How Convenient is it when 20% of Fraud Victims Can't Get Their Money Back?

When "Convenience creates Inconvenience" is it time for a Change?

I know that everyone is pushing convenience over security when it comes to financial transactions, but did you know that 1 out of 5 victims of credit/debit card fraud never see their money again? 


New research has found that one in five victims of financial fraud have not managed to retrieve the money they have lost. Some one in four people surveyed by Which? said they had been a victim of financial fraud and while most had managed to reclaim the lost money from their bank or credit card provider, 20 per cent of victims said they had been left out of pocket.



There is a rule that banks are enforcing which statesthat if a customer acts without "reasonable" care to limit risks, theywill have a hard time getting their money back. 
For example, if a customer enters their PIN while a criminal is overlooking their shoulder, the banks could argue that you should have covered the keypad with your hand.  Question is, when will that rule apply to consumers who "type" their numbers into a box on the web? 

It seems to me (although one could make a "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" case against this argument) that if banks refuse to refund money because you "typed/entered" your PIN without taking proper precaution to cover it with your hand, then consumers should known better than to  "type/enter" their credit/debit card number on the web.

My point is, that it is NOT reasonable to believe that your card numbers won't be intercepted by hackers, when there are stories saying that it happens every day.  My point is also that card companies assume the risks of "insecurity" because they make so much money on "convenience."  (that and the fact that insecure transactions have higher interchange and thus higher profit)  The card companies have consumers trained to "type vs. swipe" and they have them trained to believe in zero-liability, but according to this article, the facts are that consumers actually stand a 20% chance of having that zero liability transformed into 100% liability.

Martyn Hocking, the editor of Which?, said: "Identity fraud is"inconvenient" and stressful, and can also be costly if you're unable torecover your losses.

As consumers become more aware of this fact, will they choose security over "inconvenience"?   If so, I predict it won't be long before we'll see a major behavioral change/shift in the way consumers shop online.  So the question begsto be asked, how convenient is it when the so-called convenience actually causesinconvenience?  If an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,then how long before consumers "weigh in" on the pros and cons of convenience and tip the scalestoward security?

Here is an excerpt from an article from  Compare and Save dot com:

"Clever" criminals cause credit card fraud rise

Which? has issued best-practice credit card guidance.  Many people who suffer from a certain type of credit card fraud are facing difficulty with reclaiming their money, according to the consumer group.

Which? said in new analysis released today that one in five ID theft victims do not get a refund from their bank or credit card provider.

ID theft occurs when a fraudster impersonates a cardholder in order to gain access to their accounts.

It is commonly achieved through criminals looking over a victim's shoulder while they are entering their pin at a cash machine or in a shop and then stealing the card.

Victims can have a hard time getting the money back, as bank rules state that claims can be turned down if the customer acted without "reasonable" care to limit risks.
 

Continue Reading

Related articles by Zemanta

• One in five ID fraud victims 'not reimbursed' (telegraph.co.uk)
• 'Both Sides of the Mouth' Security Analysis (information-security-resources.com)
• Fraudsters Watch as You Enter PIN (pindebit.blogspot.com)
• To Hell With Convenience (pindebit.blogspot.com)