【24h】

Are Payment Card Contracts Unfair? (Short Paper)

机译:付款卡是否合约不公平? (短文)

获取原文

摘要

Fraud victims are often refused a refund by their bank on the grounds that they failed to comply with their bank's terms and conditions about PIN safety. We, therefore, conducted a survey of how many PINs people have, and how they manage them. We found that while only a third of PINs are ever changed, almost half of bank customers write at least one PIN down. We also found bank conditions that are too vague to test, or even contradictory on whether PINs could be shared across cards. Yet, some hazardous practices are not forbidden by many banks: of the 22.9% who re-use PINs across devices, half also use their bank PINs on their mobile phones. We conclude that many bank contracts fail a simple test of reasonableness, and 'strong authentication', as required by the Payment Services Directive II, should include usability testing.
机译:欺诈受害者经常被银行拒绝退款,理由是他们未能遵守其银行关于PIN安全的条款和条件。因此,我们对人们拥有了多少销售的调查以及他们如何管理它们。我们发现,虽然只有三分之一的引脚发生了变化,但几乎一半的银行客户将至少写下一个别针。我们还发现银行条件过于测试,甚至可以在纸牌中共享引脚的矛盾。然而,许多银行没有禁止一些危险行为:22.9%的人在设备上重新使用引脚,一半也将其银行引脚在其手机上使用。我们得出结论,根据支付服务指令II的要求,许多银行合同无需合理的合理性测试和“强验证”,应包括可用性测试。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号