Re: [LINK] Card Cancellation as a Condition of Statement-Entry Enquiry
On 2/10/19 11:07 am, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote: I had my credit card cancelled because the company (ANZ) detected a transaction from a known overseas fraudulent source. They informed me by SMS. This could have been a bit awkward, as I was traveling and needed the card to pay for hotels etc. When I spoke to their call centre they agreed to re-instate the card but to bar any Card Not Present transactions. After some stupidity on their part (they sent the card to an old address) I got new cards. Where transactions are reasonably judged to have been conducted fraudulently (and by someone other than the card-holder), re-issue may be necessary, on the grounds that sufficient of the data is in the hands of a third party. But there are multiple stupidities involved in the system: (1) Statements show minimal information, in my case: 01 Sep Telstra Melbourne $150 (2) I was making an enquiry, not disputing the transaction, but: (a) the only additional data available to the call-centre was that the tx was CNP (and even that wasn't volunteered) (b) the systems of (some?) card-issuers and/or processing companies fail to service the need for a request for further information, i.e. are seriously consumer-unfriendly ** (3) Where the nature of the fraud is consistent with CNP transactions and the fraudster appears not to have access to the content of the chip, then a bar on CNP transactions, possibly coupled with a parallel re-issue process, could be a justified and effective safeguard; whereas cancellation-and-re-issue is not (4) The slowness of re-issue services is simply consumer-hostile ** I've *once* received meaningful data. It was a dump of the EFTPOS terminal log. Deep down amongst the remarkable amount of data, I found evidence that the tx was 'Not Authenticated' - which negated the claim made by both the Slovakian and the local banks that it was 'Authenticated'. Confronted with that evidence, NAB refunded the money. Aside: When I'd eventually reconstructed what happened, I had mixed feelings. I bought petrol after entering Slovakia from Poland, via the Tatra Mts. The attendant talked at me in Slovakian, but I have no Slavic (other than 'dobra pivo'), and he spoke neither English nor German. He got upset when I (so he thought) ignored him and left. So he entered an unauthorised charge for 60 Euros. I later realised that it was for a year's Motorway Vignette. I hadn't been in Slovakia for 30 years, hadn't (yet) been on a motorway, and hadn't (yet) seen any signs about a vignette being needed. If he'd charged me EUR 15 for the minimum 5 days, I'd have probably dropped the dispute - or even not disputed it in first place. ___ On 1/10/2019 7:15 pm, Roger Clarke wrote: Has anyone encountered this before? On the odd occasions I've queried a statement-entry (as often resulting in dispute-and-refund as not), I've faced the prospect of a fee, but not card cancellation. My WhichBank Visa account statement shows: 01 Sep Telstra Melbourne $150 I've not used Telstra for anything for a couple of years now, could (initially) find no documentation, and can find no email-traffic. And it's my company card, so my 'paperwork' is pretty reliable. The IVR process was actually pretty good, and only c.10 mins. (That's sufficiently unusual to be worth recording!). At first 'Michael' said he could see no other information. During the conversation, he accidentally mentioned that it was a 'card not present' transaction. I could have pressured him more, but as far as I could tell that means either phone or Internet (or he doesn't know either). The killer was 'I can put a dispute through. We'll cancel your card'. Probing didn't unlock any fallback position available to him. For example, the propositions that (a) the possibly valid, possibly fraudulent transaction occurred precisely 1 month ago, and (b) every fraudster knows to extract what they can before the boom lowers, rather than sitting back for a month. I could have added (c) any fraudster knows that it's less obvious if you use a little-known name rather than a major brand as your cover-story. He offered to record the complaint. (He may have had to deal with more astonished callers than just me). Can anyone see anything other than security theatre (and consumer hostility) in such a policy? P.S. After due consideration, I remembered a telecomms-related transaction. It was a Boost 4G Prepaid/Data-Rollover service. Sure enough, in the Boost fineprint is "service provided by Telstra"). -- Roger Clarkemailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.au T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer
Re: [LINK] Card Cancellation as a Condition of Statement-Entry Enquiry
I had my credit card cancelled because the company (ANZ) detected a transaction from a known overseas fraudulent source. They informed me by SMS. This could have been a bit awkward, as I was traveling and needed the card to pay for hotels etc. When I spoke to their call centre they agreed to re-instate the card but to bar any Card Not Present transactions. After some stupidity on their part (they sent the card to an old address) I got new cards. On 1/10/2019 7:15 pm, Roger Clarke wrote: > Has anyone encountered this before? On the odd occasions I've queried > a statement-entry (as often resulting in dispute-and-refund as not), > I've faced the prospect of a fee, but not card cancellation. > > > My WhichBank Visa account statement shows: > 01 Sep Telstra Melbourne $150 > > I've not used Telstra for anything for a couple of years now, could > (initially) find no documentation, and can find no email-traffic. And > it's my company card, so my 'paperwork' is pretty reliable. > > The IVR process was actually pretty good, and only c.10 mins. > (That's sufficiently unusual to be worth recording!). > > At first 'Michael' said he could see no other information. > > During the conversation, he accidentally mentioned that it was a 'card > not present' transaction. > > I could have pressured him more, but as far as I could tell that means > either phone or Internet (or he doesn't know either). > > The killer was 'I can put a dispute through. We'll cancel your card'. > > Probing didn't unlock any fallback position available to him. > > For example, the propositions that (a) the possibly valid, possibly > fraudulent transaction occurred precisely 1 month ago, and (b) every > fraudster knows to extract what they can before the boom lowers, > rather than sitting back for a month. I could have added (c) any > fraudster knows that it's less obvious if you use a little-known name > rather than a major brand as your cover-story. > > He offered to record the complaint. (He may have had to deal with > more astonished callers than just me). > > > Can anyone see anything other than security theatre (and consumer > hostility) in such a policy? > > > P.S. After due consideration, I remembered a telecomms-related > transaction. It was a Boost 4G Prepaid/Data-Rollover service. > Sure enough, in the Boost fineprint is "service provided by Telstra"). > > -- Regards brd Bernard Robertson-Dunn Canberra Australia email: b...@iimetro.com.au ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
Re: [LINK] Card Cancellation as a Condition of Statement-Entry Enquiry
This is standard best practice in the industry. You are claiming that the charge is unknown, which in today's world basically means fraudulent. It will take up to a month or more for the process to complete to decide if it really is legitimate, but in that time the presumption is that someone else has your details, and given they have used them once it's likely they will use it again. Canceling the card and issuing a new number will stop any future charges occurring. If banks didn't do this then the merchant for any future fraudulent charges (who would normally be the ones carrying the liability) would have a very solid claim that either the bank or you didn't take suitable precautions to protect the card, and thus you or the bank are liable for any future charges. Scott On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 2:26 AM Roger Clarke wrote: > Has anyone encountered this before? On the odd occasions I've queried a > statement-entry (as often resulting in dispute-and-refund as not), I've > faced the prospect of a fee, but not card cancellation. > > > My WhichBank Visa account statement shows: > 01 Sep Telstra Melbourne $150 > > I've not used Telstra for anything for a couple of years now, could > (initially) find no documentation, and can find no email-traffic. And > it's my company card, so my 'paperwork' is pretty reliable. > > The IVR process was actually pretty good, and only c.10 mins. > (That's sufficiently unusual to be worth recording!). > > At first 'Michael' said he could see no other information. > > During the conversation, he accidentally mentioned that it was a 'card > not present' transaction. > > I could have pressured him more, but as far as I could tell that means > either phone or Internet (or he doesn't know either). > > The killer was 'I can put a dispute through. We'll cancel your card'. > > Probing didn't unlock any fallback position available to him. > > For example, the propositions that (a) the possibly valid, possibly > fraudulent transaction occurred precisely 1 month ago, and (b) every > fraudster knows to extract what they can before the boom lowers, rather > than sitting back for a month. I could have added (c) any fraudster > knows that it's less obvious if you use a little-known name rather than > a major brand as your cover-story. > > He offered to record the complaint. (He may have had to deal with more > astonished callers than just me). > > > Can anyone see anything other than security theatre (and consumer > hostility) in such a policy? > > > P.S. After due consideration, I remembered a telecomms-related > transaction. It was a Boost 4G Prepaid/Data-Rollover service. > Sure enough, in the Boost fineprint is "service provided by Telstra"). > > > -- > Roger Clarkemailto:roger.cla...@xamax.com.au > T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com > > Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA > > Visiting Professor in the Faculty of LawUniversity of N.S.W. > Visiting Professor in Computer ScienceAustralian National University > ___ > Link mailing list > Link@mailman.anu.edu.au > http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > ___ Link mailing list Link@mailman.anu.edu.au http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
