Chip and pin in the news again

The Mail had a couple of articles on chip & pin security recently,
<>
and
<>

Here are some quotes:
"THE chip and pin bank card system is so seriously flawed that millions
of customers are dangerously exposed to criminals, it was claimed last
night."

"According to Prof. Ross Anderson, a Cambridge University expert on
security systems, this [the bank blaming the customer] a problem a
growing number of consumers are facing. He says following the full
introduction of chip & Pin on February 14, it has become increasingly
difficult for consumers to prove they have been victims of fraud.

'Just as banks argued that cash machines were infallible in the early
1990s, they now believe chip & Pin in infallible,' he says. 'That's an
arrogant attitude to adopt and the liability for fraud appears to have
shifted from the bank to the consumer.' "

And the most interesting one:

"A spokesman for Association for Payment Clearing Services, which
speaks for the banks on plastic cards, admitted yesterday: 'Chip and
pin security is fallible.' "

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

<> wrote
> The Mail had a couple of articles on chip & pin security recently,
>
<
409624&in_page_id=7>
> and
>
<
409616&in_page_id=7>
> ...
> "... it has become increasingly difficult for
> consumers to prove they have been victims of fraud.

It's always been difficult to " *prove* you've been a victim
of fraud", but luckily the consumer doesn't need to. The
bank needs to prove their case, not the other way around!

> '... banks ... now believe chip & Pin in infallible ...'
> ...
> "A spokesman ... for the banks on plastic cards,
> admitted yesterday: 'Chip and pin security is fallible.' "

You can't have both!
Which do you agree with - that the
banks believe it is infallible, or fallible?

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 13:44:05 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

> The Mail had a couple of articles on chip & pin security recently,
> <
> 9624&in_page_id=7>

"'This case has been re-investigated and it appears that you have been a
genuine victim of fraud. I am satisfied that there is no evidence to suggest
you have been a victim of a cloned card. I believe the person who took your
card may have observed you enter your Pin when you undertook your last know
genuine transaction.'"

So no evidence of a 'liability shift' here.

> <
> 9616&in_page_id=7>

"The APACS spokesman insisted that there was no evidence of any cloned SDA card
fraud in the UK. He said: 'DDA is kept under consideration and if it looks like
cards are under attack then the decision to upgrade will be taken.'"

More accurately, when it becomes more cost-effective to implement DDA than take
the directly-SDA-related fraud hit it will be done. The terminal hardware is
already capable of supporting DDA so it will 'just' need the cards to be
reissued and perhaps application upgrades where necessary.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

On 7 Jun 2006 04:44:05 -0700, wrote:

> d the liability for fraud appears to have
> shifted from the bank to the consumer.' "

Actually most of the liability has shifted from the bank to the retailer.
Banks in genral are run by utter bastards who pass the consequences of
their poor decisions on to anyone else they can think of.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change in
liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
PIN.

I can't understand why, as the card industry themselves can not
guarantee PIN integrity, therefore how can they possibly hold anyone
other than someone who wirtes their PIN down and keeps it with their
card as being negligent.

The bottom line is, if you don't want a PIN, you don't have to have
one. You can always demand a Chip & Signature Card.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

>
> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change in
> liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
> PIN.

And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Alex wrote:

> At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
>
>>
>> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change in
>> liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
>> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
>> PIN.
>
> And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?

Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following court proceedings.
Often innocent customers lack the fighting spirit to take on the bank
and will just accept that they've been robbed and that it's just their
own bad luck.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

> Alex wrote:
>
> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance by
> > announcing:
> >
> >>
> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change in
> >> liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
> >> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
> >> PIN.
> >
> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?
>
> Wrong question.

I don't think so.

> You can only be "held liable" following court proceedings.

Exactly. How many banks have gone that far without backing down? All
businesses will try it on, and banks are no exception. You may as well say
that the SoGA is useless because PC World don't think it applies to them.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Alex wrote:

> At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance
>> > by announcing:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change
>> >> in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
>> >> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
>> >> PIN.
>> >
>> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?
>>
>> Wrong question.
>
> I don't think so.

Then you've missed the point.

>> You can only be "held liable" following court proceedings.
>
> Exactly. How many banks have gone that far without backing down? All
> businesses will try it on, and banks are no exception. You may as well
> say that the SoGA is useless because PC World don't think it applies to
> them.

The point is that in the absence of court proceedings there will still
be innocent victims who back down at the first hurdle when their bank
simply tells them they must have disclosed their PIN so they'll have to
stand the loss. That's why the question is wrong. Although there has
been no shift in liability, there is nevertheless a shift in suffering.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 11:33:04 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:

> Alex wrote:
>
> > At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
> > announcing:
> >
> >> Alex wrote:
> >>
> >> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance
> >> > by announcing:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change
> >> >> in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
> >> >> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
> >> >> PIN.
> >> >
> >> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?
> >>
> >> Wrong question.
> >
> > I don't think so.
>
> Then you've missed the point.

Again, I don't think so.

<snip largely irrelevant bit>

> Although there has been no shift in liability,

And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations to the contrary there
has been no shift in liability.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Alex wrote:

> At 11:33:04 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
> announcing:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>> > At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
>> > announcing:
>> >
>> >> Alex wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted
>> >> > uk.finance by announcing:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no
>> >> >> change in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more
>> >> >> cases of victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being
>> >> >> negligent with their PIN.
>> >> >
>> >> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held
>> >> > liable?
>> >>
>> >> Wrong question.
>> >
>> > I don't think so.
>>
>> Then you've missed the point.
>
> Again, I don't think so.
>
> <snip largely irrelevant bit>
>
>> Although there has been no shift in liability,
>
> And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations to the contrary
> there has been no shift in liability.

That may be the point as far as *you* are concerned, but it sure as hell
ain't the *real* point. What matters *more* is who's actually going to
end up out of pocket, and the attitude taken by banks is designed, so it
seems, to ensure that it's going to be the customer, liable or not.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> Although there has been no shift in liability,
> >
> Alex wrote:
> > And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations
> > to the contrary there has been no shift in liability.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> That may be the point as far as *you* are concerned,
> but it sure as hell ain't the *real* point. What matters
> *more* is who's actually going to end up out of pocket,
> and the attitude taken by banks is designed, so it seems,
> to ensure that it's going to be the customer, liable or not.

*Only* if the customer is stupid enough to back down.
If the customer *doesn't* back down, they will win!

Now - isn't that the *real* point? ;-)

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim wrote:
>>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>>> Although there has been no shift in liability,
>> Alex wrote:
>>> And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations
>>> to the contrary there has been no shift in liability.
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> That may be the point as far as *you* are concerned,
>> but it sure as hell ain't the *real* point. What matters
>> *more* is who's actually going to end up out of pocket,
>> and the attitude taken by banks is designed, so it seems,
>> to ensure that it's going to be the customer, liable or not.
>
> *Only* if the customer is stupid enough to back down.
> If the customer *doesn't* back down, they will win!
>
> Now - isn't that the *real* point? ;-)
>
>
>
No, because too many people think that if the bank says something is so,
then it must be. Too many people wouldn't know they even could fight the
bank. Too many people wouldn't know how. Too many people couldn't afford
the potential expense. Too many people don't have the time.

I agree that the /theoretical/ liability may not have shifted. My
opinion is that /in practice/ the bank has a bigger stick to threaten
the customer with - the fact that it's papier mache won't be evident to
a lot of customers. And, as RR points out, it's practice, not theory,
that matters.

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> >>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >>>> Although there has been no shift in liability,
>
> >> Alex wrote:
> >>> And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations
> >>> to the contrary there has been no shift in liability.
>
> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> That may be the point as far as *you* are concerned,
> >> but it sure as hell ain't the *real* point. What matters
> >> *more* is who's actually going to end up out of pocket,
> >> and the attitude taken by banks is designed, so it seems,
> >> to ensure that it's going to be the customer, liable or not.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > *Only* if the customer is stupid enough to back down.
> > If the customer *doesn't* back down, they will win!
> >
> > Now - isn't that the *real* point? ;-)
> >
"Mike Scott" wrote
> No, because too many people think that if the bank says
> something is so, then it must be. Too many people wouldn't
> know they even could fight the bank. Too many people
> wouldn't know how. Too many people couldn't afford the
> potential expense. Too many people don't have the time.

You could say those things about *every* injustice
in this world. So what's special about Chip&PIN?

"Mike Scott" wrote
> I agree that the /theoretical/ liability may not have shifted.

Good.

"Mike Scott" wrote
> My opinion is that /in practice/ the bank has
> a bigger stick to threaten the customer with...

If that is so, then it applies to *everything*
in your relationship with the bank - not just
Chip & PIN. Why single-out that one issue?

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

My opinion is that /in practice/ the bank has
> a bigger stick to threaten the customer with...


If that is so, then it applies to *everything*
in your relationship with the bank - not just
Chip & PIN. Why single-out that one issue?

Easy answer, it's because the card industry offer an alternative to
Chip & PIN, Chip & Signature and, according to the Banking Code, they
should tell you about these cards and how they work.

Consumers do have a choice - PIN or continue to sign, it's just card
issuers are falling down yet again and paying lip service to the code.

Disputes where signatures are involved favour the cardholder.

Disputes where PINs are involved favour the card issuer.

If card issuers can't ensure PIN integrity then how can the expect
cardholders to have any faith in PINs?

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Ronald Raygun wrote:

> Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following court
> proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the fighting spirit to take on
> the bank and will just accept that they've been robbed and that it's just
> their own bad luck.

That's the position for credit cards.

For debit cards, the money leaves your account, and you have to take active
steps to get it back.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

<> wrote
> Disputes where signatures are involved favour the cardholder.
> Disputes where PINs are involved favour the card issuer.

Proof? Not got any? Didn't think so!

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following
> > court proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the
> > fighting spirit to take on the bank and will just accept that
> > they've been robbed and that it's just their own bad luck.
>
"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
> That's the position for credit cards.
>
> For debit cards, the money leaves your account,
> and you have to take active steps to get it back.

One good reason to never use debit cards, and only
use credit cards (amongst many other good reasons!).

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Jonathan Bryce wrote:

> Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
>> Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following court
>> proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the fighting spirit to take on
>> the bank and will just accept that they've been robbed and that it's just
>> their own bad luck.
>
> That's the position for credit cards.
>
> For debit cards, the money leaves your account, and you have to take
> active steps to get it back.

No, it's the position for both.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim <> wrote
>> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
>> > Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following
>> > court proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the
>> > fighting spirit to take on the bank and will just accept that
>> > they've been robbed and that it's just their own bad luck.
>>
>"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
>> That's the position for credit cards.
>>
>> For debit cards, the money leaves your account,
>> and you have to take active steps to get it back.
>
>One good reason to never use debit cards, and only
>use credit cards (amongst many other good reasons!).
>
Big snag! You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket tills with a
CC, and if you withdraw cash with a CC you start paying interest right
away.
You can't plan your life around the fact that you might just be targeted
for identity theft.
They don't need your card details, they go in a couple of expensive
stores, and run up instant credit on a store card using your name and
address out of the phone book.
--
Name and address withheld <g>

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim wrote:
>
> *Only* if the customer is stupid enough to back down

Or frail and elderly, or has had 3 heart attacks already and does not
want the strees of going to court, or at the other end of the scale,
someone might decide that =A3100 may not be worth his time pursuing
through the courts because even if he won, he would not get compensated
for his time and lost earnings.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
> The point is that in the absence of court proceedings there will still
> be innocent victims who back down at the first hurdle when their bank
> simply tells them they must have disclosed their PIN so they'll have to
> stand the loss. That's why the question is wrong. Although there has
> been no shift in liability, there is nevertheless a shift in suffering.

There has been a shift in liability. Previously, I would not have been
liable for any retail transaction authorized by someone typing four
digits into some gadget.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> >> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> >> > Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following
> >> > court proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the
> >> > fighting spirit to take on the bank and will just accept that
> >> > they've been robbed and that it's just their own bad luck.
> >>
> >"Jonathan Bryce" wrote
> >> That's the position for credit cards.
> >>
> >> For debit cards, the money leaves your account,
> >> and you have to take active steps to get it back.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >One good reason to never use debit cards, and only
> >use credit cards (amongst many other good reasons!).
> >
"Gordon" wrote
> Big snag! ...

Simple solution!...

"Gordon" wrote
> You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket
> tills with a CC, and if you withdraw cash with
> a CC you start paying interest right away.

.... get a "cash machine" (only) card - not Debit Card.

"Gordon" wrote
> You can't plan your life around the fact that
> you might just be targeted for identity theft.
> They don't need your card details, they go in a couple
> of expensive stores, and run up instant credit on a store
> card using your name and address out of the phone book.

Which store will open a card a/c with just
your name and address, and no other ID?

Anyway, the easy solution there is to go ex-directory...

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> > The point is that in the absence of court proceedings there will still
> > be innocent victims who back down at the first hurdle when their bank
> > simply tells them they must have disclosed their PIN so they'll have to
> > stand the loss. That's why the question is wrong. Although there has
> > been no shift in liability, there is nevertheless a shift in suffering.
>
<> wrote
> There has been a shift in liability. Previously, I would
> not have been liable for any retail transaction authorized
> by someone typing four digits into some gadget.

.... and you still aren't (assuming it wasn't you,
and they weren't doing it with your permission).

*No* "liability shift".

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> "Tim" wrote:
> > *Only* if the customer is stupid enough to back down
>
<> wrote
> Or frail and elderly, or has had 3 heart attacks already
> and does not want the strees of going to court...

Then don't go to court - take it to the Ombudsman instead.

<> wrote
> ... or at the other end of the scale, someone might decide that
> £100 may not be worth his time pursuing through the courts...

That's his choice.

<> wrote
> ... because even if he won, he would not get
> compensated for his time and lost earnings.

Why not?

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim <> wrote
>
>"Gordon" wrote
>> You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket
>> tills with a CC, and if you withdraw cash with
>> a CC you start paying interest right away.
>
>... get a "cash machine" (only) card - not Debit Card.
>

That would be a downgrade, AFAIAC!

>"Gordon" wrote
>> You can't plan your life around the fact that
>> you might just be targeted for identity theft.
>> They don't need your card details, they go in a couple
>> of expensive stores, and run up instant credit on a store
>> card using your name and address out of the phone book.
>
>Which store will open a card a/c with just
>your name and address, and no other ID?
>
Kendals, in Manchester, and Debenhams.

Neither the stores 'security' people, nor the under-writing bank fraud
department would say what I/D had been used, in either case.
They even used the incorrect initial. ;-)

I have been burning or shredding my utility bills, receipts etc, since
long before it became standard advice.
--
Gordon

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 15:56:45 on 09/06/2006, Gordon delighted uk.finance by announcing:

> Tim <> wrote
> > > "Ronald Raygun" wrote:
> >>> Wrong question. You can only be "held liable" following
> >>> court proceedings. Often innocent customers lack the
> >>> fighting spirit to take on the bank and will just accept that
> >>> they've been robbed and that it's just their own bad luck.
> > >
> > "Jonathan Bryce" wrote
> > > That's the position for credit cards.
> > >
> > > For debit cards, the money leaves your account,
> > > and you have to take active steps to get it back.
> >
> > One good reason to never use debit cards, and only
> > use credit cards (amongst many other good reasons!).
> >
> Big snag! You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket tills with a CC,

Indeed. However, I just walk a few yards to the cashpoint outside the
supermarket which has the added bonus of not restricting me to £50.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> >"Gordon" wrote
> >> You don't get cash-back at the soopermarket
> >> tills with a CC, and if you withdraw cash with
> >> a CC you start paying interest right away.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >... get a "cash machine" (only) card - not Debit Card.
>
"Gordon" wrote
> That would be a downgrade, AFAIAC!

No, it would be an *additional* card, for extra flexibility!

> >"Gordon" wrote
> >> You can't plan your life around the fact that
> >> you might just be targeted for identity theft.
> >> They don't need your card details, they go in a couple
> >> of expensive stores, and run up instant credit on a store
> >> card using your name and address out of the phone book.
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >Which store will open a card a/c with just
> >your name and address, and no other ID?
> >
"Gordon" wrote
> Kendals, in Manchester, and Debenhams.
>
> Neither the stores 'security' people, nor the
> under-writing bank fraud department would
> say what I/D had been used, in either case.

You sound like you are talking from
the experience of an actual case...

"Gordon" wrote
> They even used the incorrect initial. ;-)

So that wouldn't be "ID theft" at all, they simply
defrauded the store by making-up a non-existent ID.
[Presumably the "person" with that initial did not exist?]

Surely you are not trying to suggest that they wanted
*you* to pay the bill in someone else's name?

If they tried with a different initial, do you think they
would have tried if it was a different surname?! :-(

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim <> wrote
>> >"Gordon" wrote
>> >
>"Gordon" wrote
>> Kendals, in Manchester, and Debenhams.
>>
>> Neither the stores 'security' people, nor the
>> under-writing bank fraud department would
>> say what I/D had been used, in either case.
>
>You sound like you are talking from
>the experience of an actual case...
>
Yes!

>"Gordon" wrote
>> They even used the incorrect initial. ;-)
>
>So that wouldn't be "ID theft" at all, they simply
>defrauded the store by making-up a non-existent ID.
>[Presumably the "person" with that initial did not exist?]
>
>Surely you are not trying to suggest that they wanted
>
The bills came here! The first one, I mistook for an unsolicited
attempt to persuade me to take their store card, as a card was attached
to the letter, and I almost scrapped it. Then 10 days later another
card arrived from the second store, and, - in the same post - the
statement for the first card account. The underwriting bank was the
same for both, and after I spoke to their fraud dept and forwarded the
paperwork to them, they eventually accepted that it was fraud, and it
cost me nothing. Except that they put extra security on my CC for a
year, which meant I could not use it for immediate 'collect' purchases.

>If they tried with a different initial, do you think they
>would have tried if it was a different surname?! :-(
>
Good question, What would you have done about similar cards/bills
arriving at your address? Could you (we) afford to just throw them
away? ;-)
--
Gordon Harris

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

> >"Gordon" wrote
> >> Kendals, in Manchester, and Debenhams.
> >>
> >> Neither the stores 'security' people, nor the
> >> under-writing bank fraud department would
> >> say what I/D had been used, in either case.
> >>
> >> They even used the incorrect initial. ;-)
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >So that wouldn't be "ID theft" at all, they simply
> >defrauded the store by making-up a non-existent ID.
> >[Presumably the "person" with that initial did not exist?]
> >
> >Surely you are not trying to suggest that they wanted
> >*you* to pay the bill in someone else's name?
> >
"Gordon" wrote
> The bills came here!

Just because they were sent to your address,
doesn't mean that they are for *you*!

Different initial = different name = *not* you.

"Gordon" wrote
> ... after I spoke to their fraud dept and forwarded the
> paperwork to them, they eventually accepted that it
> was fraud, and it cost me nothing. Except that they
> put extra security on my CC for a year, which meant
> I could not use it for immediate 'collect' purchases.

Your CC with whom?

Why did you let them mess up *your* credit,
when the fraud wasn't even in your name?

> "Tim" wrote
> >If they tried with a different initial, do you think they
> >would have tried if it was a different surname?! :-(
> >
"Gordon" wrote
> Good question, What would you have done about
> similar cards/bills arriving at your address? Could
> you (we) afford to just throw them away? ;-)

I'd return them, saying "person not at this address".
[And probably phone them up to discuss it beforehand.]

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Tim wrote:
> <> wrote
> > ... or at the other end of the scale, someone might decide that
> > =A3100 may not be worth his time pursuing through the courts...
>
> That's his choice.

It is fault of the system that puts him in a lose-lose situation.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

Alex wrote:
> At 11:33:04 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
>
> > Alex wrote:
> >
> > > At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
> > > announcing:
> > >
> > >> Alex wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance
> > >> > by announcing:
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change
> > >> >> in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
> > >> >> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with their
> > >> >> PIN.
> > >> >
> > >> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held liable?
> > >>
> > >> Wrong question.
> > >
> > > I don't think so.
> >
> > Then you've missed the point.
>
> Again, I don't think so.
>
> <snip largely irrelevant bit>
>
> > Although there has been no shift in liability,
>
> And *that* is the point. Despite the many protestations to the contrary there
> has been no shift in liability.

I am now liable if I am negligent with my PIN. Previously, I could be
as negligent as I liked with my PIN and not be liable for retail
transaction authorised by 4 digits instead of my signature. This is a
definite shift in liability.

Re: Chip and pin in the news again

At 17:53:57 on 12/06/2006, delighted uk.finance by
announcing:

>
> Alex wrote:
> > At 11:33:04 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by announcing:
> >
> > > Alex wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 11:00:15 on 08/06/2006, Ronald Raygun delighted uk.finance by
> > > > announcing:
> > > >
> > > >> Alex wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >> > At 22:53:08 on 07/06/2006, delighted uk.finance
> > > >> > by announcing:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> It's absolutely true according to the Banking Code there's no change
> > > >> >> in liability for the consumer, BUT, there are more and more cases of
> > > >> >> victims of PIN based fraud being accused of being negligent with
> > > their >> >> PIN.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > And how many cases of innocent customers ultimately being held
> > > liable?
> > > > >
> > > >> Wrong question.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Then you've missed the point.
> >
> > Again, I don't think so.
> >
> > <snip largely irrelevant bit>
> >
> > > Although there has been no shift in liability,
> >
> > And that is the point. Despite the many protestations to the contrary there
> > has been no shift in liability.
>
> I am now liable if I am negligent with my PIN.

You always were.

> Previously, I could be as negligent as I liked with my PIN and not be liable
> for retail transaction authorised by 4 digits instead of my signature.

But liable for any cash withdrawals which is actually the greater risk.

> This is a definite shift in liability.

Are you planning to be negligent with your PIN?