Re: SET; standards vs. collusion

Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (
Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:35:38 -0400

I'm not sure about Rohit's statement to this point, but it looks like PBS is
"forcing" merchants to use SET. Whereas in actuality, his statement of, "its
their own risk" IS already the case. Merchants WANT things like SET because
otherwise their transactions are card not present, meaning they hold the
risk in case of fraud.

The presence of SET makes it equivalent to card present, and they defer the

At 02:16 PM 6/3/98 +0000, Mark Baker wrote:
>I remember a while back, Rohit mentioned a concern of his about
>the blurred distinction between the acts of a standards setting
>body, and the acts of a group of corporations (presumably in
>an oligopolistic position - though not necesarily - it would
>just be easier with fewer participants) conspiring to give
>themselves advantages that were normally unattainable.
>This really got me thinking, and I've been keeping a look out
>for examples ever since.
>I always thought that SET - the Secure Electronic Transactions
>"standard" developed by Mastercard and Visa - sounded a little
>suspect. I think I've found the proof;
>> Danish Payment Systems (known as PBS) of Denmark now
>> makes SET mandatory for all affiliated Web shops, following
>> a 30 percent rise in disputed Internet charges in the first
>> quarter of this year. Each dispute, or so-called
>> chargeback, costs up to $75 to process.
>> "We are telling the merchants that if they don't use SET,
>> they are doing so at their own risk," said Erik Nystrup, a
>> vice president at PBS, whose IBM-powered SET payment
>> gateway and certificate management server went live in
>> March and costs about $15 million to install and configure.
>Mark Baker, CTO, Beduin Communications Corp.
>Ottawa, CANADA

Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E independent research account