There’s a rather eerie insurance in Alipay:
Bank Card Security Insurance
To this day, I still can’t figure out what the point of its existence is.
//
If your card has problems and gets used for unauthorized purchases
1. You have to prove it wasn’t done by you
2. If your phone is infected and your passwords and verification codes are stolen, you still have to provide evidence. And in the end, if it really was caused by malware, then whose responsibility is it—the user or the bank? It’s not clear.
3. If hackers break into the bank’s system and your money is lost.
If system vulnerabilities are the cause, then the only meaning of this security insurance is: to shrink what could otherwise be a mass “everyone’s talking about it” incident down to an individual level, so it doesn’t turn into a widespread public-opinion event.
//
Not long ago, there was the Matcha compensation incident. In reality, that’s exactly what happened: the bank card had been frozen, but the money was still gone. No matter how you phrase it, it’s Matcha who’s at fault—they have to pay.
As for the Gate issue, the loophole lies in “proof”—endless, convoluted requests for evidence.
If the problem is with the exchange itself, then the institution has the responsibility and obligation to cover compensation.
What makes it hard is this: for small-scale, non-standard incidents, if the exchange admits fault and compensates promptly, it won’t escalate into mass public discussion. If the exchange doesn’t admit fault, then all actions are on the user—the user has to gather and provide all kinds of evidence… …
Bank Card Security Insurance
To this day, I still can’t figure out what the point of its existence is.
//
If your card has problems and gets used for unauthorized purchases
1. You have to prove it wasn’t done by you
2. If your phone is infected and your passwords and verification codes are stolen, you still have to provide evidence. And in the end, if it really was caused by malware, then whose responsibility is it—the user or the bank? It’s not clear.
3. If hackers break into the bank’s system and your money is lost.
If system vulnerabilities are the cause, then the only meaning of this security insurance is: to shrink what could otherwise be a mass “everyone’s talking about it” incident down to an individual level, so it doesn’t turn into a widespread public-opinion event.
//
Not long ago, there was the Matcha compensation incident. In reality, that’s exactly what happened: the bank card had been frozen, but the money was still gone. No matter how you phrase it, it’s Matcha who’s at fault—they have to pay.
As for the Gate issue, the loophole lies in “proof”—endless, convoluted requests for evidence.
If the problem is with the exchange itself, then the institution has the responsibility and obligation to cover compensation.
What makes it hard is this: for small-scale, non-standard incidents, if the exchange admits fault and compensates promptly, it won’t escalate into mass public discussion. If the exchange doesn’t admit fault, then all actions are on the user—the user has to gather and provide all kinds of evidence… …