“Anti-fraud” is just another word for spyware. If my bank supports 3D-Secure then your exposure to fraud is zero and you have no reason to stalk me for “anti-fraud” purposes.
No one uses 3D secure in the US. As a consumer I don’t use 3D secure because it shifts the liability on to me. Why would I expose myself to that risk when using the card number puts all the risk on the merchant?
There is also more than just unauthorized purchased. There is also card testers that test to see if the card is still valid.
My point is that if there's zero exposure to fraud then the purchase should go ahead regardless of whether the anti-fraud libraries load or provide a negative result.
So this means that users who expose the site to fraud must allow the anti-fraud libraries to track them, or switch to a bank that offers 3D-Secure so that liability is shifted to the bank and they no longer need to be tracked. Seems like a win-win situation.
> There is also card testers that test to see if the card is still valid.
Same scenario applies? If it's protected by 3D-Secure, who cares? The bank will end up paying the cost of it, not the merchant. If anything, this is a problem I'd love to have, as it means if I can identify those reliably I can keep pocketing money without even having to send out any actual goods.
There is also more than just unauthorized purchased. There is also card testers that test to see if the card is still valid.