Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There is no such thing as just "security".

If the expected loss of funds for the user is lower, it is more secure - for the user.




Actually that's subjective. If the overall fraud is lower then (potentially, I'm sure this doesn't actually happen) fees, charges, interest rates etc could be lower for all users, therefore they would benefit from security that lowered the overall cost of fraud and the overall number of incidences of fraud, even if individuals that directly experience fraud are worse off.


Yes, but "security" isn't "overall cost", its about risk. I am more secure, even if my expected cost is higher, if I don't directly bear any risk of unconsented loss even if the overall incidence of fraud is higher and I am paying a distributed share of those costs.


You always bear some risk of unconsented loss.

With EMV the risk of an incident is much lower.

The risk of not being able to recover the money may be higher.

You're more secure.

--edit-- I say may be higher because AFAICT there are no good figures on this.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: