That said, having your cc number fraudulently used is a royal pain. You get to spend hours going over your statement with the issuer, get to contact all your automatically-billed-to-your-credit-card vendors to tell them your new cc number, and get to fill out paperwork to get credits on your statement. Sure, you may not have financial liability, but the time you'll spend to avoid that liability is worth something. Having been through it, I much prefer vendors who put forth the effort to secure their systems end-to-end, and lower the risk of compromising my cc number. ---Matthew *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 5/2/2002 at 2:26 AM Lincoln Yeoh wrote: >At 10:31 AM 5/1/02 -0700, Blue Boar wrote: > >>It's a good reason to use cash over the convenience of plastic. > >That said, AFAIK in event of fraudulent credit card transaction: >1) Without a signature the merchant bears most of the risk. >2) With a fake signature the card issuer (or its insurer) bears most of >the >risk. > >Cardholder risk = card cancelled (not always tho!), card issuer gives you >a >new card. Of course if it happens too many times under _suspicious_ >circumstances you may not get a new card. > >In the country I live, most card cloners do many multiple simultaneous >transactions at different places (even states), so it's pretty obvious >it's >not you. The card issuer gets the bill. > >Regards, >Link.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 01 2002 - 13:44:57 PDT