more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [IP] more on We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 18:48:45 -0500
From: Scott Alexander <salex () dsl cis upenn edu>
To: dave () farber net
CC: ark () acm org
References: <44077E9F.1000602 () farber net>

There is a fundamental difference between a merchant (eg credit card
company) placing limits on how it is willing to do business with me and
the federal government placing restrictions on how that merchant may do
business with me.  In the past I've dealt with credit card companies who
had policies which I did not like.  Depending on how difficult the
policies were for me, I either chose to use another credit card for that
type of transaction or closed the account.

Presumably it doesn't matter to what credit card company one makes a
non-typical payment.  Thus, short of finding another country, my options
for working around the problem are limited.

I'm also curious about what happened once the payment was released by
DHS.  Did the credit card issuer back date the payment to the date it
was received (at the loss of the opportunity to lend that money to
another customer) or did the payment post when released (likely causing
the credit card holder to pay additional interest)?

Best,
Scott Alexander

On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 18:24 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [IP] We all have to sacrifice, in the War on Terriers
> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:18:08 -0500
> From: Andrew Koenig <ark () acm org>
> Reply-To: ark () acm org
> To: dave () farber net
>
> > Walter called television stations, the American Civil Liberties Union
> > and me. And he went on the Internet to see what he could learn. He
> > learned about changes in something called the Bank Privacy Act.
>
> This is something new?  Shortly before I got married in 1998, my wife-to-be
> and I bought wedding rings.  I forget why, but we had to pay for each ring
> in a separate transaction.
>
> That evening, we went out to dinner, and found the credit-card transaction
> declined, because there had been suspicious transactions on that card
> earlier in the day.  I had to give a whole bunch of personal information to
> the people at the credit-card company before they would allow the charge.  I
> don't know what we would have done if they hadn't been satisfied.
>
> Which they might not have been.  I later heard about someone who was to be
> best man at a friend's wedding.  He arranged a bachelor party at a
> restaurant.  When the bill came, the charge was declined.  He spoke to the
> credit-card company representative, who said "Sorry, but we won't authorize
> a charge of that size at a restaurant, even though it's within your credit
> limit.  It's too likely to be fraudulent."  Fortunately, someone else there
> had a credit card that would authorize it, because there was nothing he
> could do.
>
> For a long time now, we've been moving toward a society where any unusual
> behavior results in an investigation by the authorities.  9/11 may have
> accelerated the process, but it sure didn't start it.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as salex () aurora cis upenn edu
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/