Of course, theft under SecureCode/3d/VbV is not classified and fraud as such a thing is impossible. Hence fraud drops as only fraudulent transactions using non 3D/... are included.

Its like how a certain police force use tricks like classifying reported purse thefts as "lost property" - and then witter on about being one of the lowest crime areas in the country.

VbV is just a way to pass the buck for CNP fraud to the merchant.

Merchants look at the losses due to not accepting VbV/3D/... against the

losses due to fraud and decide whether to use 3D or not.

Use of postcode "hotspots" by vendors are having greater impact on fraud

as many of the east european gangs work out of clearly defined postcodes

which are included in the postcode blacklists.

So next time you order something and wonder why your delivery address is rejected

its not the RMails fault - but just that you live in an area full of crooks!

The buck actually gets pushed on to the customer, oh sorry, consumer/mark, as the claim is that the system couldn't possibly be wrong.

Apart from anything else, how do I know that the inserted frame is not some form of cross-site scriting scam?

I refuse to deal with any company wanting VbV (and tell them why).

Everyone isn't out to get you, the bank's efforts for stem fraud isn't to stop having to pay out to their customers, it is, see if you can get your heads round this: To stop fraud. Not every measure is as good as it may be, but it's better than allowing merchants to store unencrypted cardholder data and relying upon the magstripe for cards.

If you're going to bang on with conspiracy theories, at least try to site some sort of source - My mates have had their cards cloned therefore VbV is a scam doesn't really stand up. Neither does the banks are prividing systems to prevent customer data ever touching merchant computers therefore they are trying to make merchants pay for fraud.