Is that "ridiculous" as in excessively stringent or weak? Because that phrase can be read either way. From the examples you give I'm presuming the latter.
Note that payments or deposits to a given account require little authentication over the destination though more for the payee. I've long been amused by US banks which require me to authenticate to an ATM to make a payment but will accept cheques dumped into a deposit slot.
I agree that the system mostly works, but fraud costs are in the billions, and that's U.S. credit cards alone:
Note that payments or deposits to a given account require little authentication over the destination though more for the payee. I've long been amused by US banks which require me to authenticate to an ATM to make a payment but will accept cheques dumped into a deposit slot.
I agree that the system mostly works, but fraud costs are in the billions, and that's U.S. credit cards alone:
"As Nationwide Fraud Losses Top $10 Billion in 2023, FTC Steps Up Efforts to Protect the Public " (2024) <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/...>
The denominator is roughly $4 trillion, so it's an 0.25% fraud rate:
"The Average Number of Credit Card Transactions Per Day & Year" <https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-trans...>