Probably there was no "one single reason" why GA was retired, but it
seems that credit card fraud was high at GA. Because the fraudsters
posted a high-value question, an authorisation would be processed for
the credit card, so the fraudsters could easily test whether the card
they held was usable.
However, GA wouldn't charge the amount to the card until the question
was answered (and the dummy "asdf asdf" questions would never be
answered) so the legitimate owner of the credit card would not receive
notification of the charge. Meanwhile, the crooks planned their
spending spree...
> Probably there was no "one single reason" why GA was retired, but it
> seems that credit card fraud was high at GA. Because the fraudsters
> posted a high-value question, an authorisation would be processed for
> the credit card, so the fraudsters could easily test whether the card
> they held was usable.
> However, GA wouldn't charge the amount to the card until the question
> was answered (and the dummy "asdf asdf" questions would never be
> answered) so the legitimate owner of the credit card would not receive
> notification of the charge. Meanwhile, the crooks planned their
> spending spree...
> Which all explains uclue's system of refunding rather than waiting for
> answers.
> Clever of you. One can learn even from a bad example.
> On Jun 22, 2:25 pm, Roger Browne <roger.bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Probably there was no "one single reason" why GA was retired, but it
> > seems that credit card fraud was high at GA. Because the fraudsters
> > posted a high-value question, an authorisation would be processed for
> > the credit card, so the fraudsters could easily test whether the card
> > they held was usable.
> > However, GA wouldn't charge the amount to the card until the question
> > was answered (and the dummy "asdf asdf" questions would never be
> > answered) so the legitimate owner of the credit card would not receive
> > notification of the charge. Meanwhile, the crooks planned their
> > spending spree...
|
