"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
*Never* ?"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
OK:-
-AND-
You can be negligent without intending to be.
What kind of proof is in principle available ?
Have you considered the decisions of the Ombudsman over the years ?
IIRC,those disputing a transaction where their PIN was used tended to lose, and badly.
Which is as one would expect. Why do you not expect it ?
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
How many of those cases were since the introduction of C+P?
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
Why?
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
Simply, because criminals can use PINs too. They could guess them They could "shoulder-surf" them. They could use "harvesters" - eg attached to ATMs.
Why do you think that criminals can't use PINs?!
""When are the researchers going to stop exaggerating their claims? They haven't cloned anything. Their 'cloned' cards will not work if the transaction goes online. ""
True when you are talking about buying goods or services using a retailers PIN entry device, but do you think crooks who clone cards and obtain PINs buy goods in shops? No, they hit ATMs for hard cash at anything between £250 and £500 at time.
At 10:15:43 on 16/06/2006, snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:
And so the banks are liable since their ATM is not EMV-capable; those transactions were performed using the magnetic stripe. It's a basic rule of EMV that the non-EMV link in the chain is responsible for any fraud.
""And so the banks are liable since their ATM is not EMV-capable; those
transactions were performed using the magnetic stripe. It's a basic rule of EMV that the non-EMV link in the chain is responsible for any fraud.""
How the fraudulent transaction was carried out is irrelevant if a PIN is use. It could have been a genuine card (stolen) or a counterfeit card.
Cardholders are not being believed when they say they weren't negligent with their PIN! Banks are putting pressure on consumers when consumers can easily avoid this by opting for Chip & Signature cards.
At 16:29:00 on 16/06/2006, snipped-for-privacy@tiscali.co.uk delighted uk.finance by announcing:
No, it's not. If it was not an EMV transaction then the non-EMV link is liable, in this case the ATM operator.
The words "some" and "something" are the crucial ones. AIUI, the amounts actually allowed for non-lawyers are insultingly low.
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
Agreed, but they are at odds with your comment that "claimants *never*do"!
AIUI the amounts paid are such a paltry proportion of earnings that to describe them as a contribution towards lost earning is actually ridiculous.
"Fergus O'Rourke" wrote
That probably depends a lot on your level of earnings.
The proportion maybe low for a high-earner, but very good for a low-earner...
Latest on Chip & sPIN or Chip & PIN insecurity was on You & Yours, BBC Radio 4 yesterday:, Mon 19 Jun.
Readers might like to listen to You and Yours for some cases where people have lost money through fraudulent use of their Chip&PIN and had the experience of the bank refusing to pay up.
""In France they can now clone chip to chip""
Sandara Quinn (the lady representing the card industry) and Nigel Evans MP failed to mention that consumers dont have to have PINs if they don't want them.
Chip & Signature cards are available for those who simply don't trust PINs
The lates poll by Computer Weekly: Do you trust the Chip & PIN payment system:
A CIFAS entry shouldn't affect your credit rating, it just means that they will make extra checks on the application before accepting it.
The point about a cloned card is that the machine won't know whether or not it is a cloned card or the real one.
It is usually limited to about £50 in the small claims track, which won't cover much.
Exactly so. I looked on it as increasing my security level. ;-)
At 22:37:10 on 28/06/2006, Jonathan Bryce delighted uk.finance by announcing:
That only applies to SDA cards.
CIFAS Registration not bad, but it is password based and costs £11.75 per year.
Can I suggest another solution that's
Proactive, rather than reactive.
Protects individuals if push becomes shove
Aids identification of perpetrators.
Like I said the whole aim of plastic in the first instance is to make it safer than carrying cash.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.