Rumor has it that Fred N. van Kempen may have mentioned these words:
>On Mon, 25 Aug 2003, Jason McBrien wrote:
>
> > Sorry, that sucks.. Some companies require address information for online
> > purchases to reduce fraud. They check the billing address against the
> > address on the credit card. That's what I've heard, at least.
>Correct, this is (or, rather, has become) a valid reason to request
>that information, and they CAN (and, usually, WILL) match it against
>the billing-address info from the ccard service using a PRE_AUTHORIZE
>transaction; if it matches, it will go ahead with the auth, if not, it
>will abort and BOO at you. Meanwhile, it will also have triggered an
>internal fraud system.
>
>So, at least in that sense, IPSWITCH was "right".
No -- IPSWITCH isn't right -- if the OP didn't provide the address and they
*required* it for fraud protection, they should have never billed his
credit card or let the transaction go thru in the first place.
They can't allow the charge, take his money, then turn around and tell him
to pay it again because of a piece of information they didn't require to
begin with -- I believe the legal term for that is "ex post facto" - latin
for "after the fact" IIRC and thankfully, that's one of the few civil
liberties in the "good ol' US of A" that hasn't been repealed... yet... :-/
>For the rest... bah, they seem to be morons.
For everything... bah, they seem to be morons.
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch_at_30below.com
What do you do when Life gives you lemons,
and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????
Received on Mon Aug 25 2003 - 16:02:00 BST