[IP] Yet more on Citibank Security Update/spoof

[Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>]

From: Dan Shoop <shoop@iwiring.net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Yet more on Citibank Security Update/spoof
Resent-to: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: dave@farber.net, Kevin Gainer <kgainer@columbus.rr.com>

At 4:34 PM -0400 5/7/04, Kevin Gainer wrote:
> So, if the banks "care" so much, how come prosecutions amount to zero with
> publicized cases, indeed, where the bank out and out refuses to prosecute
> despite having evidence in hand?

Often it's easier to write off the fraud, after all it's reduces taxes ;)

Banks also don't like the publicity. They'd rather that the card vendor 
(Visa, Master Card) get the press.

And banks don't prosecute fraud cases, the FBI does. And they do

As for why they might not prosecute fraud against your account when 
reported, the answer lies in my "verbage", that is they just don't pay the 
merchant and label it as fraud. Situation solved at the lowest cost. That 
didn't mean they didn't care about the fraud.

> Frankly, the below is a bunch of vacuous verbiage and you would have made
> more of a contribution by stating: "Banks have made an ECONOMIC decision to
> pass the costs of fraud onto the customer base; that is the most profitable
> path to pursue".

But that would be inaccurate as the customer base doesn't pay the burden of 
fraud, the merchant does. Nor have the banks made such an economic decision.

> Instead, the below is frankly trash which I don't have the time of day for.

Thank you for writing.

Next time vote with the "Delete" icon on your mail reader.

--

-dhan

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Shoop                                              shoop@iwiring.net
Consulting Internet Architect                              shoop@mac.com


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

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