RE: FV Demonstrates Fatal Flaw in Software Encryption of Credi tCards

On January 30, 1996 nsb[SMTP:nsb@nsb.fv.com] wrote:

>> Of course, since Federal law requires the credit card companies, not   
the
>> user, to pay the costs of fraud, First Virtual's entire premise is a   
red
>> herring.
>
>Actually, you're wrong here too.  It is the banks, not the credit card
>companies, that carry the risk.

Changing the subject doesn't change the point.  Your announcement implies   
that users are liable, and that is incorrect.  This is misleading, and in   
my view, reprehensible.  This was the point of my post.  The fact that   
the fraud is traceable when detected should have been self evident.

If your post has said "Financial Industry Should Watch out for Keyboard   
Sniffers" as a *potential* threat for which the risks should be weighed,   
that would have been different.  Arguably farfetched, but different.   
 Your post relies on people's ignorance of their rights with respect to   
credit card liability, and therefore is shameful.

dvw

> Changing the subject doesn't change the point.  Your announcement implies   
> that users are liable, and that is incorrect.  This is misleading, and in   
> my view, reprehensible.  This was the point of my post.  The fact that   
> the fraud is traceable when detected should have been self evident.

I think there is an even stronger point to be made.  We can be
relatively sure that VISA is not going to go out of business any time
soon.  On the other hand, if an E-mail intercepting virus lost FV tons
of money, FV might conceivably go belly up sticking their customers
with the bill.  With FV, there might indeed be a risk to the user.

David