Quote:
Originally posted by LeeNoga@Jun 13 2003, 04:44 AM
You could be right KK, maybe this may work maybe not. Maybe it will be enough of a shot in the arm that others think about other means to combat KP.
What questions of yours were asked that went un-answered. You have to admit we had alot coming our way at a pace in that GFY thread. We did our best to answer the frenzy. It was alot to respond to by DJ and myself only but we put in over 20 hours into that thread, so tap dancing was not our exit strategy. If we were not comprehensive totally in a response most likely it was just fatigue.
What were your questions that went un-answered?
SO you think the CC processors would see no value in this screening practice?
|
As a paid service, no, I don't really think they would, since they are already required to screen every site they put online to take Visa transactions, and then Visa has someone else who also double checks that review.
Now it's certainly still possible for someone to change their site after it's been approved, and that's been a problem that isnt going to go away from the beginning.
But the US/EU processors that are correctly set up in Visa's eyes are not taking these transactions, and the ones that do run these transactions don't really care what you, me or anyone else thinks of them, as I see it.
I also see that sponsors who employ this type of search and destroy software, so to speak, stand a very good chance of putting themselves into a liability situation for ANY conduct from their affiliates -- ie spam. What sponsor would knowingly put themselves into a position where they are the police? None with any sense, since if they miss something there's a very good chance they could end up on the short end of the stick in other areas of their business.
I'm not saying that it isn't a very noble intention you've started out with here, Lee, I am just pointing out the practicality of using this type of software and the issues that it may inadvertently bring up for the users.
06-13-2003
Threaded Mode
