tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4147841314301981805.post860225882777064081..comments2023-03-26T07:38:56.925-06:00Comments on Heisencoder: Heartland Payment Systems CompromisedMatthew V Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04512577643269096659noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4147841314301981805.post-45468184102822083622009-05-01T16:34:00.000-06:002009-05-01T16:34:00.000-06:00You're working to solve this problem by encrypting...You're working to solve this problem by encrypting all data saved on tape drives by companies that keep personal information, right? Like anything, this will cost money. Why would a company spend more money to encrypt our data? Bad PR is probably enough, but are there any laws that will require this? I recall California enacted such a law, didn't they?<br /><br />Regarding the zero liability policy (same goes for MasterCard as well), I read that federal law limits a individual's liability to $50. The bank issuing the card is responsible for the rest. So the cost of the zero liability policy to the company per stolen card is pretty small. As you pointed out, one advantage is this will keep people using a card they have. But also imagine if MC would brag about a zero liability policy and Visa didn't have one. That would convince many to go with only MC.<br /><br />I imagine this $50 limit law encourages card issuers to take effective steps against fraud like the 3 digit code on the back of the card, requiring the billing zip code for some purchases, and calling you when an unusually large purchase is requested.Michael Duckwitzhttp://www.service-usla.orgnoreply@blogger.com