Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Square Cash

square.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 295 posts

Re: Square Cash

#171

Post by bloopletech »

encoderer wrote: post #163
MichaelApproved wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. You absolutely CAN dispute charges with debit cards. The problem OP might have with debit cards could be that a fraudulent charge temporarily locks cash funds (with debit card) instead of credit availability (with credit card).

You're oversimplifying. There are wide differences in consumer protections between credit and debit cards. The list of reasons for a valid chargeback on a debit card is much more narrow than a credit card. For example, suppose you purchase a tablet online and when you get the package, you sign for it, open it, and it's a paperweight. If you charged that on your debit card you're out of luck and will have to go to sma…

I will only point out that you're paying for this kind of convenience in getting your money back - and the cheap flights - somewhere.

Re: Square Cash

#172

Post by ketralnis »

bloopletech wrote: post #168
ketralnis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US equivalent is ACH, which has the major downside that using only the bank ID (routing number) and account number you can effectively wipe out the target's account. It's up to your bank (or whatever ACH proxy) to keep you from doing that, not to the interchange, both legally and technically. ACH also takes several days to work, and has a wide window for either bank to declare the transfer fraudulent, so many ban…

Are you serious? Why would _anyone_ design a system like this? In Australia, the equivalent is EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer). You can deposit money to anyone's account by telling the bank their BSB (Bank/State/Branch number) and their account number; however this is not sufficient information to withdraw money. To withdraw money: 1. at a physical bank branch: a. you put your credit/debit card in a POS terminal and…

> Are you serious? Why would _anyone_ design a system like this?

Because it's descended from writing simple letters of credit (and by this I literally mean a letter that says "Hey bank, pay John here $15 out of my account kthx"), and giant ancient heavily regulated institutions are terrified of change.

The system wasn't designed exactly, it just sort of evolved

Re: Square Cash

#173

Post by DannyBee »

lbarrow wrote: post #62
usaphp wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even with Square, I'd be hesitant to enter my debit card number. Are you afraid of entering your debit card number? How do you make purchases online?

I'm going to guess with credit cards. Credit card numbers are much safer to use online than debit cards, mostly because credit card dispute mechanisms give consumers a lot more power. If a merchant behaves in an unsavory way, with a credit card you can usually just call your bank, issue a chargeback and that's the end of it. You can't do that with a debit card.

Actually, that is not the real reason credit cards are safer :)

You can dispute most debit card transactions now.

Besides the "one is availability of credit, the other, real money", there is a liability difference.

It used to be, at one point, that debit card liability was essentially unlimited but a consumer's liability for fraud on their credit card was limited to $50 by federal law (see 15 USC § 1643). Debit card liability now has a maximum as well, but your maximum liability actually depends on how quickly you notify.

If it's within two days, it's $50 liability on a debit card, but if you notify past that, they could legally make you liable for up to $500.

(There are other liability generating situations that exist for debit cards but not credit cards)

Re: Square Cash

#174

Post by tedunangst »

aioprisan wrote: post #137
thaumasiotes wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use the system backing check processing, ACH. Theoretically, this is similar to counterfeiting a check, except: - these are electronic requests, so there's nothing to distinguish "genuine" from "fraudulent" ones - you really do have all of the information that goes into an ACH payment Really, it's much more similar to forging a check than to counterfeiting one.

What service allows you to specify a debit from an account that's not authorized, in hte US? No bank that I've even used provides that, nor does an online service or API without first authorizing a debit via ACH with the deposit confirmation.

deposit confirmation seems to have disappeared. I pay several of my bills (including rent, kind of a biggie) via direct withdrawal and never confirmed the account. Just went to a website one day, typed in some numbers, and clicked pay. (oh, I did have to mark the checkbox that says "I authorize this payment", but that doesn't seem like foolproof security to me.)

Re: Square Cash

#175

Post by vacri »

bloopletech wrote: post #168
ketralnis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US equivalent is ACH, which has the major downside that using only the bank ID (routing number) and account number you can effectively wipe out the target's account. It's up to your bank (or whatever ACH proxy) to keep you from doing that, not to the interchange, both legally and technically. ACH also takes several days to work, and has a wide window for either bank to declare the transfer fraudulent, so many ban…

Are you serious? Why would _anyone_ design a system like this? In Australia, the equivalent is EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer). You can deposit money to anyone's account by telling the bank their BSB (Bank/State/Branch number) and their account number; however this is not sufficient information to withdraw money. To withdraw money: 1. at a physical bank branch: a. you put your credit/debit card in a POS terminal and…

and they're universally free for the payer.

Not quite. Vendors can now legally add a surcharge to cover the cost for payments from a credit card. Some vendors traditionally refused Amex when they had to eat the charge, since Amex was something like a 4-5% cost to the vendor as opposed to the 1-2% costs of the other cards.

Why, in a small, stagnant market like ours, do we fare much better than the US system?

We have strong banking regulations, apparently. I heard somewhere that during the GFC, there were only ten banks of that kind globally that hung on to their AAA credit rating, and all four of the Australian big banks were in that ten.

Re: Square Cash

#176

Post by tedunangst »

bloopletech wrote: post #171
encoderer wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're oversimplifying. There are wide differences in consumer protections between credit and debit cards. The list of reasons for a valid chargeback on a debit card is much more narrow than a credit card. For example, suppose you purchase a tablet online and when you get the package, you sign for it, open it, and it's a paperweight. If you charged that on your debit card you're out of luck and will have to go to sma…

I will only point out that you're paying for this kind of convenience in getting your money back - and the cheap flights - somewhere.

Somebody is paying for it. Maybe not (only) the person getting cheap flights.

Re: Square Cash

#177

Post by aianus »

redthrowaway wrote: post #115
derefr wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interac is an exclusively Canadian payment-processor. The American equivalents are PLUS and Cirrus--who could have implemented this long ago, but for some reason haven't.

I didn't realize that. The ubiquity of Interac around these parts, and its deep integration with all things financial, led me to believe it was an international institution. After spending the last week trying to find a cellphone plan for my mother, seeing a Canadian institution that mostly works and is mostly good for the consumer is a welcome breath of fresh air.

At my bank interac e-transfer costs $1.50 a pop but paper checks are free and unlimited. It boggles the mind.

Re: Square Cash

#178

Post by cormacrelf »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #95
jser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like an excellent target for phishing attacks!

No kidding. That step 3 is a doozy: > The recipient will be emailed a link to easily deposit their cash to their bank. You have to wonder about the wisdom of training people to view such emails as legitimate.

They just got an email from you. Not so suss.
Post reply on HN