Milan Davidovi? wrote: >On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Syed Zaeem Hosain (Syed.Hosain at aeris.net) ><Syed.Hosain at aeris.net> wrote: > > Without this, the crooks *would* have made off with those $1000 worth of > > goods - even though I would NOT have been personally liable. And that cost > > would have been "passed on to everybody in general".
> And the cost of better security wouldn't have been? Hmmm ... I don't understand your rationale. *Of course*, it would have been better if Adobe security was good and my credit card was not compromised in the first place! And if that meant some higher costs for Adobe passed on to us users of Adobe products (it would be a totally nominal amount), then so be it! That added cost would be smaller per person/account than the cost (not just money) of dealing with the resulting fraud costs. In this day and age, this is a normal expectation we have to have of any company who puts our credit card on file. That is the cost of doing business when financial transactions are at stake. And, yes, if necessary, I should pay a bit more for that better security ... I'd *rather* do that than have crooks get away with fraud, and to avoid the time and effort for running around and updating my card info at a number of other places, dealing with card bounces at the places I forget about, etc., etc., etc. Z
