Friday 21st October 2005
Chip and Pin
Chip and Pin, Eh? (1,2,3). Ed, you’re wrong - if you have your card in your pocket, and you haven’t disclosed you PIN to anyone, you aren’t liable for any transactions that take place. It’s exactly the same as with signatures. If you’ve lost your card, you’re liable for anything that takes place before you report it lost. It’s exactly the same as with signatures.
To the anonymous commentor on Ed’s weblog, it’s only for signature based fraud that the retailer is liable - without this clause, the retailers would never have converted to Chip and PIN in the first place.
And finally, I think Steve was right with the gist of his first article - Chip and PIN is better than signatures. Sure, it’s not perfect, but it’s better. The website that Ed links to (”Chip and Spin“, doyouseewhatthey’vedonethere) falls into the common trap of pointing out flaws that were in the old system as well - and so shouldn’t be implied as problems with Chip and PIN.
(Leaving alone the question as to how the anonymous poster managed to post…….)
prove i have not disclosed my PIN.
I walk into bank. point out how some swine has taken all my money. Ah, but they would have had to have had my PIN. so i *must* have given it to them…. how else would they have got it? its chip and PIN. its technology. Its infalliable….
Comment by Eddie — 21/10/2005 @ 5:32 pm
I doubt that it can be shown as infallible, but perhaps you’d be best of cutting up your debit cards?
Comment by Andy — 22/10/2005 @ 11:19 am