So, aside from the fact that this is screaming for chip + pin, isn't this a failure on the cardmaker's part to make a card that you can remove the chip without destroying the card?
I simply don't understand why, apart from too many retailers complaining.
Adding pins to checkout process adds friction and checkout time. It might be a minor amount per transaction. However if you add it up across all transactions, it's a significant amount.
BTW, if you want to see just how efficient chip-and-pin can be, go to a bar in a nordic country. In Helsinki I can pay with chip-and-pin as quickly as cash (assuming change). The bartenders won't even hold a tab open for you, they just charge you every time. I've experienced the same efficiency in Sweden.
ADDED: And you needed new devices but not mobile systems to bring to the table.
This process is probably the largest part of what happens when the terminal/ATM displays message like "Chip initialisation in progress".
Uuuuuh...
The rest of the world has been doing this for at least a decade without any problems at all. You got any kind of citation you can link us to demonstrating that the rest of the world is suffering from this decision in a way that the US is not?
If someone else is your spouse, kid, or personal assistant; you tell them the PIN or ask the issuer for an authorized user card.
I usually transfer them the money through the free, instant, secure and traceable inter-bank transfers that are universally provided by every financial institution in my country to every other financial institution in my country, so that they can use their own card.
Quite frankly, as a consumer I don't need increased security over what we had 20 years ago (mag strip and signature), someone else took the liability for any fraud. Chip+pin is trying to push the cost of fraud on me, and I don't like it. The value of cards over cash or checks is largely because I pay less price for fraud.
Signatures do absolutely nothing in that case so why bother?
It wasn't a valid signature. Even when you attempt to make a legitimate signature on a screen it comes out incredibly poorly. The only legitimaticy is that "someone signed some form of letters/made a drawing of a penis". I can't see why that would ever prevent chargebacks
When you have a documented history of legit signatures on file, signature difference is one of the factors that get considered in the event you file a dispute.
PIN does not mean you are automatically liable for fraud losses. Federal law caps credit card liability at $50. Most issuers eat that too with $0 liability to remain competitive.
I thought that was for debit cards? Or does it apply to both?
There are also state laws that may go further in consumer protection. The card network may also have additional protections. Finally as I've mentioned the issuer often waives all fraud loss liability.
I imagine if banks were required to shoulder the cost of point-of-sale fraud, suddenly they'd be very interested in issuing PINs.
Yeah, there can be a limit on the number of transactions, but my bank and several others just don't care, there's only a limit on a single transaction, currently £30. Genius, just genius.
That's for personal cards, though. Always use a prepaid card when paying for anything, anywhere.
Not sure if they do that in the US or if they'd do it for corporate cards as well, but I guess it wouldn't be a problem to intercept the second envelope for whoever intercepts the cards. In that case the PIN wouldn't add any value.
Now regarding card destruction, I wonder how hard would it be for them to just print fake cards with fake chips that just have the same numbers.
Probably a better solution would be forcing to activate the card in an atm, so that the chip would be validated.. cumbersome but safer.