I don't see how your speculations about how they are using the documents relates with your initial claim of risk mitigation and especially, low cost.
> Banks might be less likely to reverse a charge if you have a photo of the credit card and an ID of its holder. [citation needed?]
Yes, citation needed.
Another situation would be you have the photo of my credit card and my ID and you charge me 100x in place of x. What is the bank to do when I dispute the payment? Let it slide because you have the photocopies?
Also, there mail says:
> We are going to save the document submitted for a period of 3 weeks.
So either they are lying(I haven't read the t&c though; quoting from the mail) or having the copies doesn't do anything.
> Ultimately it's their choice to set their abuse verification threshold and their prices, and your choice to accept it or go elsewhere.
Oh they are free to be as ridiculous as they want to be. That doesn't change the fact that I can call the practice ridiculous, irrespective of whether I am doing business with them or not.
> Banks might be less likely to reverse a charge if you have a photo of the credit card and an ID of its holder. [citation needed?]
Yes, citation needed.
Another situation would be you have the photo of my credit card and my ID and you charge me 100x in place of x. What is the bank to do when I dispute the payment? Let it slide because you have the photocopies?
Also, there mail says:
> We are going to save the document submitted for a period of 3 weeks.
So either they are lying(I haven't read the t&c though; quoting from the mail) or having the copies doesn't do anything.
> Ultimately it's their choice to set their abuse verification threshold and their prices, and your choice to accept it or go elsewhere.
Oh they are free to be as ridiculous as they want to be. That doesn't change the fact that I can call the practice ridiculous, irrespective of whether I am doing business with them or not.