> It was incontrovertibly approved as it is only installable via MDM.
Only if this his standard govt issued phone. It's also been shown they are also using their own personal phones. The could easily be using unapproved phones some random DOGE'er bought gave them with an MDM setup, without any real oversight.
This is currently my bet. This looks like something I would set up— state actors are not in my threat list. But, I’m usually being paid to protect the employer not the employee.
> I don't really want to damage strangers' property. I don't own any car as I just take public transportation, so I can't really say I'm "boycotting" Tesla any more than any other brand.
Divest of Tesla. In a 401k move from index funds to other funds without or less TSLA. Or invest in inverse EFTs that essentially short Tesla - TSLS, TSLQ, and TSLZ. Not buying a Tesla or torching a Cybertruck are not the only options.
An interesting factoid, but of course you don't think that Microsoft made that investment in their then-failing competitor because they expected a good return. Right?
The liability is usually with the card issuer (bank), unless the merchant fails to meet liability shift requirements - like processes a card via the manually entered numbers or magstripe, rather than the chip in the card if the terminal supports it.
This the way card networks have encouraged migration to systems that support tokens and cryptograms to limit fraud.
For card-not-present transactions (i.e., all online credit card transactions) the liability is the merchant's. There is no recourse for a merchant who is a victim of a stolen card, the money is simply removed from their account.
You can pontificate that its one rogue complainant or you can check the data because its right there and shows race, age and gender of the complainant. The very first page of data shows one sergeant with 25 complaints composed of atleast 11 complainants over 5 years.
The vast majority of that fee that merchants pay goes to the bank, not Visa or Mastercard. And a vast majority of what the bank gets in that fee goes back out to the card owner in the form of rewards. You see merchant fees of 1-2% because that is pretty close to typical rewards paid out on credit cards.
Merchants certainly "notice" and take any opportunity to use an alternative to the card networks. They only accept it because they must to avoid losing a purchase. They would rather customers pay in almost any other form due to interchange costs.
When talking to big merchants about any new payment product, the first question you will hear is often "so, how does this lower my interchange cost?"
That might be true, but it isn't as obviously true as you would think. Credit cards payments are not subject to being stolen or lost. Once you have the approval the money will reach your account.
Of course there are other frauds you are vulnerable to. Which is why it isn't clear what is really best
There are plenty of other payment methods than cash that have guards against being lost/stolen or the other problems with handling cash, but also dont have the high cost of interchange that funds credit card rewards.
Merchants take credit cards to avoid losing a purchase. Cards have such a high volume that consumers expect it and some small portion will skip a purchase if its not an option. But merchants would much prefer you pay with a store card, debit card or one of many other payment methods that dont have the same (2-3%) cost that credit cards do.
Only if this his standard govt issued phone. It's also been shown they are also using their own personal phones. The could easily be using unapproved phones some random DOGE'er bought gave them with an MDM setup, without any real oversight.