"Simon Kempster" wrote in message
om...
Unfortunately, anything that can be used by honest people can also be
used by dishonest people. That is not the fault of the service, but
the user. Personally, I find PayPal very useful, as I don't have to
find a chequebook, an envelople, a stamp, send it, wait an extra week
while it clears, etc.

Now, the *charges* that PayPal make to people to get the money that's
been paid to them, that's another matter.


Actually a company I worked for looked into setting up a facility to taking
credit and debit cards directly. The bank wanted to charge a setup fee of
several hundred pound and an annual renewal fee not much cheaper than the
setup fees! Then there is the "commission" per transaction of around 2.5% to
3.5% for Credit Cards (depeding on transaction volumes and whether it is
online or face-to-face). Then there is all the equipment to buy or rent.

PayPal transaction charges are not much higher than the figures quote
(albeit there is a fixed 20p per transaction), but significantly cheaper and
faster to setup particularly for the smaller business and offers no better
or worse security to taking CC directly as far as I can see.

In uk.media.tv.sky on Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Simon Kempster wrote :

Pay-as-you-go mobile phones that don't require any name and address
details registered to them (which they have to do now in France, I
believe) are an absolute marvellous thing for criminals. Does that
mean that PAYG mobiles should be banned?

Unfortunately, anything that can be used by honest people can also be
used by dishonest people. That is not the fault of the service, but
the user.

This is on aspect of culture that is completely opposite between America
& Britain.

The American attitude seems to be : sell what you like & let the market
(or a jury) decide, whereas in Britain it's : sell nothing that can
potentially help criminals, and civil liberties can get ****ed.
--
Paul 'US Sitcom Fan' Hyett

Gordon Brown wrote:

PayPal transaction charges are not much higher than the figures quote
(albeit there is a fixed 20p per transaction), but significantly cheaper and
faster to setup particularly for the smaller business and offers no better
or worse security to taking CC directly as far as I can see.

In the case of CC fraud there is some comeback on the fraudster and he
can be traced directly by the banks.

This is not possible with PayPal.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

Simon Kempster wrote:

I'm sure that you have but that doesn't affect what I wrote. There are
other options for honest users like you but PayPal is still ideally
suited for the dishonest.

Pay-as-you-go mobile phones that don't require any name and address
details registered to them (which they have to do now in France, I
believe) are an absolute marvellous thing for criminals. Does that
mean that PAYG mobiles should be banned?

This is a rather different matter. No one can steal from me directly
by using a mobile phone. Someone can (and they do, often) start a fake
auction, get the money via PayPal and then vanish without supplying
the goods. In this respect PayPal is severely flawed. If they want to
be allowed to keep it running then they (Ebay) must be made to accept
full responsibility for abuse and compensate users accordingly. This
should be what the fee is for.

And these anonymous mobile phones that you mention will soon be made
illegal throughout the EU.


Unfortunately, anything that can be used by honest people can also be
used by dishonest people. That is not the fault of the service, but
the user.

Yes, but you must see the difference between the two. Only money
transfer systems require regulation as far as I'm concerned as only
money transfer systems allow money to be transferred from me. I don't
care about whether mobile phone users are registered or not: it's
pointless anyway.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

loz wrote:

If you feel the seller has committed fraud then the police have a very clear
trail to the seller.
What's the problem?

There are several.

One is that if the vendor (if he can be found) says "Oh, I fully
intend to send the goods" then the police can do little. It becomes a
civil debt. Only if there are myriad instances with one vendor will
the police become involved.

Another problem is that to trace the vendor you must rely on PayPal.
They do not go out of their way to help. In fact they go out of their
way not to help.

If you have sent a cheque then it can be traced, as can the address to
which it has been sent. PayPal is largely nameless and address-less.

If you have paid by CC then you need merely initiate a chargeback, and
if that fails then the CC company will absorb the loss anyway.

--
Digibox problem? : A reboot solves 90% of these.
The Sky Digital FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/yvnsy
How to get UK TV overseas: http://tinyurl.com/6p73
Fed up with logos / red buttons? : http://logofreetv.org/
BBC gone? : http://www.astra2d.co.uk/
----
Only the truth as I see it.
No monies return'd. ;-)

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Another problem is that to trace the vendor you must rely on PayPal.
They do not go out of their way to help. In fact they go out of their
way not to help.

Agreed on this point, PayPal is not very helpful at all, but could this
because of the Data Protection Act? I mean if the Police could not keep
records (or disclose them as in a recent famous case with a caretaker...)?

If you have sent a cheque then it can be traced, as can the address to
which it has been sent. PayPal is largely nameless and address-less.

While this statement is true, the fact of the matter is you can always get
the address of the buyer/seller from Ebay. After all, what is the point for
buyer to make a purchase and a payment supplying a fake address? How would
the buyer receive the goods (even if they are using a fake CC)? Of course
this may be a slightly different case for a fake seller as they may have
registered a fake address with Ebay. However if their listing permits
cheques then there is a good probability that the address is real - watch
out for PayPal only listings.

If you have paid by CC then you need merely initiate a chargeback, and
if that fails then the CC company will absorb the loss anyway.

This could still be the case if you pay for goods with your CC via PayPal. I
do not see why the CC could not make a chargeback in the same way if you had
paid the merchant directly via telephone. Not tried this myself (had no need
thus far).

If all else fails use the Ebay Buyer protection scheme although you will
lose the initial £15 (admin fee?) and also you can only claim to a maximum
value of £120.

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...

This is a rather different matter. No one can steal from me directly
by using a mobile phone. Someone can (and they do, often) start a fake
auction, get the money via PayPal and then vanish without supplying
the goods. In this respect PayPal is severely flawed. If they want to
be allowed to keep it running then they (Ebay) must be made to accept
full responsibility for abuse and compensate users accordingly. This
should be what the fee is for.

You seem to be confusing fake auctions with Paypal

How is paypal flawed if someone didn't send you the goods? That isn't paypals
fault.
I could say the same about any e-commerce, telesales, or door to door
salesperson.
If they don't deliver the goods it is hardly the fault of the credit card
company is it?

Paypal know exactly what bank account they paid your money too.
And the bank should know (especially now) exactly who's account it is.

Loz

"Jomtien" wrote in message
...
Gordon Brown wrote:

PayPal transaction charges are not much higher than the figures quote
(albeit there is a fixed 20p per transaction), but significantly cheaper and
faster to setup particularly for the smaller business and offers no better
or worse security to taking CC directly as far as I can see.

In the case of CC fraud there is some comeback on the fraudster and he
can be traced directly by the banks.

This is not possible with PayPal.

Why isn't it possible?

As I said before, Paypal operates within the same financial system as the CC.
Paypal transfer money into the sellers bank account.
So the bank can trace them directly in just the same way

Loz

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 06:54:51 GMT, Jomtien wrote:

K wrote:

Paypal is a conman's charter and should be closed down.

I've used paypal many times and never had any problem.

I'm sure that you have but that doesn't affect what I wrote. There are
other options for honest users like you but PayPal is still ideally
suited for the dishonest.

Sorry I was mistaken. I realized as soon as I'd posted it and thought
I'd cancelled the usenet message but it obviously didn't work! Please
ignore my previous post. I've NEVER used Paypal and don't have an
account - I was confusing it with something else.

If you have paid by CC then you need merely initiate a chargeback,
and
if that fails then the CC company will absorb the loss anyway.

This could still be the case if you pay for goods with your CC via
PayPal. I do not see why the CC could not make a chargeback in the
same way if you had paid the merchant directly via telephone. Not
tried this myself (had no need thus far).


some people have had problems with this.
technically (according to some companies) you are paying paypal for a
service. the service has happened (ie give mr x £10). so some credit card
companies deny responsibility.