NODE 8ba18085Re: credit card conventional wisdom
John Pettitt <jpp@software.net (John Pettitt)>Fri, 17 Nov 1995 04:56:22 +0800
At 10:48 AM 11/16/95 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>
... about credit card liability
Hmmm, a few words about credit card liabilty.
The situation now is that in a "card not present" transaction the merchant is
liable for the fraud. This means that *a lot* of internet based stores are
getting eaten alive by fraud. The big issue right now is not cards being
stolen from the telco switch (yes it's a risk but can anybody cite it
happening?).
The issue is authentication of the card user. We have a significant
investment in
AI / credit scoring code to defeat the wannabe crackers. This goes way beyond
mod 10 checks and address verification.
[ as an aside I've put two people in jail this year for card fraud ]
John
John Pettitt, jpp@software.net
VP Engineering, CyberSource Corporation, 415 473 3065
NODE d1823211Re: credit card conventional wisdom
Arley Carter <ac@hawk.twinds.com>Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:20:28 +0800
In this context is the merchant defined as the the corporation selling the
physical good for delivery or the corporation that is operating the server?
These two parties under certain circumstances may be the same party, but
in this example lets assume they are seperate entities.
If I am interpreting "internet based stores" in the proper context, the
cardholder and the bank have recourse against the company operating the
server. Is this correct?
Regards:
-arc
Arley Carter
Tradewinds Technologies, Inc.
email: ac@hawk.twinds.com
www: http://www.twinds.com
"Trust me. This is a secure product. I'm from <insert your favorite
corporation of government agency>."
On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, John Pettitt wrote:
> At 10:48 AM 11/16/95 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> >
> ... about credit card liability
>
> Hmmm, a few words about credit card liabilty.
>
> The situation now is that in a "card not present" transaction the merchant is
> liable for the fraud. This means that *a lot* of internet based stores are
> getting eaten alive by fraud. The big issue right now is not cards being
> stolen from the telco switch (yes it's a risk but can anybody cite it
> happening?).
> The issue is authentication of the card user. We have a significant
> investment in
> AI / credit scoring code to defeat the wannabe crackers. This goes way beyond
> mod 10 checks and address verification.
>
> [ as an aside I've put two people in jail this year for card fraud ]
>
> John
> John Pettitt, jpp@software.net
> VP Engineering, CyberSource Corporation, 415 473 3065
>
>
NODE 94ff3067Re: credit card conventional wisdom
hallam@w3.orgFri, 17 Nov 1995 07:31:12 +0800
>The situation now is that in a "card not present" transaction the merchant is
>liable for the fraud. This means that *a lot* of internet based stores are
>getting eaten alive by fraud.
This is not quite accurate. In the US there is that distinction, in the UK
the credit card co is responsible. For that reason the requirement that
goods be delivered to the billing address _ONLY_ is strictly enforced.
>[ as an aside I've put two people in jail this year for card fraud ]
Good to hear that!
Phill