In message <1496816542.3628250.1001312328.70df4...@webmail.messagingengine.com> , Scott Christopher writes: > Mark Andrews wrote: > > > but we do have the tech to do this. > > I wholeheartedly agree. > > > All it takes is a couple of transit providers to no longer accept word-of-m > outh and > > the world will transition overnight. > > This is the hard part. > > It seems trivial - being probably only a handful of transit providers - > but then again, these providers have massive infrastructure spread > globally, often ancient legacy systems that still work, and management > has a legal responsibility in most places to maximize the profits of > their shareholders. > > Look at the rollout of EMV in the U.S.: the world "has done had that > tech to do that" for decades (in Europe) but it only arrived in the U.S. > two years ago. And the U.S. doesn't do the (more secure) chip-and-pin > like the rest of the world (that costs too much money according to the > banks) but rather chip-and-signature. > > Whereas U.S. banks are (sometimes) liable for fraud on their systems, > transit providers don't have any liability for anything in the U.S. And > they are actively fighting for their right to transit some packets > faster than others - for an additional fee, of course! Actually they do have liability. It just needs someone to sue them for them to wake up. The injured party isn't a customer of the transit provider so there isn't any weasle worded contract to sace the transit provider.
> I think the solution is legislation + regulations. > > -- > Regards, > S.C. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org