615
Privacy is Priceless, but Signal is Expensive (signal.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
170 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

Is it just they know they can only charge like $800 before they get shut down and want that extra $4 for themselves? I am still trying to understand the rationale. If I had no morales and a stolen cc, why would I care if it's a $1 or a $5 charge for validation?

I feel like I am learning I don't check my cc info nearly as much as other Americans...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If there's one service where you can check stolen CC info for $1 and another one for $5 you doesn't go with the $5 one for no reason. The $4 extra dollars doesn't matter in itself but that other places are several times cheaper does.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    See I would go with the $5 one with the thought process that almost no establishment let's you charge under $5, so if I ever saw something for less than that it would immediately be a redflag.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Half my CCs don't let me set transaction alerts for less than $5-$10, so a $1 or less charge would never notify me, I'd have to be actively checking it every moment of every day to see it immediately.

    And yes, I have email/text alerts when possible for every. single. charge. on my CCs at the lowest threshold possible and it has helped at least three times thus far.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent