Chip and pin in the news again

wrote

It's always been difficult to " *prove* you've been a victim of fraud", but luckily the consumer doesn't need to. The bank needs to prove their case, not the other way around!

You can't have both! Which do you agree with - that the banks believe it is infallible, or fallible?

At 13:44:05 on 07/06/2006, s snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com delighted uk.finance by announcing:

"'This case has been re-investigated and it appears that you have been a genuine victim of fraud. I am satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest you have been a victim of a cloned card. I believe the person who took your card may have observed you enter your Pin when you undertook your last know genuine transaction.'"

So no evidence of a 'liability shift' here.

"The APACS spokesman insisted that there was no evidence of any cloned SDA card fraud in the UK. He said: 'DDA is kept under consideration and if it looks like cards are under attack then the decision to upgrade will be taken.'"

More accurately, when it becomes more cost-effective to implement DDA than take the directly-SDA-related fraud hit it will be done. The terminal hardware is already capable of supporting DDA so it will 'just' need the cards to be reissued and perhaps application upgrades where necessary.

Actually most of the liability has shifted from the bank to the retailer. Banks in genral are run by utter bastards who pass the consequences of their poor decisions on to anyone else they can think of.

It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their PIN.

I can't understand why, as the card industry themselves can not guarantee PIN integrity, therefore how can they possibly hold anyone other than someone who wirtes their PIN down and keeps it with their card as being negligent.

The bottom line is, if you don't want a PIN, you don't have to have one. You can always demand a Chip & Signature Card.

At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:

And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?

Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following court proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the fighting spirit to take on the bank and will just accept that they've been robbed and that it's just their own bad luck.

At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

I don't think so.

Exactly. How many banks have gone that far without backing down? All businesses will try it on, and banks are no exception. You may as well say that the SoGA is useless because PC World don't think it applies to them.

Then you've missed the point.

The point is that in the absence of court proceedings there will still be innocent victims who back down at the first hurdle when their bank simply tells them they must have disclosed their PIN so they'll have to stand the loss. That's why the question is wrong. Although there has been no shift in liability, there is nevertheless a shift in suffering.

At 11:33:04 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Again, I don't think so.

And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations to the contrary there has been no shift in liability.

That may be the point as far as *you* are concerned, but it sure as hell ain't the *real* point. What matters *more* is who's actually going to end up out of pocket, and the attitude taken by banks is designed, so it seems, to ensure that it's going to be the customer, liable or not.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Now - isn't that the *real* point? ;-)

No, because too many people think that if the bank says something is so, then it must be. Too many people wouldn't know they even could fight the bank. Too many people wouldn't know how. Too many people couldn't afford the potential expense. Too many people don't have the time.

I agree that the /theoretical/ liability may not have shifted. My opinion is that /in practice/ the bank has a bigger stick to threaten the customer with - the fact that it's papier mache won't be evident to a lot of customers. And, as RR points out, it's practice, not theory, that matters.

"Mike Scott" wrote

You could say those things about *every* injustice in this world. So what's special about Chip&PIN?

"Mike Scott" wrote

Good.

"Mike Scott" wrote

If that is so, then it applies to *everything* in your relationship with the bank - not just Chip & PIN. Why single-out that one issue?

My opinion is that /in practice/ the bank has

If that is so, then it applies to *everything* in your relationship with the bank - not just Chip & PIN. Why single-out that one issue?

Easy answer, it's because the card industry offer an alternative to Chip & PIN, Chip & Signature and, according to the Banking Code, they should tell you about these cards and how they work.

Consumers do have a choice - PIN or continue to sign, it's just card issuers are falling down yet again and paying lip service to the code.

Disputes where signatures are involved favour the cardholder.

Disputes where PINs are involved favour the card issuer.

If card issuers can't ensure PIN integrity then how can the expect cardholders to have any faith in PINs?

That's the position for credit cards.

For debit cards, the money leaves your account, and you have to take active steps to get it back.

wrote

Proof? Not got any? Didn't think so!

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

One good reason to never use debit cards, and only use credit cards (amongst many other good reasons!).

No, it's the position for both.

Big snag! You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket tills with a CC, and if you withdraw cash with a CC you start paying interest right away. You can't plan your life around the fact that you might just be targeted for identity theft. They don't need your card details, they go in a couple of expensive stores, and run up instant credit on a store card using your name and address out of the phone book.