Lack of fraud reporting paths considered harmful.

[Ian G]

John Ioannidis wrote:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>
>> That's not practical. If you're a large online merchant, and your
>> automated systems are picking up lots of fraud, you want an automated
>> system for reporting it. Having a team of people on the phone 24x7
>> talking to your acquirer and reading them credit card numbers over the
>> phone, and then expecting the acquirer to do something with them when
>> they don't have an automated system either, is just not reasonable.
>>
>>
> 
> But how can the issuer know that the merchant's fraud detection systems 
> work, for any value of "work"? This could just become one more avenue 
> for denial of service, where a hacked online merchant suddenly reports 
> millions of cards as compromised.  I'm sure there is some interesting 
> work to be done here.


There is an interesting analogue in the area of SAR 
(suspicious activity report) filings through financial 
services.  This has been in place with various providers for 
maybe a decade or so.  I'm not aware of any serious economic 
analysis that would suggest copying the lessons, though.

There is a philosophical problem with suggesting an 
automated protocol method for reporting fraud, in that one 
might be better off ... fixing the underlying fraud.

iang

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com