The presence of SET makes it equivalent to card present, and they defer the
risk.
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;
>
>http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980602S0007
>
>> 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.
>
>MB
>--
>Mark Baker, CTO, Beduin Communications Corp.
>Ottawa, CANADA http://www.beduin.com
>
_______________________
Regards, http://web.mit.edu/reagle/www/home.html
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
reagle@mit.edu independent research account