If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Interesting. I'll have to hunt down the guy who handles the offline Visa stuff (non-pinned) when I get to work and ask him about Visa (or was it some other credit card?) regulations on this. If it was a requirement, it seems like the processor and/or network would edit reject the transaction (if it were just missing). If it went all the way to the issuer and the info needed to be present and a match, but wasn't it would be declined. If they are ultimately being approved and settled (which takes about 3 days), then it must be optional. Though a merchant would be taking a risk by not validating that info.
When you are doing an online transaction, the merchant doesn't have track 2 information, where info like your name is located. So they have to send the info you enter to the issuer or their processor to validate, along with all the other transaction info.
Some merchants have the ability to stand in and approve trans themselves, but run the risk of not getting paid on it later.
Interesting. I'll have to hunt down the guy who handles the offline Visa stuff (non-pinned) when I get to work and ask him about Visa (or was it some other credit card?) regulations on this. If it was a requirement, it seems like the processor and/or network would edit reject the transaction (if it were just missing). If it went all the way to the issuer and the info needed to be present and a match, but wasn't it would be declined. If they are ultimately being approved and settled (which takes about 3 days), then it must be optional. Though a merchant would be taking a risk by not validating that info.
When you are doing an online transaction, the merchant doesn't have track 2 information, where info like your name is located. So they have to send the info you enter to the issuer or their processor to validate, along with all the other transaction info.
Some merchants have the ability to stand in and approve trans themselves, but run the risk of not getting paid on it later.
+1. Fat & Dumb is being a bit disingenuous.
No. a LOT disingenuous.
__________________
"In the long run, we are all dead." - J.M. Keynes
"The strongest enemy of tyranny is a long memory." - Phil DeBar
"E Clampus Vitus" - YB1
Interesting. I'll have to hunt down the guy who handles the offline Visa stuff (non-pinned) when I get to work and ask him about Visa (or was it some other credit card?) regulations on this. If it was a requirement, it seems like the processor and/or network would edit reject the transaction. If they are ultimately being approved and settled (which takes about 3 days), then it must be optional. Though a merchant would be taking a risk by not validating that info.
That's correct AC. The vendor setting up the merchant account has the ability to either use AVS or not. Consider a point-of-sale merchant - there is no address verification here because you are there in person using the physical card. When you buy something at a store with a credit card, does the cashier ever verify your address? Of course not. And even the name/ID verification is a visual manual check - the processing system doesn't verify anything other than that the card will accept the charge.
So obviously the credit card processors do not require AVS - it's up to the merchant.
For online merchants, AVS is practically a given, as is use of the CCVC number on the back of the card. Obama's donation site does not use this. Furthermore, use of AVS is the default and is generally required for online merchant accounts, so Obama's staff would have had to explicitly disable this security mechanism.
Yes, there is a risk to the vendor in setting up a merchant account like this: if enough people report fraudulent charges, they can have their account flagged and suspended. But this obviously isn't a concern for Obama because he only needs his account to stay up long enough to last until the election.
I doubt they'll get that many fraud reports. Why would someone steal a credit card and then use to pay for something that they aren't getting anything back for?
Perhaps people who want to hurt Obama might do what you did, then report it.
But according to that link you posted, AVS has been turned back on now, right?
I doubt they'll get that many fraud reports. Why would someone steal a credit card and then use to pay for something that they aren't getting anything back for?
Perhaps people who want to hurt Obama might do what you did, then report it.
But according to that link you posted, AVS has been turned back on now, right?
No, AVS is not on. At least, it was not on when I made my transaction last night.
My transaction is still shown as pending according to my credit card company.
And you're right - they won't get many fraud reports simply given the nature of what is being "bought" here.
Now, it's possible that Obama has people manually combing every online transaction to see if they look legit, and perhaps they will catch mine and reverse it before it posts because the name and address I used were clearly bogus, but we'll see. I probably should have been smarter about it and used a plausible but false name and address, which is what real donors who wanted to circumvent the limit via multiple donations would have done. I think I might try another one with a real, but false, name and address.
UPDATE:
Ok, I just did it again, this time with $5 donation with a false but totally plausible name and address that won't draw any attention. This one too instantly showed up on my card as a Pending transaction. Obviously, AVS is NOT on.
We'll see if either posts.
UPDATE 2:
As a point of comparison, I just tried the same thing on johnmccain.com, using the same plausible but false name and address. The transaction was REJECTED by McCain's website, because he has AVS enabled. Not only does he have AVS on, but it also requires the 3-digit security code from the back of the card, which Obama's does not.
No, AVS is not on. At least, it was not on when I made my transaction last night.
My transaction is still shown as pending according to my credit card company.
And you're right - they won't get many fraud reports simply given the nature of what is being "bought" here.
Now, it's possible that Obama has people manually combing every online transaction to see if they look legit, and perhaps they will catch mine and reverse it before it posts because the name and address I used were clearly bogus, but we'll see. I probably should have been smarter about it and used a plausible but false name and address, which is what real donors who wanted to circumvent the limit via multiple donations would have done. I think I might try another one with a real, but false, name and address.
UPDATE:
Ok, I just did it again, this time with $5 donation with a false but totally plausible name and address that won't draw any attention. This one too instantly showed up on my card as a Pending transaction. Obviously, AVS is NOT on.
We'll see if either posts.
UPDATE 2:
As a point of comparison, I just tried the same thing on johnmccain.com, using the same plausible but false name and address. The transaction was REJECTED by McCain's website, because he has AVS enabled. Not only does he have AVS on, but it also requires the 3-digit security code from the back of the card, which Obama's does not.
Exactly what is happening, he is a crooked slime ball fuck I would love to see him go to jail over it, but supposedly since its so close to the election nothing will be done. Just another scandle jesus will slide right past. Hopefully voters wake the fuck up after this one.
Yeah, I'm sure Obama will complain about me giving him money.
I'm sure he wouldn't but I seriously doubt he's the one actually dealing with credit card transactions. Whoever they have as a processor is going to get ticked off if they have to research too many of these things and they might start fighting back at the people who did it on purpose just to cause trouble.
If my inbox was suddenly overrun with a bunch of chargebacks and items to be researched and to pull logs for, the same card coming through over and over would certainly get my attention.
I'm sure he wouldn't but I seriously doubt he's the one actually dealing with credit card transactions. Whoever they have as a processor is going to get ticked off if they have to research too many of these things and they might start fighting back at the people who did it on purpose just to cause trouble.
If my inbox was suddenly overrun with a bunch of chargebacks and items to be researched and to pull logs for, the same card coming through over and over would certainly get my attention.
Just sayin'.
I read he reviews EVERY transaction himself, while eating Christian babies and channelling the spirit of Lenin.
Linear Mode
