What happens if you chip stops working (chip and pin), can you still
buy goods without a PIN? If so, what is to stop a criminal frying a
chip by applying excessive voltage on the connections (or microwaving
it?) to put it out of action? Will the criminal they be able to buy
with a signature?
<> wrote in message
news:
> What happens if you chip stops working (chip and pin), can you still
> buy goods without a PIN? If so, what is to stop a criminal frying a
> chip by applying excessive voltage on the connections (or microwaving
> it?) to put it out of action? Will the criminal they be able to buy
> with a signature?
>
The card should report an error message 'contact your bank'.
It might still work in places where the magnetic strip is used to process a
transaction eg cash machines.
Eric Jones wrote:
> <> wrote in message
> news:
> > What happens if you chip stops working (chip and pin), can you still
> > buy goods without a PIN? If so, what is to stop a criminal frying a
> > chip by applying excessive voltage on the connections (or microwaving
> > it?) to put it out of action? Will the criminal they be able to buy
> > with a signature?
> >
>
> The card should report an error message 'contact your bank'.
> It might still work in places where the magnetic strip is used to process a
> transaction eg cash machines.
Only if the card is used in a CHIP environment. If used at an ATM it is
more than likely that the card (fall back to magstrip) can still be
used with PIN to withdraw cash.
In a shop who uses magstrip verification the the card can still be used
with a signature.
>From a liability perspective and if you never wish to use your credit
card to withdraw cash - Bin your PIN - No disputed transactions to
worry about and you probably wont be targettted for your 'PIN' by
fraudsters.
<> wrote in message
news:
> Eric Jones wrote:
>> <> wrote in message
>> news:
>> > What happens if you chip stops working (chip and pin), can you still
>> > buy goods without a PIN? If so, what is to stop a criminal frying a
>> > chip by applying excessive voltage on the connections (or microwaving
>> > it?) to put it out of action? Will the criminal they be able to buy
>> > with a signature?
>> >
>>
>> The card should report an error message 'contact your bank'.
>> It might still work in places where the magnetic strip is used to process
>> a
>> transaction eg cash machines.
>
> Only if the card is used in a CHIP environment. If used at an ATM it is
> more than likely that the card (fall back to magstrip) can still be
> used with PIN to withdraw cash.
>
> In a shop who uses magstrip verification the the card can still be used
> with a signature.
but at that point its up to the shop whether to go ahead or not ..they wont
be covered if its a fraudulent transaction.
>
>>From a liability perspective and if you never wish to use your credit
> card to withdraw cash - Bin your PIN - No disputed transactions to
> worry about and you probably wont be targettted for your 'PIN' by
> fraudsters.
>
Bin your PIN?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
> >>From a liability perspective and if you never wish to use your credit
> > card to withdraw cash - Bin your PIN - No disputed transactions to
> > worry about and you probably wont be targettted for your 'PIN' by
> > fraudsters.
> >
> Bin your PIN?
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
BIN your PIN! - Absolutlely - Get yourself a Chip & Signature card
instead.
Procedure (for the benefit of others). Chipped card is entered into
Chip Reader (PIN pad).
Chip is read. (At this point Chip & PIN cardholders enter their PIN -
but).
A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler to Sign (as is safer,
as reduces cardholder liability).
I've been using Chip & Signature cards now from the outset (after 15
Feb), with no problems.
<> wrote
> A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler
> to Sign (as is safer, as reduces cardholder liability).
You keep making statements like the one in brackets above,
but don't seem to have any proof whatsoever that they
are true. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?
Bitstring <>, from the wonderful person Tim
<> said
><> wrote
>> A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler
>> to Sign (as is safer, as reduces cardholder liability).
>
>You keep making statements like the one in brackets above,
>but don't seem to have any proof whatsoever that they
>are true. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?
It's clearly easier to prove you didn't produce a particular signature
than it is to prove the PIN number entered wasn't entered by you, or by
someone you had revealed it to.
Your liability in either case (if found guilty, or innocent) is the
same, however your chances of proving 'it wasn't me' are much better
with a signature. Even proving you were elsewhere will do (even the
tackiest banks have not yet postulated the concept of 'passing on your
signature for someone else to use').
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Google may be your friend, but groups.google.com posters definitely aren't.
> ><> wrote
> >> A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler
> >> to Sign (as is safer, as reduces cardholder liability).
> >
> "Tim" wrote
> >You keep making statements like the one in brackets above,
> >but don't seem to have any proof whatsoever that they
> >are true. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?
>
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
> It's clearly easier to prove you didn't produce a particular
> signature than it is to prove the PIN number entered wasn't
> entered by you, or by someone you had revealed it to.
It's also clearly easier to prove that 2+2=4, than it is to prove that
Pi is a little over 3.1 -- but neither this nor your point are actually
relevant. The cardholder's liability is the same whether you have
Sig or PIN, the law & Banking Code have not changed there.
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
> Your liability in either case (if found guilty, or innocent) is the
same,...
Glad you agree!
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
> ... however your chances of proving
> 'it wasn't me' are much better with a signature.
*You* don't have to prove anything!
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
> Even proving you were elsewhere will do...
Which you could do just as easily if the fraudster used a PIN!
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
> (even the tackiest banks have not yet postulated the concept
> of 'passing on your signature for someone else to use').
And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
"Tim" <
>> ><> wrote
> It's also clearly easier to prove that 2+2=4,
go on then.....
Tim wrote:
>
> And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
> of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
> acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
Absolutley true, but what is also absolutely true is that the FOS has
been inundated with cases of PIN based fraud, where victims are being
treated as criminals.
Why be held responsible for something that you need not have - a PIN?
It's your choice PIN or Sign
> "Tim" wrote:
> > And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
> > of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
> > acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
>
<> wrote
> Absolutley true, but what is also absolutely true is that the
> FOS has been inundated with cases of PIN based fraud, ...
Have they found against any of the cardholders yet?
<> wrote
> ... where victims are being treated as criminals.
Don't be silly. They're not being locked up are they?
<> wrote
> Why be held responsible for something
> that you need not have - a PIN?
Because its uses far outway it's problems?
<> wrote
> It's your choice PIN or Sign
Exactly - and using a PIN is so much more convenient!
"Blackthorn" <> wrote in message
news:8qlvg.35827$
>
> "Tim" <
> >> ><> wrote
>
> > It's also clearly easier to prove that 2+2=4,
>
> go on then.....
>
>
a.. Start with the identity
? 20 = ? 20
b.. Express both sides in slightly different, yet equivalent ways
25 ? 45 = 16 ? 36
c.. Factor both sides
d.. Add the same thing to both sides
e.. Now factor both sides again
f.. Square root both sides
g.. Cancel the common factor
5 = 4
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:17:41 +0100, "Tim" <> wrote:
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
>> > of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
>> > acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
>>
><> wrote
>> Absolutley true, but what is also absolutely true is that the
>> FOS has been inundated with cases of PIN based fraud, ...
>
>Have they found against any of the cardholders yet?
Doesn't matter, the cardholders have already paid significant
penalties, you may say it makes a difference if you pay 1000 in being
liable, or 1000 in lost time fighting the case, but I don't.
>Don't be silly. They're not being locked up are they?
Not all criminals are locked up.
Jim.
Blackthorn wrote:
> go on then.....
I think you're right. You can "measure" Pi with a big bit of paper, some
string and a ruler. Proving 2+2=4 is a little harder, requires a deep
knowledge of maths and set theory!
There's some interesting stuff here
:-)
--
Jeremy Sanders
Tim wrote:
>>> <> wrote
>>>> A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler
>>>> to Sign (as is safer, as reduces cardholder liability).
>> "Tim" wrote
>>> You keep making statements like the one in brackets above,
>>> but don't seem to have any proof whatsoever that they
>>> are true. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?
> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>> It's clearly easier to prove you didn't produce a particular
>> signature than it is to prove the PIN number entered wasn't
>> entered by you, or by someone you had revealed it to.
>
> It's also clearly easier to prove that 2+2=4, than it is to prove that
> Pi is a little over 3.1 -- but neither this nor your point are actually
> relevant. The cardholder's liability is the same whether you have
> Sig or PIN, the law & Banking Code have not changed there.
>
> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>> Your liability in either case (if found guilty, or innocent) is the
> same,...
>
> Glad you agree!
>
> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>> ... however your chances of proving
>> 'it wasn't me' are much better with a signature.
>
> *You* don't have to prove anything!
>
> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>> Even proving you were elsewhere will do...
>
> Which you could do just as easily if the fraudster used a PIN!
I get that deja vu feeling......
Yes, that statement is true. But /you/ are the only one supposed to
know your PIN -- so you are open to accusations of carelessness or
deliberate divulging of it, either of which would make you liable. That
is not true of a signature.
From a purely technical pov, the liability issues are the same - but
there are extra avenues open to the banks to make life difficult for the
punter.
>
> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>> (even the tackiest banks have not yet postulated the concept
>> of 'passing on your signature for someone else to use').
>
> And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
> of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
> acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
Which won't stop the banks being difficult, and needing extra effort to
make them back down.
But this has been regularly discussed lately; no agreement reached; and,
as they say, the music goes around and around.....
--
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)
"Jeremy Sanders" wrote
> You can "measure" Pi with a big
> bit of paper, some string and a ruler.
Would you need a calculator with that, too?
"Jeremy Sanders" wrote
> Proving 2+2=4 is a little harder, requires a
> deep knowledge of maths and set theory!
Nah, you just need to be able to count to 'four'...
Place 'two' stones on the ground next to each other.
Now place 'two' more next to them.
Now count the stones ... how many are there?
'Four'? Yippee!
You see, it's all down to what your
*definition* of "two" and "four" are...
"Tim" <
> "Jeremy Sanders" wrote
>> You can "measure" Pi with a big
>> bit of paper, some string and a ruler.
>
> Would you need a calculator with that, too?
>
> "Jeremy Sanders" wrote
>> Proving 2+2=4 is a little harder, requires a
>> deep knowledge of maths and set theory!
>
> Nah, you just need to be able to count to 'four'...
>
> Place 'two' stones on the ground next to each other.
> Now place 'two' more next to them.
> Now count the stones ... how many are there?
> 'Four'? Yippee!
>
> You see, it's all down to what your
> *definition* of "two" and "four" are...
Your definition of two is that it is 'two stones'?
Tim wrote:
> You see, it's all down to what your
> *definition* of "two" and "four" are...
(note my smiley earlier) I think most maths people would claim "two" and
"four" can exist without stones, and just require a small set of axioms.
Anyway, can you prove -2+2 = 0 with stones?
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Sanders
wrote:
>
> Tim wrote:
>>
>> And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
>> of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
>> acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
>
> Absolutley true, but what is also absolutely true is that the FOS has
> been inundated with cases of PIN based fraud,
"Inundated"? You have stats?
--
Chris
"Mike Scott" <> wrote in message
news:bGnvg.10812$
> Tim wrote:
>>>> <> wrote
>>>>> A transaction slip is produced for the Cardhodler
>>>>> to Sign (as is safer, as reduces cardholder liability).
>>> "Tim" wrote
>>>> You keep making statements like the one in brackets above,
>>>> but don't seem to have any proof whatsoever that they
>>>> are true. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people?
>> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>>> It's clearly easier to prove you didn't produce a particular
>>> signature than it is to prove the PIN number entered wasn't
>>> entered by you, or by someone you had revealed it to.
>>
>> It's also clearly easier to prove that 2+2=4, than it is to prove that
>> Pi is a little over 3.1 -- but neither this nor your point are actually
>> relevant. The cardholder's liability is the same whether you have
>> Sig or PIN, the law & Banking Code have not changed there.
>>
>> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>>> Your liability in either case (if found guilty, or innocent) is the
>> same,...
>>
>> Glad you agree!
>>
>> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>>> ... however your chances of proving
>>> 'it wasn't me' are much better with a signature.
>>
>> *You* don't have to prove anything!
>>
>> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>>> Even proving you were elsewhere will do...
>>
>> Which you could do just as easily if the fraudster used a PIN!
>
> I get that deja vu feeling......
>
> Yes, that statement is true. But /you/ are the only one supposed to know
> your PIN -- so you are open to accusations of carelessness or deliberate
> divulging of it, either of which would make you liable. That is not true
> of a signature.
>
> From a purely technical pov, the liability issues are the same - but there
> are extra avenues open to the banks to make life difficult for the punter.
>
>>
>> "GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote
>>> (even the tackiest banks have not yet postulated the concept
>>> of 'passing on your signature for someone else to use').
>>
>> And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
>> of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
>> acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
>
> Which won't stop the banks being difficult, and needing extra effort to
> make them back down.
>
> But this has been regularly discussed lately; no agreement reached; and,
> as they say, the music goes around and around.....
>
> --
> 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)
I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit card that
is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the machine cannot read
the chip.
This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
"Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit card
> that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the machine
> cannot read the chip.
> This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
>>
>> I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit card
>> that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the machine
>> cannot read the chip.
>> This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
>
> How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
>
> --
> Tumbleweed
>
> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>The ATM 's software is being updated. This is because of rising fraud using
>cloned cards at cashpoints.The machines will be able to 'read' the chips.
"Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>
>>>
>>> I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit card
>>> that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the machine
>>> cannot read the chip.
>>> This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
>>
>> How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
>>
>> --
>> Tumbleweed
>>
>> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
>> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>>The ATM 's software is being updated. This is because of rising fraud
>>using cloned cards at cashpoints.The machines will be able to 'read' the
>>chips.
>
I'll ask again but spelling it out, how does it know if the card is C&P
enabled _if it cant read the chip_?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
"Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit card
>>>> that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the machine
>>>> cannot read the chip.
>>>> This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
>>>
>>> How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tumbleweed
>>>
>>> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
>>> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>>>The ATM 's software is being updated. This is because of rising fraud
>>>using cloned cards at cashpoints.The machines will be able to 'read' the
>>>chips.
>>
>
>
> I'll ask again but spelling it out, how does it know if the card is C&P
> enabled _if it cant read the chip_?
>
> --
> But the ATM will be able to read the chip. If it cannot read it the
> transaction will be declined.Most UK ATM are already C&P enabled just that
> they are still running on the old magnetic strip software.
If you don't believe me you will have to try it out.
>
"Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>> "Tumbleweed" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>>
>>>> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit
>>>>> card that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the
>>>>> machine cannot read the chip.
>>>>> This will not of course apply to cashpoint cards only.
>>>>
>>>> How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tumbleweed
>>>>
>>>> email replies not necessary but to contact use;
>>>> tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
>>>>The ATM 's software is being updated. This is because of rising fraud
>>>>using cloned cards at cashpoints.The machines will be able to 'read' the
>>>>chips.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll ask again but spelling it out, how does it know if the card is C&P
>> enabled _if it cant read the chip_?
>>
>> --
>
>> But the ATM will be able to read the chip. If it cannot read it the
>> transaction will be declined.Most UK ATM are already C&P enabled just
>> that they are still running on the old magnetic strip software.
> If you don't believe me you will have to try it out.
Who said I dont believe you? I just asked a simple question, "how does the
ATM know whether its a C&P card or not?". If you dont know, all you have to
do is say 'I dont know'.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
Tumbleweed wrote:
....
>>> But the ATM will be able to read the chip. If it cannot read it the
>>> transaction will be declined.Most UK ATM are already C&P enabled just
>>> that they are still running on the old magnetic strip software.
>> If you don't believe me you will have to try it out.
>
>
> Who said I dont believe you? I just asked a simple question, "how does the
> ATM know whether its a C&P card or not?". If you dont know, all you have to
> do is say 'I dont know'.
>
I imagine there's a bit on the stripe that says "use the chip" ?????
--
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)
Mike Scott wrote:
> I imagine there's a bit on the stripe that says "use the chip" ?????
And bits on the stripe are impossible to change! :-)
--
Jeremy Sanders
"Tim" <> wrote in message
news:
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > And also the courts have *not* agreed that "use
>> > of a PIN by a fraudster proves the cardholder
>> > acted fraudulently or without reasonable care."
>>
> <> wrote
>> Absolutley true, but what is also absolutely true is that the
>> FOS has been inundated with cases of PIN based fraud, ...
>
> Have they found against any of the cardholders yet?
[snip]
Can't say, but in the old days of the Banking Ombudsman, "they" nearly
always did, until enlightenment dawned.
Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Mike Scott wrote:
>
>> I imagine there's a bit on the stripe that says "use the chip" ?????
>
> And bits on the stripe are impossible to change! :-)
>
So Sandra what's-her-name would have us believe.
--
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)
At 21:23:13 on 19/07/2006, Tumbleweed delighted uk.finance by
announcing:
>
> "Eric Jones" <> wrote in message
> news:
>
> >
> > I can tell you that from early next month any credit card or debit
> > card that is chip and pin enabled will be refused at ATM's if the
> > machine cannot read the chip. This will not of course apply to
> > cashpoint cards only.
>
> How does it know if the card is C&P enabled?
The service code on the mag stripe indicates the presence of a chip.
No, it's not impossible to change this; indeed, it's the work of a few
seconds with a few pounds' worth of equipment. It all depends on
whether the track data itself is sent to the issuer for authentication;
this would eliminate that as a means of attack.
However, all the above still means nothing if the card is taken abroad
to a machine without a chip reader.
"Mike Scott" <> wrote in message
news:LpIvg.15387$
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> ...
>>>> But the ATM will be able to read the chip. If it cannot read it the
>>>> transaction will be declined.Most UK ATM are already C&P enabled just
>>>> that they are still running on the old magnetic strip software.
>>> If you don't believe me you will have to try it out.
>>
>>
>> Who said I dont believe you? I just asked a simple question, "how does
>> the ATM know whether its a C&P card or not?". If you dont know, all you
>> have to do is say 'I dont know'.
>>
>
> I imagine there's a bit on the stripe that says "use the chip" ?????
>
That was my understanding also. No loophole there then. NOT.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > ... "how does the ATM know
> > whether its a C&P card or not?"...
>
"Mike Scott" wrote
> I imagine there's a bit on the stripe
> that says "use the chip" ?????
Why not simply have a new question
appear on the screen at the ATM:-
"Are you a criminal? Yes / No..."
Because, of course, all criminals
will say "Yes" -- won't they? ;-)
"Tim" <
>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>> > ... "how does the ATM know
>> > whether its a C&P card or not?"...
>>
> "Mike Scott" wrote
>> I imagine there's a bit on the stripe
>> that says "use the chip" ?????
>
> Why not simply have a new question
> appear on the screen at the ATM:-
> "Are you a criminal? Yes / No..."
>
> Because, of course, all criminals
> will say "Yes" -- won't they? ;-)
>
Sounds like the US immmigration visa form. Or on the docks at Miami where
you slef check your boat in, and the sign says ;'call this no if you are
carrying any illegal drugs'.
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com