Would depend on bank - probably three wrong PIN's in a row (not
necessarily at same ATM) the card is 'blocked' and if a ATM, the card
is 'swallowed'. And if a card is 'swallowed' the bank may insist on a
re-issue and payment of lost card fee (I had a bit of brain fade one
day and had both ATM and credit cards swallowed - and that is what
I have a distant memory of a policeman being jailed when he insisted
somebody had taken money out of his account:-(
I also have a distant memory of a QC eventually being able to disclose
something he had kept secret as he feared it would bring the banking
system crashing down. He disclosed that at one major bank at least
there were only 3 sets in PIN numbers in use.
Are you thinking of John Munden?
"John Munden, as you may recall, was one of our local police constables,
who complained about six phantom withdrawals on his account with the
Halifax Building Society when he returned from holiday in Greece. Their
response was to have him prosecuted and convicted for attempting to
obtain money by deception."
On 08 Oct 2012 23:15:48 +0100 (BST), Theo Markettos
Crikey! From 1994 and yet sometimes when I am driving I forget where I
am going and even worse I often do not remember actually where I am
and I have to ask my wife if we have crossed the Orwell Bridge.
Time has come when PIN's should be five digit (Decades ago Post Office
engineers figured that 5 digit numbers were as much as people can
handle - hence letters on dials in the large cities - so people should
be able to handle 5 digit PIN's).
And customers should be able to change PIN's or disable cards via
internet banking, and disable cards via telephine banking.
On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:28:33 -0700, peterwn wrote:
Why use numbers - something a vast proportion of people find
problematic ? I still think the idea I saw 20 years ago, or thereabouts
(on "Tomorrows World" ?) where your "PIN" is actually a sequence of
presses related to faces.
Nowadays, it would be possible to supply your bank with (say) 10 pictures
of people you know - say family, friends. And associate each picture with
a series of facts. When you need to access your account, you are
challenged with a selection of faces, and a fact. Because the chances of
a thief picking great aunt edna's picture out, as a reply to "Who met
Churchill in 1944" are as high as to be practically impossible.
However, in the same way we have the unemployed we are prepared to pay
for, we have the security we are prepared to pay for.
The current system is poor but I have a feeling that your scheme could
make it trivial for someone who knows the victim well to access their
The same goes for all the 'memorable information' that banks think
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
That's really the problem. There was a rather similar story told on
yesterday's Moneybox programme, but about NatWest. The customer had
discovered multiple withdrawals of £50 or £100 had been made from his
account, adding up to quite a lot.
He reported them as fraudulent, and the bank said they had been made
over the counter at various branches without a PIN, under the bank's
system of "emergency withdrawals".
It was obvious that it wasn't him that did it, but they refused to
reimburse him, all the way up to the moment when they found it was going
to be the top story on Moneybox. One wonders how many times they refuse
to reimburse, but it *isn't* the top story on Moneybox or Money Mail.
Where does it say that he made a purchase? The article states the
opposite: "... Black says he couldn't possibly have passed on his
Barclaycard's pin to the thieves, as Barclays has alleged, because he
doesn't know it, or ever use it. He says he only uses the card to make
holiday bookings over the phone, which doesn't require the use of a
pin. Barclays has confirmed that he has not made any chip and pin
purchases using the card."
But later on he claims the PIN is not an obvious number such as a date
of birth or something as simple as 1234. How could he make such a
statement if he doesn't know what the PIN is? This apparent
inconsistency made me a bit suspicious about his story.
You are overlaying other people with your own ways and assuming they
must behave like you - probably this user as he had no use for the pin
didnt even bother to change it from the bank issued number. Therefor he
would know the pin if he looked it up from the issuing time and would
also know that the Bank would not issue a guessable sequence in the
first place even if he couldnt find the original issue pin.
What he probably meant was he hadn't memorised the PIN.
Which he wouldn't needed to have done, given that as
the bank admits, he never ever used the card for PIN
transactions. However when he subsequently checked
the number, having arrived home following the theft
he saw it wasn't an "obvious" number the thieves might
To me, the only questionable aspects are why, if he only
ever used the card for telephone transactions from home,
he carried it about with him, and why he ever opened the
PIN notification. Had this been intact and in his possesion
he would have had proof positive the PIN must have been
compromised without his knowledge.
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:25:02 +0100, michael adams wrote:
It was suggested a while back that upon receiving a card, you should
scratch the CVV number off it (after memorizing it). It's not needed for C
+P usage, and removing it means anyone handling your card can't clone it
for cardholder not present transactions.
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:26:42 +0100, Charlie+ wrote:
No, it's *only* use is for CNP transactions. Really, you should never
need to hand your card to anyone anyway. I can't recall where I read it
now, but there was a warning a while back that you should be especially
wary of situations where you are required to hand your card to someone
for a C+P transaction - a lot of card fraud originates in cards that are
swiped to be cloned for use in non C+P countries. The scam goes something
like you hand your card over, and it gets surreptitiously swiped before
going into the C+P reader.
Never ever let your card out of your sight. Restaurants are probably the
riskiest places, as it's trivial to engineer a situation where you have
handed over your card, and the waiter has to "go and get the machine".
BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee
neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.