Of course Stripe would oppose it. It stands to lose transaction volume.
I haven't researched this law more closely, so I might be missing something, but... this requirement seems mostly sensible? I might disagree with details, but I support the premise.
The vast majority of online purchasing UX I see in the US makes it possible to charge a credit card with just possession of a card and some public records searches about the card owner's residence. Requiring a second out of band verification from the payment account owner would be a very sane way to prevent stolen payment info.
Sure, it might drop conversions by 25%, but given how getting your information stolen from someone who probably has your payment info is not a matter of "if" but "when" in today's climate, maybe it's time we modernized how we pay for things online.
I completely agree. Just because it's difficult, and may bring short term draw backs, doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to better ensure consumer protection.
Comments
Of course Stripe would oppose it. It stands to lose transaction volume.
I haven't researched this law more closely, so I might be missing something, but... this requirement seems mostly sensible? I might disagree with details, but I support the premise.
The vast majority of online purchasing UX I see in the US makes it possible to charge a credit card with just possession of a card and some public records searches about the card owner's residence. Requiring a second out of band verification from the payment account owner would be a very sane way to prevent stolen payment info.
Sure, it might drop conversions by 25%, but given how getting your information stolen from someone who probably has your payment info is not a matter of "if" but "when" in today's climate, maybe it's time we modernized how we pay for things online.
I completely agree. Just because it's difficult, and may bring short term draw backs, doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to better ensure consumer protection.