Powaqoatse posted:

yeah that. we called it a fluesmækker (flyswatter) for some reason

Powaqoatse posted:

denmark did, since 1984

for a period in the beginning you could use the kachunk thing tho

Jimmy Carter posted:

Every major retailer has a handful of those in the back somewhere, so that if their POS systems go down they can still take an imprint of your card and charge you later. They pay the card-not-present fee, and if your card doesn't have raised lettering they can't use it.

Subjunctive posted:

why do they pay card-not-present if they have a physical record of the card? I thought CNP was for online purchases and the like

Cocoa Crispies posted:

presumably because while the card is present at the point and time of sale it's not present when the transaction is communicated to the credit card network? idk

haveblue posted:

that and probably just as a punitive measure to eliminate the method when not necessary

ymgve posted:

I assume the Danish thing you're talking about is https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankort which is not actually related to VISA at all except both functions can fit on one card. Lots of nations had their own custom card system, and I guess quite a few of them used PIN from the beginning.

Also this is what I was talking about earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_w352BS-Q&t=1344s

Sure, Chip & PIN increases the safety for consumers in contrast with magstripes, but the fact that it was safer was used as a sledge hammer to shut down customer disputes.

quote:

Since widespread implementation of EMV chip-and-PIN in 2004, counterfeit fraud declined drastically on UK-issued cards. Fraud losses from counterfeit cards have fallen by over 63 percent. In fact, in 2004 counterfeit card fraud accounted for over 25 percent of all card fraud on UK issued cards compared to 13 percent by the end of 2010. Domestic counterfeit card fraud fell
6
to £17 million in 2010 from £46 million in 2006 and now represents only 6 percent of all domestic card fraud.


However, counterfeit fraud on UK-issued cards has not been on a continuous decline since chip- and-PIN implementation in 2004. Interestingly, counterfeit fraud rose significantly in 2007 and 2008 as UK card issuers experienced a dramatic increase in cross-border counterfeit fraud. Since UK-issued chip cards still contain a mag stripe, fraudsters are able to capture card data off the mag-stripe and commit fraud in countries that have yet to migrate to chip-and-PIN. As migration of chip-and-PIN increased in other countries, especially other European countries, losses from counterfeit cards abroad began to abate.

Cocoa Crispies posted:

presumably because while the card is present at the point and time of sale it's not present when the transaction is communicated to the credit card network? idk

quote:

A card not present transaction (CNP, MO/TO, Mail Order / Telephone Order, MOTOEC) is a payment card transaction made where the cardholder does not or cannot physically present the card for a merchant's visual examination at the time that an order is given and payment effected, such as for mail-order transactions by mail or fax, or over the telephone or Internet.

jre posted:

Since chip & pin was introduced card holder present fraud has reduced 69%

jre posted:

Since chip & pin was introduced card holder present fraud has reduced 69%

anthonypants posted:

i asked digicert a question about getting a certificate reissued and when their csr had closed the chat i was asked if they had done a good job, and given the options "yes, reward him" and "no, rebuke him"

anthonypants posted:

i asked digicert a question about getting a certificate reissued and when their csr had closed the chat i was asked if they had done a good job, and given the options "yes, reward him" and "no, rebuke him"

ymgve posted:

chip&pin is good but the only reason banks agreed to switch the infrastructure in the first place is because they could shift liability away in the few cases where chip&pin fraud legitimately happened

ymgve posted:

I assume the Danish thing you're talking about is https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankort which is not actually related to VISA at all except both functions can fit on one card. Lots of nations had their own custom card system, and I guess quite a few of them used PIN from the beginning.

...

Sure, Chip & PIN increases the safety for consumers in contrast with magstripes, but the fact that it was safer was used as a sledge hammer to shut down customer disputes.

Powaqoatse posted:

yeah dankort. anyway it didnt change customer liability here, so sucks to be u i guess

quote:

According to the Lending Code, the consumer is liable for the cost of fraud - that is, must pay the cost of the fraudulent transaction - when:

They've acted fraudulently: it's a criminal offence, though it's up to the lender to prove that this has actually taken place.
They've acted without reasonable care: by, for example, writing down the card PIN number. Again, it's up to the card provider to prove negligence, they cannot assume it.
They failed to inform the bank that a card was lost or stolen or that someone knows their PIN: though they're only liable to pay up to £50 and banks often clear even that amount.
When shopping online, they didn't use the card provider's 3D Secure system (e.g. Verified by Visa, Mastercard Secure Code).
If an additional cardholder is liable for any of the reasons above.

wyoak posted:

Most card-present fraud is fixed with the chip, since that should prevent card cloning (and the new readers are generally more resistant to tampering and do clever stuff like encrypt-on-swipe). The PIN just prevents someone from using the card you left at the bar, which is a minority of fraudulent transactions (no one really seems to know what percentage is tho)

Either way the consumer isn't liable, and lol if you think the banks will pass on any savings that they might see with PIN vs signature

fishmech posted:

idgi what savings do you think there are to pass down. my cards are already free and so are my accounts??

WAR DOGS OF SOCHI posted:

Any credit/debit card infrastructure/procedural changes are part of the eternal battle between banks and merchants to foist any and all costs and liabilities onto the other.

wyoak posted:

Most card-present fraud is fixed with the chip, since that should prevent card cloning (and the new readers are generally more resistant to tampering and do clever stuff like encrypt-on-swipe). The PIN just prevents someone from using the card you left at the bar, which is a minority of fraudulent transactions (no one really seems to know what percentage is tho)

Either way the consumer isn't liable, and lol if you think the banks will pass on any savings that they might see with PIN vs signature

akadajet posted:

I miss being able to swipe my card. It just worked without delays and angry buzzing noises.

akadajet posted:

I miss being able to swipe my card. It just worked without delays and angry buzzing noises.

hackbunny posted:

nfc cards are hella fast

anthonypants posted:

https://twitter.com/SINON_REBORN/status/913493359846715393

akadajet posted:

I miss being able to swipe my card. It just worked without delays and angry buzzing noises.

ate poo poo on live tv posted: