Re: [privacy] Dispute Credit Card Charges at Your Peril

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Jerry Hill wrote:

> On 6/14/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> > Sounds sensible to me. Fraud me once, shame on you - fraud me twice, shame
> > on me.
>
> It seems okay to me too, at least on the surface.  I suppose that if
> the businesses were violating their own privacy policies, or a US (or
> Panamanian) law that covers information of this type, it would be a
> problem.  In general, this seems fairly similar to the credit
> reporting that already goes on between merchants and companies like
> Equifax.  Perhaps some consumer protections need to be extended to
> deal with new aggregators of personal information, like this
> ChargeBack Bureau, like those that cover the credit reporting agencies.
>
> The article's "OMG, stores are sharing customer information!" tone
> seems overblown though, considering the amount of data sharing that
> already goes on among merchants.
 
It's not just "OMG, stores are sharing customer information!". It's OMG,
if you do a chargeback on your card, then that gives you a reputation as
someone who does chargebacks. Well, duh. Online merchants have ZERO 
defence against chargebacks, other than to refuse to do business with 
smoeone who they think might be trying to do a fraud. Maybe if banks gave 
the online merchants a way that customers can pay with a non-repudiable
payment system, the game would be a bit fairer.

Imagine this. You go into a newspaper shop and buy a copy of The Times.  
Six months later, you stroll back into the shop, and help yourself to a
pound from the till, because you didn't like the newspaper.

Would you want to do business with someone who had done that?

_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy