On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 09:20:32PM -0400, Steve Furlong wrote: > And most of the sheeple _like_ it. They'd rather be safe than free. For > every complaint I've heard about having to reassure the bank that the > card wasn't stolen, I've heard a couple dozen praises for the wonderful > safe system that takes care of its members.
I'm a bit late here, but let me rise to the defense of profiling of this sort. The reason we have interest rates on credit cards which are not far higher than they are now and have ready availability of credit in the first place (not to mention credit cards being accepted nearly everywhere) is anti-fraud measures like automated profiling. In other words, it's something that benefits the consumer by keeping costs down. Yes, it can go too far and be intrusive. This would seem to be a place where the market could respond if people care sufficiently; perhaps my credit union-issued card would not flag purchases unless they were over $5,000 or so. Or perhaps someone who cares enough to avoid the hassles would pay in cash or check. This analysis, of course, ignores that some of the push toward record keeping on the part of businesses comes not just from market pressure, but political pressure. USA PATRIOT expands dramatically police access to credit card databases. And if Visa/MC/AMEX don't comply, perhaps the tax code might be adjusted in a certain harmful way, or perhaps they'll be accused of harboring terrorists, or perhaps the feds will stop using their cards for purchases... -Declan
