| 11:10 am on Mar 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
My only experience is as a purchaser.
The first (and so far only time) I got hit by this, my reaction was similar to yours. I thought it was a scam. I got derailed from my purchase for 30 minutes while I researched it.
My 30 minutes research left me fairly sure that the scheme itself was not a scam. But I did not have the background, skills, time, or inclination to check further -- so it remained possible that the site I wanted to buy from was using the scheme as a cover for some sort of scam.
10 minutes later, I used another card to buy from a different site.
So, in my experience, the scheme cost has diverted 100% of my purchases elsewhere.
Perhaps if the consumer info had been clearer, I would have signed up. But, at the time, the barrier was too high for me.
| 11:13 am on Mar 23, 2008 (gmt 0)|
As a customer I refuse to purchase from a site that forces me to sign up for Verified by Visa or the Mastercard equivalent.
I've contacted the websites I wanted to purchase from regarding this and their reply is 'it's easy, simply contact your bank and blah, blah....'.
This goes against all ecommerce usability standards. If forcing your customers to register for an account is a turn-off just think what forcing your customers to call their bank before completing a purchase will do to your bottom line.
I may be old-fashioned but I will never implement these security measures on our 3 ecommerce sites and would definitely not allow someone to force me to use them.
my 2 cents.
| 11:14 pm on Mar 24, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Update - it took less than two business days for my ecommerce provider to make Verified by Visa optional (it's only mandatory for accounts with significant charge backs).
Apparently they got a lot of "feedback" from vendors.
| 3:24 pm on Mar 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
VbV is a pain, but it looks like the banks are keen to make it compulsory, certainly in the UK. Already we are charged extra if a transaction is done without VbV, and no doubt Maestro transactions will soon only be accepted with VbV, even though their original deadline was last June. When that happens, it's only a matter of time before the others follow.
| 4:55 pm on Mar 25, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I was under the impression (UK) that it was a requirement of the banks rather than optional for the merchants or processors. Its a pain to enter another password but at least I know that my daughter can't download stuff with my card.
| 11:26 am on Mar 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Marketed as an additional layer of security for consumers, Verified-by-Visa service says it requires a password to shop at participating online stores.
Do we assume a 'participating' online store is one that requires the VbV password to complete the consumer's transaction, and a non-participating store simply does not ask for the password?
Or, the card simply cannot be used at non-participating stores?
In other words...
How does Verified-by-Visa prevent criminals from using a stolen Visa card at "NON-participating" online stores?
(I have read all the FAQ's on several banking websites, including Visa's website, and none specifically answer the question of thieves simply shopping at NON-participating merchants.)
| 11:37 am on Mar 27, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I intend to make VbV mandatory for any purchases of value more than 500 USD.
From Verified by Visa [visaeurope.com]
|Verified by Visa helps protect you from fraudulent claims from cardholders Ė that they didnít take part in, or authorise, a payment. Once you are up and running with Verified by Visa, you are no longer liable for chargebacks of this nature. |
| 11:50 am on Mar 28, 2008 (gmt 0)|
|How does Verified-by-Visa prevent criminals from using a stolen Visa card at "NON-participating" online stores? |
Indirectly. They charge the merchant more for the processing and will settle a chargeback much more easily. Expect to see these two factors grow over time as a soft discouragement to squeeze non-VbV systems out of the market.