Not sure if it was in these comments or another site discussing the same issue, but I do recall somone who pointed out (somewhat cynically, but perhps justifiably so) that this is/was an attempt by the banks to reduce their own liability for fraudulent online transactions. The reasoning being, if they have this ‘extra layer of protection’, then it’s more difficult for their customers to prove that a particular transaction was unauthorised, and thus the banks lose less $$ to fraud (the customer, YOU, lose instead and don’t get your money back).
Just something else to think about – although, as the saying goes, “one shouldn’t assume malice as an explanation where incompetence will suffice”. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Regards,
- Matthew
