[weavejester]

Isn't paying through a VPN a rather different matter to paying for a VPN? I mean, there's no point to using a privacy VPN to hide your identity only to then give out your credit card details, so it sounds like an inherently biased scenario.

[kbenson]

If you are going to use a VPN to charge stolen credit cards, you sure aren't going to use a real credit card to purchase the VPN service, which could then be linked back to you.

[weavejester]

That's true, but I don't see how that relates to the point.

[_mulder_]

Well I imagine it might go something like this:

Bad guy gets CC details

Uses stolen CC to sign up to VPN

Goes on a shopping spree via the VPN so law enforcement can't trace him

So you're going to see more use of VPNs by fraudsters trying to hide than you are genuine users... hence the ban.

[weavejester]

I agree that some users use VPNs for credit card fraud. What I find hard to believe is that the majority of VPN users are committing credit card fraud. If nothing else, it would be difficult for VPNs to make a profit if they had that many chargebacks.

[jasonlotito]

> What I find hard to believe is that the majority of VPN users are committing credit card fraud.

The problem isn't the majority. The problem is just a significant amount. Keep in mind how low the chargeback rates need to be to avoid serious penalties. Also, keep in mind the number of people isn't the issue, but it's the number of fraudulent transactions that occur. One person can attempt many.

It's an attack vector, and one person can cause problem for many, many customers.

[kbenson]

Additionally, while a legitimate VPN user most likely will only need one VPN, someone interested in committing fraud may want many. The relevant metric is not the number of users, but the number of accounts.

[weavejester]

You seem to be reading more into my comment than I put into it. I'm not saying anything more than I find the original assertion that the majority of VPN users use stolen credit cards to be unlikely.