Let's first acknowledge that by and large, we're on the same side of this issue.
My object to your rhetoric, though, is that you're placing objective "guidelines" (for lack of a better word) in a situation that really should be subjective.
I personally believe that there is such a thing as a just war. And I believe that 'collateral damage' is acceptable in a JUST war. And if we protest Iraq based on this issue, it opens the argument up to criticisms along these lines..
Let's say that we have to take out a brutal dictator. Imagine it's a worldwide moral imperative, like defeating Hitler. There's bound to be collateral damage. So, why not protest? After all, if the argument here is that we're losing innocents in Iraq, and if that's a good argument against war, then it will have to apply everywhere, right? Every life is equal.
Of course, Iraq is NOT a just war. So I see your point: That fact makes collateral damage less acceptable. But we don't need to argue collateral damage because Iraq is NOT A JUST WAR and that's a good enough reason to not be fighting it.
And, to me, bringing up the "innocents" argument seems like nothing but an emotional appeal to manipulate people. In abstract terms, War is Necessary, Collateral Damage during war is unavoidable, and thus, collateral damage is necessary. To me, arguing against collateral damage is therefore just propaganda.
Of course, there are many liberals who subscribe to the Kucinich "Department of Peace" ideals and I certainly respect that. But right now, in our world, the abstract concept of war is necessary, and, with our technology, collateral damage is unavoidable. Until one of those things changes.. which, of course, is what started this whole thread!
This truly could be an awesome weapon.
Now all we need to do is figure out how to set our phasers to stun:)
Oh, please. Your dogma isn't going to win any debate here.
Are some peoples lives better now than they were before? Yes.
Are some peoples lives worse now than they were before? Yes. Does one outweigh the other? I have no idea, and you don't either, so quit pretending like you do.
Oh, and btw..
dogma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dogmas or dogmata (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine. 3. A principle or belief or a group of them:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I really don't think you do, either.
Tell me: What is my "argument?"
What is my position on the war?
What is my position on Bush?
I stopped reading "shmlco" about 20 words in because in that short time he showed no grasp of my point of view. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with the ignorant. Which is why i suspect this will be the last time in this thread that I reply to one of your posts.
Oh, please. Your dogma isn't going to win any debate here.
Are some peoples lives better now than they were before? Yes. Are some peoples lives worse now than they were before? Yes. Does one outweigh the other? I have no idea, and you don't either, so quit pretending like you do.
First, stop being so arrogant. You don't KNOW that you're right. You merely THINK you are. That applies to all of us. Remember that.
Second, if you'd have taken the time to read the replies to my original post, you'd have seen that just a minute after I posted, I added on to it. If you'd have read that, you'd have seen why I find your post so completely amusing.
I know, expecting somebody to actually read on slashdot is sometimes outrageous. But in this case, it was nothing but your own time and energy wasted.
And I think that the people who's lives have gotten so much better than when Saddam was in power find exactly the opposite. Especially considering they (shia & kurds) are the huge majority of the population.
The problem here is that, according to Visa regulations, that $32,450 would be put back into your account within 5 CALENDAR days at the maximum. Moreover, MOST banks have a policy of crediting your account the balance within 24-48 hours. In fact, that's the policy of a few major banks I checked yesterday, including Chase, BoA, Citi and Wells Fargo. It turns out that MANY banks offer 24-hour replacement, including mine.
Which means that your scenario would end at step 4.
To see proof of this, just look in this thread. I've cited everything. It's in one of these posts.
(Note: None of this has been dramatized. I don't waste my time with drivel and only post facts.)
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit:)
More FUD without anything to back it up.
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
The Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
There. This is the last of my re-posts. In two weeks when the loser gets another 5 mod points he can come back and mod all these down, too. He already wasted his mod points on a thread that won't be read by anybody but those already involved. But since this unnamed mod was probably connected to one of two of you, this should work nicely to piss you off a bit:)
Besides, the beatin' I put down on you 2 with these posts was so good that they're WORTHY of being posted twice. I'm not arrogant about it. I was just the only person here interested in the FACTS of the situation. All you could do is post your own opinion and say "trust me, I know what I'm talking about." Facts win every time, bro. Every time.
"If you can point me to the spot where they agree to pay any and all bounced check fees/penalties, and all interest that is added to an account due to increased rates from a bounced check, I will concede defeat in this debate."
Since you never responded to the post where I did, in fact, point you to such a spot, I'm left to assume that your silence is your concession.
Well played. But next time, bring, ya know, facts.:)
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit:)
God, this is so much fun.
1. I specifically said "a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo."
2. I know you're not speaking in absolutes. That's because people like you who have no clue what they're talking about use language that's as general as possible to try to hide the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
3. And HERE'S where you look stupid again...
You talked out your ass and said...
". And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned."
But the FACTS are...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported." http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
I really hope you reply because I'm having a really great time over here rubbing your nose in it. Just put your tinfoil hat back on and carry on with your normal business. It'll save you both time and embarrassment.
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit:)
Again, here's a cross-post. I want you to feel stupid as soon as possible, and by cross-posting I can ensure you feel stupid a couple seconds earlier than you otherwise would...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
Looks like somebody got Mod Points today. Oh well. They'll be dinged in Meta-Moderation and anybody still reading this thread is going to read ALL the posts, not just those mod'ed >1.
And i'm so thoroughly into Excellent Karma that it would take this guy and his 20 friends to REALLY do any damage.
I take this as sure proof that I spanked your ass SO HARD that this was the only recourse. I *LOVE* it.
Anytime, bro. Whenever you want to be put in your place, just let me know, I'm available. You can post drivel and I can post well thought-out, well written, referenced posts that will make you want to go home and cry to your mommy:)
I do want to just go "on the record" and say that I'm 100% against the Iraq war and I was from day one. I'm probably the most enthuiastic democrat you've ever met. Four years ago I quit my comfy job sitting in my aeron writing software to drive to New Hampshire and work for the Dean for America web team. It was hellish hours and a pittance of a salary but also, hands-down, the very best thing I've ever done.
I'm not defending Bush or the military. I'm just defending truth. The anti-war movement shouldn't try to use propaganda about how many innocents were killed. We sneer at Bush for HIS propaganda. We should be above that.
Well, I think you'd have more of a point if so many of this civies weren't killed by their countrymen.
And yes, I know that we "started it." But that's a little irrelevent.
I mean, MANY innocent civies have been killed by Saddam and his regime and there's no reason to think that was going to stop. And, no matter what, they day was approaching when Saddam relinquished power. Whether he died, was overthrown in a coup, was just too frail, whatever, eventually (and probably measured in years and not decades) he would've been out of the picture and a quick look at the political climate there should convince anyone that it wouldn't exactly be a peaceful transfer of power.
There's also something to be said about being complicit and complacent. Just because many of these civilians weren't taking up arms against us, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't at a future time. And even more important, how many of them kept their mouths shut about neighbors and family members who WERE actively fighting us? How many of them were aiding and abetting the insurgents? And for those that weren't actively aiding insurgents, why weren't they actively opposing them?
So, really, it's very hard to say how many "innocent civies" were killed. It's hard to get a reliable number of deaths to begin with. But even once you do, you must subtract those that would've died anyway, and then subtract those that were killed by insurgents and not by the Coalition, and then subtract those that were complicit and complacent in the insurgency.
Again, here's a cross-post. I want you to feel stupid as soon as possible, and by cross-posting I can ensure you feel stupid a couple seconds earlier than you otherwise would...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
1. I specifically said "a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo."
2. I know you're not speaking in absolutes. That's because people like you who have no clue what they're talking about use language that's as general as possible to try to hide the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
3. And HERE'S where you look stupid again...
You talked out your ass and said...
". And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned."
But the FACTS are...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
I really hope you reply because I'm having a really great time over here rubbing your nose in it. Just put your tinfoil hat back on and carry on with your normal business. It'll save you both time and embarrassment.
I just posted this below, but rather than make you actually scroll down, I figured I'd repost here for your convenience:
More FUD without anything to back it up.
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
No, it's not "zero liability" for all transactions. In fact, that only applies to a few select types of fraud. For all other signature-based transactions, there's a $50 cap on liability. Last time I checked, that's the same liability cap on my Visa and MasterCard branded Credit Cards.
Perhaps YOU should've read the links and the linked-to liability policy?
I never said there was "zero liability." I said (twice, in fact) that the liability exposure was simply no greater than that of a credit card.
Any bank that issues a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo has agreed to meet or exceed the consumer protection policies of Visa or MasterCard. This is how it's ALWAYS been, debit card horror stories notwithstanding.
No, this protection is not mandated by LAW as it is with Credit Cards, but it is mandated by Visa and MasterCard who have ZERO INTEREST in seeing their good name tarnished.
Everyone has heard Debit Card Horror Stories. My suggestion is to have a critical ear and check the facts, instead of just passing-on the FUD.
And also, according to TFA, these were electronic debits. That means the consumer used the "Pay by check" option (Amazon and loads of merchants offer this now) and they ponied-up their routing number and account number.
I'm not sure what you've been given by your bank.. but I've always been under the impression that there is no such card in existence (one that requires neither a pin nor a signature).
A "debit card" (as issued by US banks at least) is merely an ATM card bearing a Visa or MasterCard logo. It can be used as a regular ATM card (with a pin), as a "check card" (again, by using a pin at the POS), and thirdly as a credit card (by signing the receipt).
As with all credit cards, though, if you chose that option, no signature is required for small purchases (less than $15?). Of course, at card-not-present merchants (internet, phone), electronic authorization (the "click here to agree" box) is used in lieu of signature.
If that's what you're getting at-- the internet transactions that of course can't be "signed" -- then you're missing the point: If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's first acknowledge that by and large, we're on the same side of this issue.
:)
My object to your rhetoric, though, is that you're placing objective "guidelines" (for lack of a better word) in a situation that really should be subjective.
I personally believe that there is such a thing as a just war. And I believe that 'collateral damage' is acceptable in a JUST war. And if we protest Iraq based on this issue, it opens the argument up to criticisms along these lines..
Let's say that we have to take out a brutal dictator. Imagine it's a worldwide moral imperative, like defeating Hitler. There's bound to be collateral damage. So, why not protest? After all, if the argument here is that we're losing innocents in Iraq, and if that's a good argument against war, then it will have to apply everywhere, right? Every life is equal.
Of course, Iraq is NOT a just war. So I see your point: That fact makes collateral damage less acceptable. But we don't need to argue collateral damage because Iraq is NOT A JUST WAR and that's a good enough reason to not be fighting it.
And, to me, bringing up the "innocents" argument seems like nothing but an emotional appeal to manipulate people. In abstract terms, War is Necessary, Collateral Damage during war is unavoidable, and thus, collateral damage is necessary. To me, arguing against collateral damage is therefore just propaganda.
Of course, there are many liberals who subscribe to the Kucinich "Department of Peace" ideals and I certainly respect that. But right now, in our world, the abstract concept of war is necessary, and, with our technology, collateral damage is unavoidable. Until one of those things changes.. which, of course, is what started this whole thread!
This truly could be an awesome weapon.
Now all we need to do is figure out how to set our phasers to stun
Oh, please. Your dogma isn't going to win any debate here.
Are some peoples lives better now than they were before? Yes.
Are some peoples lives worse now than they were before? Yes.
Does one outweigh the other? I have no idea, and you don't either, so quit pretending like you do.
Oh, and btw..
dogma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dogmas or dogmata (-m-t)
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them:
I have no idea what you're talking about. I really don't think you do, either.
Tell me: What is my "argument?"
What is my position on the war?
What is my position on Bush?
I stopped reading "shmlco" about 20 words in because in that short time he showed no grasp of my point of view. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with the ignorant. Which is why i suspect this will be the last time in this thread that I reply to one of your posts.
Oh, please. Your dogma isn't going to win any debate here.
Are some peoples lives better now than they were before? Yes.
Are some peoples lives worse now than they were before? Yes.
Does one outweigh the other? I have no idea, and you don't either, so quit pretending like you do.
uhh.. ok.
your uncle is bill gates.
I stopped reading after I reached "Bush Kool-Aid"
First, stop being so arrogant. You don't KNOW that you're right. You merely THINK you are. That applies to all of us. Remember that.
Second, if you'd have taken the time to read the replies to my original post, you'd have seen that just a minute after I posted, I added on to it. If you'd have read that, you'd have seen why I find your post so completely amusing.
I know, expecting somebody to actually read on slashdot is sometimes outrageous. But in this case, it was nothing but your own time and energy wasted.
And I think that the people who's lives have gotten so much better than when Saddam was in power find exactly the opposite. Especially considering they (shia & kurds) are the huge majority of the population.
The problem here is that, according to Visa regulations, that $32,450 would be put back into your account within 5 CALENDAR days at the maximum. Moreover, MOST banks have a policy of crediting your account the balance within 24-48 hours. In fact, that's the policy of a few major banks I checked yesterday, including Chase, BoA, Citi and Wells Fargo. It turns out that MANY banks offer 24-hour replacement, including mine.
Which means that your scenario would end at step 4.
To see proof of this, just look in this thread. I've cited everything. It's in one of these posts.
(Note: None of this has been dramatized. I don't waste my time with drivel and only post facts.)
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit :)
:)
More FUD without anything to back it up.
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
The Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
There. This is the last of my re-posts. In two weeks when the loser gets another 5 mod points he can come back and mod all these down, too. He already wasted his mod points on a thread that won't be read by anybody but those already involved. But since this unnamed mod was probably connected to one of two of you, this should work nicely to piss you off a bit
Besides, the beatin' I put down on you 2 with these posts was so good that they're WORTHY of being posted twice. I'm not arrogant about it. I was just the only person here interested in the FACTS of the situation. All you could do is post your own opinion and say "trust me, I know what I'm talking about." Facts win every time, bro. Every time.
"If you can point me to the spot where they agree to pay any and all bounced check fees/penalties, and all interest that is added to an account due to increased rates from a bounced check, I will concede defeat in this debate."
:)
Since you never responded to the post where I did, in fact, point you to such a spot, I'm left to assume that your silence is your concession.
Well played. But next time, bring, ya know, facts.
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit :)
God, this is so much fun.
1. I specifically said "a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo."
2. I know you're not speaking in absolutes. That's because people like you who have no clue what they're talking about use language that's as general as possible to try to hide the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
3. And HERE'S where you look stupid again...
You talked out your ass and said...
". And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned."
But the FACTS are...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
I really hope you reply because I'm having a really great time over here rubbing your nose in it. Just put your tinfoil hat back on and carry on with your normal business. It'll save you both time and embarrassment.
Since some tool abused the moderation system, I've decided to re-post everything I wrote. This way it goes back to +2 and everybody can see it and enjoy my wit :)
Again, here's a cross-post. I want you to feel stupid as soon as possible, and by cross-posting I can ensure you feel stupid a couple seconds earlier than you otherwise would...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported." http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
Looks like somebody got Mod Points today. Oh well. They'll be dinged in Meta-Moderation and anybody still reading this thread is going to read ALL the posts, not just those mod'ed >1.
:)
And i'm so thoroughly into Excellent Karma that it would take this guy and his 20 friends to REALLY do any damage.
I take this as sure proof that I spanked your ass SO HARD that this was the only recourse. I *LOVE* it.
Anytime, bro. Whenever you want to be put in your place, just let me know, I'm available. You can post drivel and I can post well thought-out, well written, referenced posts that will make you want to go home and cry to your mommy
I do want to just go "on the record" and say that I'm 100% against the Iraq war and I was from day one. I'm probably the most enthuiastic democrat you've ever met. Four years ago I quit my comfy job sitting in my aeron writing software to drive to New Hampshire and work for the Dean for America web team. It was hellish hours and a pittance of a salary but also, hands-down, the very best thing I've ever done.
I'm not defending Bush or the military. I'm just defending truth. The anti-war movement shouldn't try to use propaganda about how many innocents were killed. We sneer at Bush for HIS propaganda. We should be above that.
Well, I think you'd have more of a point if so many of this civies weren't killed by their countrymen.
And yes, I know that we "started it." But that's a little irrelevent.
I mean, MANY innocent civies have been killed by Saddam and his regime and there's no reason to think that was going to stop. And, no matter what, they day was approaching when Saddam relinquished power. Whether he died, was overthrown in a coup, was just too frail, whatever, eventually (and probably measured in years and not decades) he would've been out of the picture and a quick look at the political climate there should convince anyone that it wouldn't exactly be a peaceful transfer of power.
There's also something to be said about being complicit and complacent. Just because many of these civilians weren't taking up arms against us, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't at a future time. And even more important, how many of them kept their mouths shut about neighbors and family members who WERE actively fighting us? How many of them were aiding and abetting the insurgents? And for those that weren't actively aiding insurgents, why weren't they actively opposing them?
So, really, it's very hard to say how many "innocent civies" were killed. It's hard to get a reliable number of deaths to begin with. But even once you do, you must subtract those that would've died anyway, and then subtract those that were killed by insurgents and not by the Coalition, and then subtract those that were complicit and complacent in the insurgency.
Again, here's a cross-post. I want you to feel stupid as soon as possible, and by cross-posting I can ensure you feel stupid a couple seconds earlier than you otherwise would...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
God, this is so much fun.
1. I specifically said "a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo."
2. I know you're not speaking in absolutes. That's because people like you who have no clue what they're talking about use language that's as general as possible to try to hide the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
3. And HERE'S where you look stupid again...
You talked out your ass and said...
". And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned."
But the FACTS are...
"Visa's cardholder protection policy requires all financial institutions issuing Visa products to extend provisional credit for losses from unauthorized card use within five business days of notification of the loss. However, many major financial institutions affiliated with Visa will issue provisional credit even earlier--within 24 to 48 hours after the loss is reported."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/security/visa_security_program/zero_liability.html
It just so happens that my bank offers 24-hour cash replacement. And a cursory look at the policies of other major banks (Wells, Citi, BoA, Chase) confirms the "24 to 48 hour" window.
I really hope you reply because I'm having a really great time over here rubbing your nose in it. Just put your tinfoil hat back on and carry on with your normal business. It'll save you both time and embarrassment.
Do tell.. what is this "peripheral liability?" I mean, there are 3 things people could do with your checking account info..
1. Deposit into it
2. Withdrawal from it
3. Give the info to somebody else, who can recurse those 3 options.
I personally wouldn't mind #1, their policy covers #2, and federal criminal law covers #3.
So... what, exactly, are you talking about?
Your lack of specifics in both your posts communicate the fact that you're talking out your ass.
I just posted this below, but rather than make you actually scroll down, I figured I'd repost here for your convenience:
More FUD without anything to back it up.
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
More FUD without anything to back it up.
Here's a more extensive excerpt from Visa. Emphasis mine.
" Visa's Zero Liability policy took effect April 4, 2000, and is a great improvement on the previous policy. The former policy required that you report fraudulent activity within two business days of discovery. After this two-day period, you could be held responsible for up to $50 of the unauthorized charges. With the new Zero Liability policy, you're no longer required to report fraudulent activity within two days and you're not responsible for any fraudulent transactions made over the Visa network.
he Zero Liability policy covers all Visa credit and debit card transactions processed over the Visa network--online or off. The only transactions not covered under the Zero Liability policy are commercial card, ATM, and non-Visa-branded PIN transactions. "
OK, i think I've made you look like a fool enough today, wouldn't you agree?
No, it's not "zero liability" for all transactions. In fact, that only applies to a few select types of fraud. For all other signature-based transactions, there's a $50 cap on liability. Last time I checked, that's the same liability cap on my Visa and MasterCard branded Credit Cards.
Perhaps YOU should've read the links and the linked-to liability policy?
I never said there was "zero liability." I said (twice, in fact) that the liability exposure was simply no greater than that of a credit card.
Actually, you should check your facts.
Any bank that issues a card with the Visa or MasterCard logo has agreed to meet or exceed the consumer protection policies of Visa or MasterCard. This is how it's ALWAYS been, debit card horror stories notwithstanding.
Visa:
"Debit cards have the same security protections as credit cards. Just like credit card cards, debit cards have Zero Liability* fraud protection and dispute resolution options."
http://usa.visa.com/personal/using_visa/personal_finance/debit.html
MasterCard:
"With your debit card, you'll enjoy great features such as worldwide acceptance at millions of locations, MasterCard Global Service, and Zero Liability* protection from unauthorized purchases."
http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/aboutourcards/debit/standard_card.html
No, this protection is not mandated by LAW as it is with Credit Cards, but it is mandated by Visa and MasterCard who have ZERO INTEREST in seeing their good name tarnished.
Everyone has heard Debit Card Horror Stories. My suggestion is to have a critical ear and check the facts, instead of just passing-on the FUD.
And also, according to TFA, these were electronic debits. That means the consumer used the "Pay by check" option (Amazon and loads of merchants offer this now) and they ponied-up their routing number and account number.
It had nothing to do with a "check card."
I'm not sure what you've been given by your bank.. but I've always been under the impression that there is no such card in existence (one that requires neither a pin nor a signature).
A "debit card" (as issued by US banks at least) is merely an ATM card bearing a Visa or MasterCard logo. It can be used as a regular ATM card (with a pin), as a "check card" (again, by using a pin at the POS), and thirdly as a credit card (by signing the receipt).
As with all credit cards, though, if you chose that option, no signature is required for small purchases (less than $15?). Of course, at card-not-present merchants (internet, phone), electronic authorization (the "click here to agree" box) is used in lieu of signature.
If that's what you're getting at-- the internet transactions that of course can't be "signed" -- then you're missing the point: If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.
You mean it will "suck fewer resources," right?
Cause let's be real.. it's Vista.. it certainly won't suck less...