Chip&Sig refusal: Nationwide

Try Morgan Stanley.

They renewed my partner and I cards with chip & pin well before the expiry date. I didn't register them and cut them up. We continued to use the chip & sig cards. Come my expiry date they sent us new chip & sig card without asking. I would have moved cards if they hadn't, as it is we continue to enjoy using the cards for the majority of our transactions.

Fool Nationwide, that's what I say.

contact us and we will be happy to discuss your personal requirements and possible solutions that may be available.

So are you unable to key numbers into a keypad? Why on earth would you want a chip & sig otherwise?

Because with chip & sig you can prove you didn't sign the voucher. Come back when you've read the two recent (long) threads on this topic.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

... and with "Chip & PIN", no-one can prove that you *did* enter the PIN (when you didn't).

But the bank doesn't need to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that you did. They are likely to win a balance-of-probability action in circumstances when, say, someone has without your permission or knowledge borrowed your card (i.e. stolen it and then put it back).

Also, how sure can you be that the bank would not win if they claimed that you had disclosed your PIN, as opposed to it having been shoulder-surfed.

In message , GSV Three Minds in a Can writes

Only if they arent very good at copying your sig., after all, they have a specimen of it and can practice at will till they have got it right.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I find that hard to believe - it is likely that the true cardholder can prove that they were elsewhere at the time, and hence cannot have performed the transaction themselves. Further, full investigation would likely show a CCTV somewhere showing the actual perpetrator of the fraud, and hence show that the bank is wrong.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

How sure can the bank be that I would not win, when I claimed that some PIN terminals were inherently unsafe - and allowed onlookers to see the PIN however it were entered? The balance of probabilities works both ways, you know!

It is possible, but not likely. I sure as hell don't remember where I was at 6.13pm 3 weeks ago.

I think you'd need to be extremely lucky.

In principle it does, in practice the balance is likely to be tipped in favour of the richer party.

snip

Have you ever tried to access CCTV material?

We had some fairly major damage (around 2000 to repair) done to a 4 month old car, while it was parked with a CCTV pointing directly at it. The system cost millions and is run from a police control room. We had a two hour timeframe and even suspected it might have been a lorry that was parked nearby when we left the car.

We could not get anywhere at all. The police could not afford the time to examine the tapes. We were told we were lucky it was insured and would only cost us 150.

I think your chances of them searching several cameras in the immediate area would be precisely nil, unless it was a major assault or a murder. As for shops- by the time you got your credit card bill in they would have overwritten their tapes.

Neb

Similar experience, car was broken into, CCTV showed the breakin. However, the camera was of such poor quality, and the tapes had been reused so much, that they were useless for ID ing anyone or even givinga clue as to who it was(In this case the police did look at it)

In message , Tim writes

How?

Eh? This concept that there is CCTV everywhere, and also to a quality that can be relied upon, is a myth.

How does this alter the bank's position?

What I cannot understand is why they use very poor quality movie cameras rather than good quality time lapse digital images.

Apart from the resolution, reviewing would be much faster.

Flop

Because a 'moving' picture that does not differ from one frame to the next can be compressed down to almost nothing.

a series of still images cannot.

The still images require a significant increase in storage and when these devices were first installed storage was a big problem. Recent innovations probably mean that storage isn't any longer an issue for a new camera using modern media but this would result in a all the camera installations needing to be re-installed, not a trivial exercise.

tim

Poppycock.

Whilst a moving picture can be compressed very effectively because the differences from one frame to the next are very small, there's no reason a series of still images cannot have the same compression techniques applied to it. A moving picture, after all, *is* a series of still frames. Therefore the assertion that

is false for the simple reason that the volume of differences between one frame and another (say) 5 seconds later is probably much less, but at most no greater, than the aggregate of the (say) hundred sets of differences between each frame from a "moving" set of 101 frames spanning 5 seconds, if the scene is shot at 20 frames per second.

"Nebulous" wrote

Ask for a copy of all tapes showing yourself, under the DPA (as another poster suggested).

If you are on the tape, then they have to produce that data (data subject access reqirement). If they don't produce any tapes, then you can't have been there!

Which is a lot easier than I thought. I queued at a sub-postoffice today. The person in front of me used the keypad. I now know her PIN.

I suggested to the postmaster that the device should have higher side shields and it should be angled more to stop people in the line from being able to see it but he said that might give them problems with the Disablility Discrimination Act.

I can't help but think that if the DPA really requires the authorities to look through 100s of tapes to see if you are on them, that there has been an error in the drafting.

I don't think this will convince the judge. Everyone knows that the tapes are cyclically re-used and the absence of the one 'claimed' to show the subject proves nothing. .

I've been behind people *saying* the digits in their PIN as they typed it. :-/

Also, if you're concerned (as I am) about the "shoulder surf, then mug outside" attack, the attacker doesn't even need to *successfully* obtain your PIN in order to have the motivation to mug you for your card - they just need to *think* they have your PIN.

Best Regards, Alex.