Re: [Sheflug] Re: bounce

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <nospam [at] sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>]

>>>>> "Will" == Will Newton <will [at] misconception.org.uk> writes:

    Will> I think it's unfair to penalise the consumer when the
    Will> merchants and the banks are usually the weakest link in the
    Will> process, and usually the source of the leaks.

That's what I said, except for the "unfair" part.

"The consumer" is not being "penalized."   _"The consumer" pays for
everything anyway._  What is happening is that risk-taking consumers
(who use the risky Internet) are being asked to shoulder extra risk
to protect those who don't.

"Consumer protection acts" cannot reduce consumer costs; only
anti-monopoly policy can do that.  "Consumer protection" is guaranteed
to raise costs (although not necessarily significantly), and to shift
risks from relatively careless consumers onto paranoid ones.

C'mon, Will, I think about this stuff for a living.  Theory and
history are unanimously in agreement with me.  The only way to make
"consumer protection" work here is to make the banks take the risk,
and you can't.  They'll shut the business instead, because they're
_incompetent to handle the risk_---as you have pointed out.

If you really want to do something for the consumer, promote (1)
education in risk assessment for both consumers and businesses, (2)
more clarity in the contracts, and (3) open source software and "open
business" methods.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.