1995-11-16 - Re: credit card conventional wisdom

Header Data

From: hallam@w3.org
To: John Pettitt <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 94ff3067bd27d9130bf599705601b7b52433d5afd0b046f169978d2a8dafbd53
Message ID: <9511162041.AA03234@zorch.w3.org>
Reply To: <199511161930.LAA20815@software.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-16 23:31:12 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:31:12 +0800

Raw message

From: hallam@w3.org
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 07:31:12 +0800
To: John Pettitt <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: credit card conventional wisdom
In-Reply-To: <199511161930.LAA20815@software.net>
Message-ID: <9511162041.AA03234@zorch.w3.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>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





Thread