New secure credit cards?

It will never be possible to show that I was wrong.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else
Loading thread data ...

Not to you anyway, you've made that much clear already.

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

I think you've missed the point. I've said that at some time in the future some event will occur. If it occurs, then I'm proved right. If it doesn't occur by some point in time, that just means that it could occur later.

So showing that I was wrong would involve waiting for the rest of eternity to check the the predicted event never occurs.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

I doubt people or banks will last for eternity. In any case it hardly matters after we are both dead :-) Of course there is another more likely possibility, any banking decision may occur, and be reversed any number of times between now and eternity!

MrT.

Reply to
Mr.T

the chip holds your card details and is supposedly harder to forge than the mag stripe

I have seen eft-pos machines etc with chip-card slots in the top and with magstripe groove in the side.

Reply to
Jasen Betts

she revels in her ignorance worn like a mantle across her shoulders the rest of the world points and laffs.

Reply to
atec 77

The supposed protectiona against forgery is an illusion as long as systems are willing to fallback to using the magnetic stripe if the chip communication fails.

On a related note,

"Organized crime tampers with European card swipe devices"

formatting link

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

_____

ot

=A0 - Barry Humphries

The more I hear of these frauds, and the less I feel like buying these days, the more I realise why I like using cash.

Of course that could always be rendered worthless if there is a big currency crash, or the worldwide money printing currently going on to "stimulate the economy" dilutes the value of your money ending in similar result (given enough time)

Reply to
kreed

Actually I thought you were acting like a bit of a stupid knob Atec. "wrong" Bwahaha!

Reply to
Mark Harriss

I will defend your right to be (and you are) now who said it ?

Reply to
atec 77

It is extremely common in the UK. The ATM near my local supermarket has had pin capture devices removed from it twice in one day, and on several days in one month. I do not use machines that are not physically located inside a bank unless I have to, and I am told by a work colleague that even one of them has been found with a skimmer fitted.

Except that the common thief can sell it to his local uncommon thief, and then some money disappears from your account (as happened to a different work colleague whose card *did* have a chip). It is a commonly held belief that if you report a phantom withdrawal in the UK you are likely to be arrested for fraud, because the bank claims that its system is infallible, so you must be lying, and the police arrive and take your DNA, and then it is up to you to prove you DIDN'T make the withdrawal. Your main hope is to find CCTV of yourself in a different town at the time in question but it is not easy. One school of thought is that it is better to just accept the financial loss and forget about it. Maybe this is what the bank wants.

google the following: chip and pin fraud

Chris

Reply to
Chris Jones

A commonly held belief perhaps, but certainly untrue.

I wonder what happens to those cases where the customer cuts straight to the chase after the bank refuses a refund, and sues. It wouldn't surprise me if a settlement invariably follows. Particularly if the customer demonstrates knowledge of methods of defeating the security of chip and PIN. The banks don't want that kind of publicity.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

It's not up to the banks. They don't own the cards. Think about who profits from the fraud, besides the fraudsters.

Reply to
Swanny

The cards are owned by the card issuers, which in many cases are indeed banks, in the normal sense of the word. However, for the purpose of this discussion, "bank" is a convenient shorthand for whoever it is that asserts the right to payment for amounts disbursed as a result of fraudulent use of a credit card.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

That's not how it works. There are 3 parties to the transaction apart from the consumer. The banks are the "acquirers" and only one part of the picture. They co-brand the card.

Reply to
Swanny

Someone is asserting a right to payment. That's the only person the consumer is bothered with.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

How do credit cards now work when there is no signature at all. For example, all over the phone transactions dont require a signature but the banks still happily pay out. Just what is the mechanism that allows them to do this.

Reply to
Mauried

That's an oversimplified view of the way it works. There are three parties to the transaction. The merchant (who is the party asserting the right to be paid), the network and the acquirer. The two major CC issuers operate the network. They make a percentage of the transaction in both charge and chargeback situations and irrespective whether it is fraudulent or not. The acquirer (usually a bank, but can be other companies) takes the credit risk and mostly profits from the high interest rate on credit. However it's a high risk unsecured credit transaction. The merchant must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the identification of the customer and authentication of the card. Failure to do this will render the merchant liable for the fraudulent transaction (this is mostly the case). If the merchant can show that all reasonable steps were taken to ensure the integrity of the transaction then the acquirer takes the loss. Notice how the network has absolved itself from the credit risk? There is very little incentive for the network (who own the infrastructure and issue the cards) to remedy the situation.

Reply to
Swanny

My point was that the consumer is unconcerned provided they are not expected to pay. Thus regardless of the underlying contractual details, the only party that the consumer can be concerned about in the context of a fraudulent transaction is the one demanding money from them.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

formatting link

Basically, the merchant takes the risk that the consumer will repudiate the transaction, and the merchant will not get paid. Usually there's a requirement that any goods that have to be physically delivered are sent to the address that the card issuer has for the holder. If the goods are delivered, but the consumer denies having ordered them, then at least the merchant can get the goods back.

In the end, its a business decision - take the risk to get the custom.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.