|
Was talking with the other day with a subscriber, who happens to head up security efforts for a Fortune 50 retailer. Is it coincidental, he asked, that Visa, Mastercard and the others just about always end up on the other side of the security argument? Could it truly be that they have some kind of a long-term strategic incentive to keep security looking good, but not too good? I was skeptical. The security exec then asked an annoyingly thought-provoking question: What do you think would happen if retailers were given perfect encryption? Answering his own question (because I certainly wasn’t able to do it), he painted a picture of retailers who would use their perfectly-protected data and would confidently let it ride atop the public Internet. At that point, paying for the private security tunnels of a Visa or MasterCard would no longer be essential. Read more. |
March 28th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Isn’t “Perfect Encryption” an oxymoron?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Keep in mind it is almost never Visa or MasterCard or the banks that pay for fraudulent transactions, it is the merchant who suffers the chargeback, plus a chargeback penalty fee, plus the merchant pays an Interchange fee for the original transaction, and another one for the refund transaction. So the card brands and banks actually make money on fraud, except when the merchant goes bankrupt. The only incentive for the card brands and banks to control fraud is to keep it below the “threshold of pain,” that is, below the level where merchants decide the costs of taking cards outweigh the benefits.