533,877
@533,341 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I just remembered that debit cards tend to be harder to dispute things than credit cards. Maybe you handle that, who knows.
But nonetheless, if you just google search for chargebacks you should find lots of people's stories of cardholders doing fraudulent chargebacks and always winning. If you're not finding results, throw paypal in there with the word chargeback and you'll get more but it'll only be over paypal.
But I've actually had less with PayPal. With a merchant account, the buyer will buy stuff, get it delivered to their home in their name, not call the 800#, and then later tell their bank that they didn't make the purchase. Usually their bank will then just sit on it for 1-3 months before notifying me. I'll get the chargeback papers and find out the customer did it 3 months ago (typically about a day after the product arrived at their home) and the bank just now notified me. At this point, the fraudster customer will stop responding to email entirely. If I have their phone number and I call them, they'll just stutter around admitting they scammed me and avoiding the subject -- cops of course don't care.
With PayPal, I just put in the tracking number and as long as the post office didn't screw me over, I win. I don't know if PayPal eats the loss or not, but the amounts are usually small and I know they fuck over the scammer buyer's PayPal account. At one point I had a customer buy from me and two of my friends. She pulled a friendly fraud "not authorized" chargedback on me and my first friend who then when trying to email her, never heard back. My second friend though got our warning and then emailed her and she actually responded to him denying she would do that, but of course never responded to me or my first friend. You see the worst of people when they're internet customers.
@previous (A)
> I have a PayPal debit Mastercard.
I like those because they give a 45 day limit on chargebacks instead of letting the customer wait 3 months. Some banks will let them wait 12 months, even 18.
I just remembered that debit cards tend to be harder to dispute things than credit cards. Maybe you handle that, who knows.
But nonetheless, if you just google search for chargebacks you should find lots of people's stories of cardholders doing fraudulent chargebacks and always winning. If you're not finding results, throw paypal in there with the word chargeback and you'll get more but it'll only be over paypal.
But I've actually had less with PayPal. With a merchant account, the buyer will buy stuff, get it delivered to their home in their name, not call the 800#, and then later tell their bank that they didn't make the purchase. Usually their bank will then just sit on it for 1-3 months before notifying me. I'll get the chargeback papers and find out the customer did it 3 months ago (typically about a day after the product arrived at their home) and the bank just now notified me. At this point, the fraudster customer will stop responding to email entirely. If I have their phone number and I call them, they'll just stutter around admitting they scammed me and avoiding the subject -- cops of course don't care.
With PayPal, I just put in the tracking number and as long as the post office didn't screw me over, I win. I don't know if PayPal eats the loss or not, but the amounts are usually small and I know they fuck over the scammer buyer's PayPal account. At one point I had a customer buy from me and two of my friends. She pulled a friendly fraud "not authorized" chargedback on me and my first friend who then when trying to email her, never heard back. My second friend though got our warning and then emailed her and she actually responded to him denying she would do that, but of course never responded to me or my first friend. You see the worst of people when they're internet customers.
@previous (A)
> I have a PayPal debit Mastercard.
I like those because they give a 45 day limit on chargebacks instead of letting the customer wait 3 months. Some banks will let them wait 12 months, even 18.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #533,905
@previous (I)
I know there are a lot of shit head customers out there. I was only getting to make two points. One, most of the fraud we deal with is real, not customers being shit heads. Two, we try to catch the shit heads. We don't intentionally side with them. Just today I denied 5 or 6 fraud claims because it was blatantly obvious the customer was full of shit. We do try to catch them.
I know there are a lot of shit head customers out there. I was only getting to make two points. One, most of the fraud we deal with is real, not customers being shit heads. Two, we try to catch the shit heads. We don't intentionally side with them. Just today I denied 5 or 6 fraud claims because it was blatantly obvious the customer was full of shit. We do try to catch them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 11 years ago, 3 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #534,445
@533,877 (I)
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I do know how annoying it is as well! I used to be an eBay seller until people started that "unauthorized charge" bullshit on me. I shit you not, I have sold this one iPhone 5 fuckin' times before I said fuck eBay and moved to craigslist. Every single time I assume the buyer would hope I send it out before I realize he charges back, in result screwing me over. However, as you said, if you have a tracking number, as long as they don't lose the package, the seller is usually fine. Personally, I like to get insurance on packages over $100, so even if it gets lost in delivery, I'm not screwed and I get my money.
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I do know how annoying it is as well! I used to be an eBay seller until people started that "unauthorized charge" bullshit on me. I shit you not, I have sold this one iPhone 5 fuckin' times before I said fuck eBay and moved to craigslist. Every single time I assume the buyer would hope I send it out before I realize he charges back, in result screwing me over. However, as you said, if you have a tracking number, as long as they don't lose the package, the seller is usually fine. Personally, I like to get insurance on packages over $100, so even if it gets lost in delivery, I'm not screwed and I get my money.