Chip and pin fraud.

In that period of time between losing or having your card stolen and the loss being reported and the card is used fraudulently, then as the cardholder would you rather someone used your PIN and stolen card (to get goods or cash), or forged your signature, and attempted to look like your photo on the card and obtain goods only?

The bottom line is that you can always challenge a signature, but as press coverage proves you may have great difficulty proving you weren't negligent with your PIN!

In that period of time between losing or having your card stolen and the loss being reported and the card is used fraudulently, then as the cardholder would you rather someone used your PIN and stolen card (to get goods or cash), or forged your signature, and attempted to look like your photo on the card and obtain goods only?

The bottom line is that you can always challenge a signature, but as press coverage proves you may have great difficulty proving you weren't negligent with your PIN!

In that period of time between losing or having your card stolen and the loss being reported and the card is used fraudulently, then as the cardholder would you rather someone used your PIN and stolen card (to get goods or cash), or forged your signature, and attempted to look like your photo on the card and obtain goods only?

The bottom line is that you can always challenge a signature, but as press coverage proves you may have great difficulty proving you weren't negligent with your PIN!

The common denominator with ATM fraud is a PIN. The card can be genuine or cloned but the weak point is the PIN.

wrote

I'd like to see you prove that you weren't nelgigent with your signature. For instance, do you write it down anywhere near your card?

wrote

Is there an echo in here .. in here .. in here???

I say, is there an echo in here...!

In message , snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk writes

I assume you are replying to me. Suggest you leave some of the post to which you are replying in your reply.

Evidence shows that not only do cashiers not spot obvious things such as a card in the name of Miss Smith being used by a man and photo cards dont get looked at either.

Have you ever tried disputing a good signature?

I think they are talking about the cards being created directly from info such as the customers account details, rather than by getting hold of the original card to copy.

Royal Bank of Scotland issue a Photo card, they have not updated me yet to a C & P card.

S. Althaf

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Mike Hibbert said

Only cards with PINs. Credit cards did not need to have PINS before. Now they do.

Me, or the person who wrote the article for a national newspaper? BTW I don't share your belief that the chip on a chip and pin card is uncopyable, nor that it's not possible to steal money using a chip and pin card without copying the chip or knowing the pin number.

It would not be so bad if ATMs required the chip to be there, or if there was some way that they could tell that the card should have a chip (other than by looking at the card's magnetic strip) so that a chip-less card with cloned magnetic strip would not work.

"Alex" wrote

Even if money is stolen, it's been stolen from the bank rather than from you - so why are you worried?

Tumbleweed wrote: ...

Which is the bit the banks are careful not to tell the public.

I gather it's the americans that are the problem - they're going slow on chipped-card introduction, and while they are using stripes, every atm in the world has to accept a stripe-only card, or poor John Brown won't get his cash.

Because the banks reckon their systems are secure? You try proving you've not divulged your PIN somehow! Remember you poitentially end up in a civil case to get your money back - which will a court find more likely (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt): [1] you were careless with your PIN, or [2] the bank's systems are insecure?

"Mike Scott" wrote

Well, if I were the court, I would consider the circumstances of the case.

Why, would *you* always side with the banks? Do you think the court should?