That said, I agree with the author. Signature based debit should have long since been replaced by something more secure (e.g., Chip and PIN), yet its much higher fee structure creates a perverse incentive to maintain its use.
That said, I agree with the author. Signature based debit should have long since been replaced by something more secure (e.g., Chip and PIN), yet its much higher fee structure creates a perverse incentive to maintain its use.
But I don't think anyone wants to give customers this wallet-like capability..
This sort of thing reared its ugly head last decade in the UK with phantom ATM withdrawals. The banks claimed the consumers must have made the transactions as PINs are required and banks are perfectly secure. It turned out that the banks weren't as secure as claimed. (Search for [ross anderson phantom withdrawals] for more details as well as attacks on chip and pin systems.)
Then one day one of those slimy Brooklyn camera stores overcharged me by $10, even though I specifically put in a limit equal to the purchase price. I called the bank and asked what happened, and they said that they always add a pad on top of the limit because people often forget about shipping charges, etc.
Sigh.