Identity theft

Of course these people have a say. Presumably, to be efficient, this system has to be interlinked with the credit card swipe machine. One probably isn't going to get this without the co-operation of the Banks.

tim

Reply to
tim(yet another new home)
Loading thread data ...

I believe most of us have been in the habit of leaving our fingerprints on credit card slips for quite a long time. Unless you are wearing latex gloves, how can you avoid..?

Reply to
whitely525

Get yourself a Chip & Signature Card, and a 'Thumhprint' Pad. Instead of writing your signature on the signature strip, put your Thumbprint on it.

At a Chip & PIN retailers. Chip & Sig card is insterted into the Chip reader, you are not asked for a PIN but a transaction slip is produced for you to sign. Card is removed from the Chip reader, shops staff sees there's a print on the back of your card. You then submit your print on the shops copy of the transactions slip - where it says sign, in front of the shop assistant. It's easy to visually check the print. Advice to shopkeepers if they suspect a card is 'dodgy' is to handle it by the edges. In over six months of use, I've only been challenged once and that was in 'Thornton's who still use swipe and sign.

It would be wonderful though, if the card people put information on the chip or magstrip that the person presenting the card - Thumbprinted. What value this type of card to a crook?

Reply to
jjamies

Since people have been notoriously bad at checking fraudulent pictures, I find it hard to believe that "It's easy to visually check the print"...or perhaps only with the proviso that yes its easy, but its also easy to get it wrong. And where legally does a shop stand if they do get it wrong? After all, they didnt check a signature, presumably the bank could refuse to pay and the shop would be up shit creek without the proverbial..

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Tee hee hee...!!

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Totally agreed.

It would be interesting to set up an experiment, where one person "thumbprints" a card, but another person tries to use it in a retailer. I wonder how many would be able to spot that it's not the same print?

After all, every crook will also have a "thumbprint" which they can offer to the retailer -- and it's quite likely that it would be accepted as easily as the original, much more often than a forged signature!

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Exactly!

Reply to
Tim

Tumbleweed writes

Was there not a TV Docu on the reliability of fingerprint evidence a month or two ago?

Reply to
Gordon H

I doubt that, but lets say its true? I remove the thumbmark you stuck on the card, put my own on, hey presto, a perfect match! Maybe I even use a transparent latex patch over my thumb, and someone elses thumbprint,easy to do.

formatting link
[episode 59, there is a video of this on the web as well but cant be bothered to look for it.]

I can certainly imagine the card issuer saying "you have accepted an altered card without a signature strip, and without a signature, which is not in the Ts&Cs you signed, so we wont be paying up, please feel free to go to the police and see if they do anything,we dont care as we wont be refunding you".

BTW, I have no objection to this scheme were it to be properly set up, just the one-off implementation you have done. I am amazed anyone has agreed to accept it, I suppose they are just taking a chance, since were they to be defrauded, there chnaces of getting their money back are virtually zero.

Finally, were this to be implemented widely, it would be just as easy to defraud as a signature (see above.

However, taking a thumbprint when buying, seems like a reasonable half way house to me, but if it became common I think sales of transparent latex would rise.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

There have been loads of trials with it and cheques for years, it neer got anywhere.

Jim.

Reply to
Jim Ley

You = consumer.

Reply to
James

Advice from APACS to retailers is; if you think a card is suspect and retain it, handle it by the edges to preserve prints.

What APACS said about 'Thumprinting' (August 2001)

APACS disputes police figures of a 75% drop and says the system will not work on phone and internet transactions. Spokesperson Richard Tyson-Davies said: "I would want to see some properly constituted research before I believe the 75% drop.

Reality, (October 2002)

In the first ten months of the scheme, Inverness has seen a reduction in the numbers of incidents involving credit card fraud by a staggering

81.2%. The thefts of handbags, purses and wallets has also reduced by 54.5%. As there are far fewer premises where stolen credit cards can be usedas a result of the initiative, this makes Inverness a safer place to shop. Within Ross-shire fraudulent cheque and credit card incidents have fallen by 83.3%.

A Retailers Experience (February 2006)

February 2006 She said the shop, which does not have the chip and pin system, had been operating the scheme for five years and Ms Bryant's complaint was the first it had received. "We've not had one incident of fraud in those five years... we will continue with the scheme," she said.

Retailers have successfully used Prnts to deter fraud - You can use your PRINT to protect your from ID theft.

Reply to
James

"James" wrote

Could that possibly be because the retailer isn't capable of properly comparing prints, and they need to preserve them for the real experts in the police to look at them?

This just goes to show that using prints on the back of a card instead of a signature, for the retailer to compare themselves, is a silly idea!

Reply to
Tim

I doubt you'd say that if it were your card that had been used fraudulently and you were disputing the transaction. I bet you'd thank the retailer for taking the crooks print, especially if and when they were caught.

Just how effective it can be was demonstrated at Stones clothing stores in Chichester and Bognor Regis, West Sussex.

A woman used cheques she had just stolen from a policewoman's car to buy £1,500 worth of clothes.

Both stores insisted she give her thumbprint. When the cheques bounced, Ian Hendry, the stores' owner, forwarded the thumbprints to the police.

The woman had form, was quickly identified, arrested and found guilty in court.

(Stolen & Cloned Cards have been left on counters)

Reply to
James

"James" wrote

I would say it whether or not that were the case. Why do you "doubt it"?

"James" wrote

My dispute would be: "hey, I reported the card stolen as soon as it happened, and well before the crook used it, so jolly well reverse those invalid transactions!" (and quoting the Banking Code).

"James" wrote

Why? If anyone should thank the retailer it's the bank and /or the police. It wouldn't help *me* one iota either way.

Reply to
Tim

It sounds extremely dangerous (to the cardholder) to me.

Anyone who gets hold of a credit card like this may well have a several hour window to make a "gummy finger" clone of the fingerprint and use the card fraudulently before it's reported as stolen.

Even if the print were not printed on the card (which makes more sense) the odds are that any prints on the card will be the cardholders. A crook could lift any good print on the card and use that. The cardholder would then have to defend against a case of fraud brought against them where they used a different finger to claim that it wasn't them making the transaction.

A slightly less sophisticated crook would leave some random persons print. This means they have unlimited time to prepare the print. A police officers prints might be a good target (although I'd be very surprised if the police kept their prints on record although they are obviously likely to leave them at scenes of crime from time to time and will need to be eliminated from the enquiry)

Tim.

Reply to
google

So it didnt stop the theft then?

...and was then cautioned and let off?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

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.