Chip and pin fraud.

In article , Tumbleweed writes

And isn't this the very reason C&P has been brought in, to cut card crime my bottom, it's to allow the banks to blame the customer and not refund the money.

Mike

In article , Tumbleweed writes

When my card was compromised, Lloyds TSB were happy to refund all the transactions I told them I hadn't authorised and they were happy to do that during a telephone call on the understanding I would confirm in writing. End of story.

Moral of the story? Use a decent bank.

Indeedy.

the trouble is, you only discover how decent your bank is when it all goes t*ts up.

In article , Tumbleweed writes

Yes, you are right on that one!

And you just say to them that it is up to them to provide the evidence that it was.

Please point to anywhere that I have suggested it always works the way it should.

There are times when they don't follow the code. Some banks are worse than others, and some staff are worse than others at the same bank.

Sometimes.

One case (or even a dozen cases) doesn't prove anything.

One case doesn't prove anything.

One case doesn't prove anything.

One case doesn't prove anything.

As a counter example, I could quote what happened to my daughter a few months ago. Although there was a point where they were suggesting they wouldn't refund the money extracted when her card was stolen, they changed their tune as soon as she pointed out the relevant clauses in the code. (That was HBOS)

Actually, it is very difficult indeed to show that.

It isn't difficult to "forge" a signature that doesn't look much like yours.

While at the same time, if the criminal has the card, it is VERY easy for any accomplished forger to get it close enough.

It is harder with cloned cards, because the crook will not usually have a copy of the actual signature (unless the card is cloned as you pay for something).

There are quite a few paranoid people around who believe this.

care to answer the question?

How does C&P cut card crime?

Point being is if the card is cloned it then becomes easy to duplicate the PIN - harder to duplicate the signature without a specimin.

In message , Tumbleweed writes

It reduces (but doesnt eliminate) the criminals' ability to clone cards.

In message , Chris Street writes

For non C&P this is true. But for C&P cards the ability to clone is reduced very substantially indeed. In fact this is the very purpose of their introduction. In uk.finance & uk.legal many people think that a C&P card can be cloned by striping. Over the last year or so I think the replies in those groups have proven that this aint so.

This is complete rubbish. If you have cloned any card, C&P or otherwise, once you have the blank cloned card in your possession you can write any old signature you like on it, and you will get away with it just so long as you can reproduce it. So you could write your own sig on it and it would be OK to the retailer because the sig on the sales slip would match the one on the card. Duh!

I thought you said I should read The Banking Code? perhaps you should.

Not only that, but how would you provide evidence that you DIDNT authorise a transaction? Note that they will 'need' you to (eg its a condition they impose)

It shows how this bank acts in general. Its staff are just 'carrying out orders'. If they act this way to one person, especially after long and detailed correspondence covering many people and going up the chain of command, why wouldn't they act this way to all?

So, she was clued up and was able to argue her case..many people wouldnt be. And the mere fact she had to argue her case proves my point about them deciding not the public ....why didnt they follow the code straight away without needing to be prompted? As you say, one case doesn't prove anything, but it is indicative that they didnt immediately roll over and say 'here's your money back' as some people in this thread, including yourself and Tim, have suggested.

FWIW, the banking code has the following points of interest* in this context;

They state they may ask for evidence. They state that 'we' (ie the Bank) determine a transaction is unauthorised.." In other words, they are the judge and jury (leavinga side FOS and the courts) They also say "unless we can prove you have acted fraudulently", but dont say to whom they have to prove it (I'm guessing its themselves. "So Mr Bradford, do you think thats fraud?"..."certainly, Mr Bingley")

Their 'proof' usually seems to consist of the negative sort 'well there is nothing wrong with our systems so therefore we have proved you acted fraudulently', as per the CT example and many others.

The chip part of it is, IIUC, harder to clone and thus the original card is needed, in theory. However, a lot of the World will still be using the stripe instead of the chip - for a long time to come..

If you steal a c&p card, you can't use it at a retailer set up for c&p without also having the pin, in theory. However, observing from the supermarket queue, it certainly hasn't happened yet.

However, what happens to the criminals who do credit card crime the old fashioned way? Do they go and get a proper job? Or adapt their methods to suit?

When the average person has a c&p card, mugging the average person is most likely to provide a card. Just shoulder-surf the pin first. Those will get you cash from ATMs, rather than goods from inside a shop with people around. If the mugged are not in a fit state to get the card stopped for a few days, so much the better.

If ccc were to disable ATM cash withdrawal for cards by default - so only those that asked for it, had it - I would consider having a c&p. It would put things roughly back where they were/are, with few people having pins and using them with cc in atm.

Until they do, I will stick to my new c&s cards and stop worrying about shoulder-surfing and whether the pin entry box is real or bogus..It would be so easy for a salesperson to have a "special" box to use for selected sales - and tip the wink to a friend outside the shop..

I'm not so sure about that, AFAICS from reading the literature, it reduces the ability to duplicate the chip but nothing else. It doesn't at all reduce the ability to copy the mag strip, alter it to say 'not C&P', and use it in an ATM (AIUI). It does let the banks switch the burden of proof onto customers though.

In message , Tumbleweed writes

But you asked the question 'How does C&P cut card crime'. I contend that, as most card crime (by value) is through card cloning, C&P cuts card crime.

The groups to which we both contribute seem to be becoming obsessed with situations that are either hypothetical or so rare as to not be really relevant to the whole picture.

True. (Where customers are the retailers, after all that is where the vast majority of security failures arise)

I think the OP meant, duplicate the 'real' signature. When the slips are compared later it can be seen they arent the same.

Im surprised you take the risk of using a card as a payment method at all if you are worried. Why dont you stick to cash? Please dont say you are worried abut the security risk of carrying it.........