![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaUrgh. Feeling this rubbish with a cold, for this long, ought not to be allowed.
However, while I've been lying in bed, whinging, my credit card's been off having fun.
MBNA rang me yesterday, and explained there were some suspicious transactions on my card. Before going into details, they'd need me to answer some security questions. Oh dear, here we go again...
No, I'm not prepared to answer security questions until they prove they're actually MBNA.
But they're only going to ask for partial information, like the first two digits of my mothers' maiden name instead of the whole name.
I don't care, I'm not answering their questions.
This conversation is at least shorter than usual, as the bloke on the other end offers me the options of ringing the number on my card and asking to speak to security, or ringing a direct dial number he gives me. I take the former.
When I ring them back, the person I talk to mentions before clearing down that I'll get a letter through the post, because they were unable to contact me.
Eh ?
Apparently, at the point at which I refused to go through the security clearance, I was logged as uncontactable and a letter automatically dispatched to warn me of possible fraud. In case I didn't call them back. By the time I returned the call fifteen seconds later the letter was irretrivably sent.
Surely credit card companies, banks, etc ought to be encouraging people to behave like I did, not treating it as a strange anomaly. "Keep your personal information safe", they tell us. "Don't give out to anyone... unless they claim to be your bank. Which criminals never do. Oh no."
I understand that it's way more convenient for my bank to be able to ring me, rather than having to ask me to ring them. It's cheaper and more efficient. However, I do wish that the person who rings me would at least be able to grasp the reasons for my objection to the process.
Instead, you're made to feel like a paranoid loon for not giving out... well, exactly the kind of information someone would want if they were going to use your card fraudulently.
And yes, it seems my card has been off having fun at iTunes and Napster. Not a huge amount of fun, though - three songs, which totals about £3.
What I want to know is how did the credit card company spot it as suspicious ? Admittedly, I don't buy music from iTunes but it's the sort of thing that I might very plausibly do. I do buy downloadable music online occasionally, and MBNA probably don't know that I'd rather eat my own foot than use iTunes.
I've no idea what information iTunes (or any other online retailer) might log which would make it possible to deduce the purchaser wasn't me. And if they thought the transaction suspicious, wouldn't they stop it at the point of sale ?
I guess the heuristics used are kept secret by the credit card companies, just to make it harder to work round them. But does anyone have a clue how it works ?
However, while I've been lying in bed, whinging, my credit card's been off having fun.
MBNA rang me yesterday, and explained there were some suspicious transactions on my card. Before going into details, they'd need me to answer some security questions. Oh dear, here we go again...
No, I'm not prepared to answer security questions until they prove they're actually MBNA.
But they're only going to ask for partial information, like the first two digits of my mothers' maiden name instead of the whole name.
I don't care, I'm not answering their questions.
This conversation is at least shorter than usual, as the bloke on the other end offers me the options of ringing the number on my card and asking to speak to security, or ringing a direct dial number he gives me. I take the former.
When I ring them back, the person I talk to mentions before clearing down that I'll get a letter through the post, because they were unable to contact me.
Eh ?
Apparently, at the point at which I refused to go through the security clearance, I was logged as uncontactable and a letter automatically dispatched to warn me of possible fraud. In case I didn't call them back. By the time I returned the call fifteen seconds later the letter was irretrivably sent.
Surely credit card companies, banks, etc ought to be encouraging people to behave like I did, not treating it as a strange anomaly. "Keep your personal information safe", they tell us. "Don't give out to anyone... unless they claim to be your bank. Which criminals never do. Oh no."
I understand that it's way more convenient for my bank to be able to ring me, rather than having to ask me to ring them. It's cheaper and more efficient. However, I do wish that the person who rings me would at least be able to grasp the reasons for my objection to the process.
Instead, you're made to feel like a paranoid loon for not giving out... well, exactly the kind of information someone would want if they were going to use your card fraudulently.
And yes, it seems my card has been off having fun at iTunes and Napster. Not a huge amount of fun, though - three songs, which totals about £3.
What I want to know is how did the credit card company spot it as suspicious ? Admittedly, I don't buy music from iTunes but it's the sort of thing that I might very plausibly do. I do buy downloadable music online occasionally, and MBNA probably don't know that I'd rather eat my own foot than use iTunes.
I've no idea what information iTunes (or any other online retailer) might log which would make it possible to deduce the purchaser wasn't me. And if they thought the transaction suspicious, wouldn't they stop it at the point of sale ?
I guess the heuristics used are kept secret by the credit card companies, just to make it harder to work round them. But does anyone have a clue how it works ?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-10 08:25 pm (UTC)(The things we sell are things that people are unlikely to be buying from a net cafe while they're on holiday, otherwise I'd have thought this would cause a lot of annoyance. But maybe they use different guidance for those sorts of things.)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-11 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-12 09:24 am (UTC)