Additional card holder verification texts

kjwr22

Yes I have a  card with unique number and my own name but they say they can only attach one phone number to the account and it has to be the card holder.

Herzlos

DullGreyGuy said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

But it's done for a very valid reason - end of the day, the account belongs to your partner, he's responsible for running the account, paying it off every month, etc.  So it kind of makes sense that he needs to authorise the transactions (even though obviously, you're making the purchase with his implicit permission).

That would make sense if it applied equally to all transactions but it doesnt, its almost exclusively online transactions. It seems much more a limitation of certain bank's systems than a design feature... else why can the OP spend £10,000 in store on chip and pin without secondary authorisation from the account holder but cannot spend £5 on Amazon without it?

In store chip and pin means that the purchaser has the physical card and the PIN, so it's a fair assumption that they are the authorized user.

An online purchase doesn't need either of those things, and it's very easy to fraudulently get access to the numbers needed. Hence the text to confirm the online purchaser at least has access to the authorized users phone.

DullGreyGuy

Herzlos said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Ebe_Scrooge said:

But it's done for a very valid reason - end of the day, the account belongs to your partner, he's responsible for running the account, paying it off every month, etc.  So it kind of makes sense that he needs to authorise the transactions (even though obviously, you're making the purchase with his implicit permission).

That would make sense if it applied equally to all transactions but it doesnt, its almost exclusively online transactions. It seems much more a limitation of certain bank's systems than a design feature... else why can the OP spend £10,000 in store on chip and pin without secondary authorisation from the account holder but cannot spend £5 on Amazon without it?

In store chip and pin means that the purchaser has the physical card and the PIN, so it's a fair assumption that they are the authorized user.

An online purchase doesn't need either of those things, and it's very easy to fraudulently get access to the numbers needed. Hence the text to confirm the online purchaser at least has access to the authorized users phone.

You've missed the point... they arent texting the authorized user's phone, they are texting the account holder's phone.

I wasnt questioning why cardholder not present transactions may require additional security (though 3D Secure was supposed to be the solution to this) but why that security has to come from the account holder whereas in person transactions the cardholder's security authorisation is sufficient for transactions potentially 1,000x larger