Re: zfc and Orpheus

In article <4de1e82479usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Segfault <usenet-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Naughty! You carefully snipped the very reason *why*
> > they are more secure. To repeat: for customer present
> > transactions, the bank takes on losses due to fraud,
> > while the retailer themself is responsible for fraud in
> > the case of customers who sign.

> No. I snipped because it's as I put in my article on the
> topic. The banks are shifting the cost of fraud from the
> bank to the end customer. The fact, the banks have opted
> to reimburse the cost of fraud to resellers is merely a
> carrot dangling exercise in order to encourage retailers
> to adopt CnP.

Again, not true. The situation post chip and pin as far as
chargebacks are concerned is exactly as it was before it
came in.

The difference is that now if a retailer now accepts payment
against signature and it is then charged back, the retailer
no longer has an argument to use against the bank.

Previously if the signature matched that on the card you
could argue your case, now you cannot. Signatures are
accepted entirely at the retailer's risk.

--
Russell

http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Holiday specialists for Germany, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic
Tel 01946 861652 Fax 01946 862085
.

Loading