Chip and PIN cards
Nov 6th, 2009, 09:10 AM
#43
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say that, at worst, you have as much chance of getting defrauded in Europe as the US. As with anything to do with money, common sense should apply no matter where you are going.
But I would never be "on special alert" when going to Europe. I think we become comfortable and sloppy at home, not realizing how many opportunities for happen to us, and then when we go on trips we think that we need to be more vigilant.
Plus...you only hear fraud stories, you never hear non-fraud ones.
But I would never be "on special alert" when going to Europe. I think we become comfortable and sloppy at home, not realizing how many opportunities for happen to us, and then when we go on trips we think that we need to be more vigilant.
Plus...you only hear fraud stories, you never hear non-fraud ones.
Nov 6th, 2009, 09:30 AM
#44
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been victimized by credit card theft (cloning) three times, twice at home in the US and once in Europe. In each case, it was because some clerk stole the number who was working with these credit card/identity theft gangs which operate in parts of the former Soviet Union and in Nigeria. As noted, easy to remedy. But thank the good lord, never identity theft.
Look, common sense should prevail on all parts. 99% of the credit card fraud, I bet, doesn't take place at the merchant level. Rarely does a credit card thief go into a store, buy a large amount of goods and use somebody else's credit card. Too much danger of store surveillance cameras in this day and age or being recognized or whatever. The vast majority of credit card theft takes place online with stolen credit card numbers.
Having said that, yes I do try to be as careful as possible. And no I don't think every thing dones in the USA is great and elsewhere not so great. If anything, I tend to the other extreme. I dislike at home, for example, when going to a restaurant having to give my credit card to the waiter who takes it into a back room and then returns with the card and the receipt to sign. That is a place where credit card numbers can and are stolen. (That's what happened last December to me)...when I shop on line, my credit card company allows me to use a virtual account number which means they issue me a one time number for use on that transaction and that transaction only. The merchant never gets my actual credit card number which can, and has beeen compromised by hakcers into their computer system. If you notice, credit card charge slips no longer show the entire card number but just a few digits for the same reason.
I wish that in the US they would require all restaurants to have those portable terminals they use in Europe which they bring to your table so the card never leaves your sight.
Am I paranoid? Perhaps. But I stand by what I said. Common sense says that showing your ID to some stranger when using a credit card, when the credit card company itself says it isn't allowed, will subject you, to matter how mall it might be, to to chance of identity theft. I just don't see why this common sense approach has raised such an uproar here. It is advice I have gotten from some experts on credit cards on other blogs so I'm just passing along this piece of information. Even if the odds are 10,000 to 1, there's always this 1. The nastiness here on a common sense thing just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
But if you're happy with showing your id every time you use a credit card or invalidating your credit card by writing see ID on the signature panel, that is your every right and I sure don't demean you for it. I would rather be completely safe than sorry.
Look, common sense should prevail on all parts. 99% of the credit card fraud, I bet, doesn't take place at the merchant level. Rarely does a credit card thief go into a store, buy a large amount of goods and use somebody else's credit card. Too much danger of store surveillance cameras in this day and age or being recognized or whatever. The vast majority of credit card theft takes place online with stolen credit card numbers.
Having said that, yes I do try to be as careful as possible. And no I don't think every thing dones in the USA is great and elsewhere not so great. If anything, I tend to the other extreme. I dislike at home, for example, when going to a restaurant having to give my credit card to the waiter who takes it into a back room and then returns with the card and the receipt to sign. That is a place where credit card numbers can and are stolen. (That's what happened last December to me)...when I shop on line, my credit card company allows me to use a virtual account number which means they issue me a one time number for use on that transaction and that transaction only. The merchant never gets my actual credit card number which can, and has beeen compromised by hakcers into their computer system. If you notice, credit card charge slips no longer show the entire card number but just a few digits for the same reason.
I wish that in the US they would require all restaurants to have those portable terminals they use in Europe which they bring to your table so the card never leaves your sight.
Am I paranoid? Perhaps. But I stand by what I said. Common sense says that showing your ID to some stranger when using a credit card, when the credit card company itself says it isn't allowed, will subject you, to matter how mall it might be, to to chance of identity theft. I just don't see why this common sense approach has raised such an uproar here. It is advice I have gotten from some experts on credit cards on other blogs so I'm just passing along this piece of information. Even if the odds are 10,000 to 1, there's always this 1. The nastiness here on a common sense thing just doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
But if you're happy with showing your id every time you use a credit card or invalidating your credit card by writing see ID on the signature panel, that is your every right and I sure don't demean you for it. I would rather be completely safe than sorry.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:16 AM
#45
Well, having your credit card number stolen three times is indeed unlucky. I have been mugged twice and have had 4 passports stolen (plus I lost a 5th passport once -- my only memory of that event is saying to myself "don't put your passport there or you'll lose it!").
Since I am in charge of credit card sales at my airline, I know that the internet customers are operating at zero risk, since they are not signing a document and not providing their PIN number. We assume 100% of the risk, as per our contract. I have one investigation in progress at the moment, and it is just the 3rd one this year.
Since I am in charge of credit card sales at my airline, I know that the internet customers are operating at zero risk, since they are not signing a document and not providing their PIN number. We assume 100% of the risk, as per our contract. I have one investigation in progress at the moment, and it is just the 3rd one this year.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:21 AM
#46
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of English law is that a shopkeeper is not obliged to serve you at all. If you impose conditions on the transaction that the shopkeeper does not like, then he can simply refuse the transaction. If he notices that he has priced goods wrongly, you cannot insist on having the goods for the amount shown. A contract for sale does not exist until it has the agreement of both parties. A shopkeeper would therefore be quite within his rights in saying - either you show me some ID, or I don't sell the goods to you.
It is, however, illegal to deliberately misprice an item with the intention of deceiving the customer.
It is, however, illegal to deliberately misprice an item with the intention of deceiving the customer.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:30 AM
#47
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah kerouac...
So you're an expert on credit cards...as I said I don't mind having a discussion with people on these matters....I was only upset at the nastiness at what I thought was a sensible precaution I suggested.
We live in a wonderful technologically savy world where we can order thousands of dollars of merchandise from merchants we never heard of if they have the cheapest price and have it delivered directly to our homes with no fuss. But along with these technological advances, we have to live with the vermin trying to steal from whomever they can steal from and indeed I do understand that the merchants are at a disadvantage when dealing with the credit card companies as often they are left holding the bag.
But having said that, I just don't understand the fuss exhibited sometimes when I go into Boots, and buy £4.24 worth of stuff and am asked to produce ID to use my credit card. I will leave the argument aside as to whether it is fair or right to charge such a small amount (I adhere to a philosophy that you never spend cash on a trip unless 1000% necessary but that's me) do they really think somebody is going to rip them off for that small amount using a stolen credit card. Besides, if they get an authorization (which is now always gotten electronically anyway) and the signatures match, they are covered. My point was simply not that US law is better than English law (it is not a legal thing) but I want to take whatever precautions I can against what can be devestating trouble and what I'm trying to get across that while theft of your credit card number is troublesome and you don't really want it to happen, it is not catastrophic. My advice to all still remains....
1. don not write see id on the signature panel of your credit card.
2. if prompted for id, politely remind the person that mastercard (and visa) regulations prohibit them from not completing a transaction if they don't show any further id.
I'm really sorry if that attitude troubles people and equally sorry that people feel safer if they show their id.
But that's my take on it rightly or wrongly.
So you're an expert on credit cards...as I said I don't mind having a discussion with people on these matters....I was only upset at the nastiness at what I thought was a sensible precaution I suggested.
We live in a wonderful technologically savy world where we can order thousands of dollars of merchandise from merchants we never heard of if they have the cheapest price and have it delivered directly to our homes with no fuss. But along with these technological advances, we have to live with the vermin trying to steal from whomever they can steal from and indeed I do understand that the merchants are at a disadvantage when dealing with the credit card companies as often they are left holding the bag.
But having said that, I just don't understand the fuss exhibited sometimes when I go into Boots, and buy £4.24 worth of stuff and am asked to produce ID to use my credit card. I will leave the argument aside as to whether it is fair or right to charge such a small amount (I adhere to a philosophy that you never spend cash on a trip unless 1000% necessary but that's me) do they really think somebody is going to rip them off for that small amount using a stolen credit card. Besides, if they get an authorization (which is now always gotten electronically anyway) and the signatures match, they are covered. My point was simply not that US law is better than English law (it is not a legal thing) but I want to take whatever precautions I can against what can be devestating trouble and what I'm trying to get across that while theft of your credit card number is troublesome and you don't really want it to happen, it is not catastrophic. My advice to all still remains....
1. don not write see id on the signature panel of your credit card.
2. if prompted for id, politely remind the person that mastercard (and visa) regulations prohibit them from not completing a transaction if they don't show any further id.
I'm really sorry if that attitude troubles people and equally sorry that people feel safer if they show their id.
But that's my take on it rightly or wrongly.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:42 AM
#48
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>I would say that, at worst, you have as much chance of getting defrauded in Europe as the US.</i>
With regards to credit card fraud, you'd be wrong.
Credit card fraud is much more common in Europe than it is in the US. This is doubly true for the UK, where credit card fraud rates are exceptionally high.
Remember the downside to chip-and-pin systems. They have accompanied an increase in the prevalence of unattended terminals and they put the onus on the cardholder to protect their security. The system in the US puts the onus on the merchant much more so than in Europe.
Neither system is perfect. The troubling thing, to me, about the chip-and-pin system is that many seem to take it as a false sense of security, when the added layer of security it offers is quite minimal.
With regards to credit card fraud, you'd be wrong.
Credit card fraud is much more common in Europe than it is in the US. This is doubly true for the UK, where credit card fraud rates are exceptionally high.
Remember the downside to chip-and-pin systems. They have accompanied an increase in the prevalence of unattended terminals and they put the onus on the cardholder to protect their security. The system in the US puts the onus on the merchant much more so than in Europe.
Neither system is perfect. The troubling thing, to me, about the chip-and-pin system is that many seem to take it as a false sense of security, when the added layer of security it offers is quite minimal.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:47 AM
#49
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chartley...
That may be true everywhere (including the USA)..but at the same token the merchant has signed an agreement to accept credit cards and is bound by whatever the rules of the credit card company are...now obviuosly in any situation the merchant can say no id no sale and maintain that posture even after I (politely) explain this is a violation of the merchant's agreement with the credit card company. I don't question that for one second. However, at the same time, I then have a right to report said merchant to the credit card company since I went into the merchant's shop under the undersanding I would be able to charge the purchase to my credit card. And then the credit card company has the right (I'm not saying they do) to terminate the merchant's agreement and ability to accept that particular credit card.
This whole question is interesting and makes good bulletin board discussions on a civil level. Philosophically, my feeling is that when a merchant makes the decision to accept credit cards, he or she should be bound by the rules of the credit card company. And also, in setting his or her prices, the cost of credit card processing, and that includes the percentage paid to the credit card company, the monthly fee (if there is one), the price for the terminal (if there is one), the cost of maintaining the account into which the credit card receipts are deposited are all costs of running a business when establishing prices. Thus if you go into a shop that has credit card decals all over the place, you are paying something, whether you use your credit cards or not, in the merchant's establishment of prices. So in effect, yes indeed, cash payers are paying something for the fact the store accepts credit cards. Therefore why not use the credit cards? (A convoluted argument to be sure but an argument nonetheless).....
When I'm at home in the USA, I do resent it when I go into a merchant who insists on a minimum purchase amount for a use of a credit card as I know it is against their merchant agreement. Usually I have a polite discussion if they refuse and show them the credit card rule from MC (always want those miles, never can tell when the extra 5 miles might give me a free trip). If they still refuse to accept the credit card, I tell them I will report them to mastercard (there is a form on the mastercard web site to do so) and I have and I do. Whether that resolves anything is another matter.
Now, I do understand as I am often in London (have lots of friends there and visit 3 or 4 times a year) that apparently English law precludes the credit card companies from establishing this consumer protection on the merchant agreements there. I accept that (although I don't like it) but if that's the rule, that's the rule. What I do think is fair in this matter, however, is that if there is to be a minimum they should be forcd to have a prominent sign telling they have a rule for minimum use of a credit card so I am not embarassed when I take out my credit card to pay for £2.75 worth of goods. But the attitude I sometimes get is you should know that nobody accepts credit cards for small purchases in Europe (not true but more likely than in the USA). I think the same should hold on this question of showing ID. What I don't know, I admit, is whether or not credit card agtreements in other countries have this valuable consumer protection built in.
Now if somebody wants to tell me they disagree, fine. But I resent people suggesting I'm an ugly American, as some did inthis thread and in others, when I bring this matter up.
That may be true everywhere (including the USA)..but at the same token the merchant has signed an agreement to accept credit cards and is bound by whatever the rules of the credit card company are...now obviuosly in any situation the merchant can say no id no sale and maintain that posture even after I (politely) explain this is a violation of the merchant's agreement with the credit card company. I don't question that for one second. However, at the same time, I then have a right to report said merchant to the credit card company since I went into the merchant's shop under the undersanding I would be able to charge the purchase to my credit card. And then the credit card company has the right (I'm not saying they do) to terminate the merchant's agreement and ability to accept that particular credit card.
This whole question is interesting and makes good bulletin board discussions on a civil level. Philosophically, my feeling is that when a merchant makes the decision to accept credit cards, he or she should be bound by the rules of the credit card company. And also, in setting his or her prices, the cost of credit card processing, and that includes the percentage paid to the credit card company, the monthly fee (if there is one), the price for the terminal (if there is one), the cost of maintaining the account into which the credit card receipts are deposited are all costs of running a business when establishing prices. Thus if you go into a shop that has credit card decals all over the place, you are paying something, whether you use your credit cards or not, in the merchant's establishment of prices. So in effect, yes indeed, cash payers are paying something for the fact the store accepts credit cards. Therefore why not use the credit cards? (A convoluted argument to be sure but an argument nonetheless).....
When I'm at home in the USA, I do resent it when I go into a merchant who insists on a minimum purchase amount for a use of a credit card as I know it is against their merchant agreement. Usually I have a polite discussion if they refuse and show them the credit card rule from MC (always want those miles, never can tell when the extra 5 miles might give me a free trip). If they still refuse to accept the credit card, I tell them I will report them to mastercard (there is a form on the mastercard web site to do so) and I have and I do. Whether that resolves anything is another matter.
Now, I do understand as I am often in London (have lots of friends there and visit 3 or 4 times a year) that apparently English law precludes the credit card companies from establishing this consumer protection on the merchant agreements there. I accept that (although I don't like it) but if that's the rule, that's the rule. What I do think is fair in this matter, however, is that if there is to be a minimum they should be forcd to have a prominent sign telling they have a rule for minimum use of a credit card so I am not embarassed when I take out my credit card to pay for £2.75 worth of goods. But the attitude I sometimes get is you should know that nobody accepts credit cards for small purchases in Europe (not true but more likely than in the USA). I think the same should hold on this question of showing ID. What I don't know, I admit, is whether or not credit card agtreements in other countries have this valuable consumer protection built in.
Now if somebody wants to tell me they disagree, fine. But I resent people suggesting I'm an ugly American, as some did inthis thread and in others, when I bring this matter up.
Nov 6th, 2009, 10:57 AM
#50
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no one says you're ugly. you're probably a real looker, M or F. But there are those of us who feel you may be overcooking this one slightly. And I still think you're fretting too much not carrying cash. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on purchases in Spain, where stores will be charging customers 1% for the use of a card from January
Nov 6th, 2009, 11:09 AM
#51
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they do in Australia also as I've read....again if Spanish law allows merchants to surcharge credit card purchases, there's nothing I can do about it and no I won't pout (not that I visit Spain anyway; don't speak the language)....
Interesting story, though. I don't know, say about 15 years ago, several of the US oil companies used to have two sets of pumps, one for cash purchases and one for credit card purchases. The pump for credit card purchases was about 4 or 5 cents a gallon higher than for cash. They called it a cash discount program which is legal (credit card surcharges are illegal, at least on merchant agreements in the USA). But what they quickly found is that cash customers would come in and say $20 worth please....credit card customers would say, Fill it up........that program lasted about a year and now is RIP.
What I do think is that merchants should live up to the terms of the agreements they sign in accepting credit cards; no more or no less. And when they do, I grin and bear it!
Interesting story, though. I don't know, say about 15 years ago, several of the US oil companies used to have two sets of pumps, one for cash purchases and one for credit card purchases. The pump for credit card purchases was about 4 or 5 cents a gallon higher than for cash. They called it a cash discount program which is legal (credit card surcharges are illegal, at least on merchant agreements in the USA). But what they quickly found is that cash customers would come in and say $20 worth please....credit card customers would say, Fill it up........that program lasted about a year and now is RIP.
What I do think is that merchants should live up to the terms of the agreements they sign in accepting credit cards; no more or no less. And when they do, I grin and bear it!
Nov 6th, 2009, 11:13 AM
#52
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW a true story on the above...
During the time of that cash discount program, a person I know who had a service station was told by the oil company he wuld have to replace his pumps to one that had the ability to display a price for both cash and credit cards. So he did at a cost, of course. Two weeks later, they ended the discount for cash program.
Buyer beware eh.
During the time of that cash discount program, a person I know who had a service station was told by the oil company he wuld have to replace his pumps to one that had the ability to display a price for both cash and credit cards. So he did at a cost, of course. Two weeks later, they ended the discount for cash program.
Buyer beware eh.
Nov 6th, 2009, 11:58 AM
#53
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"....Credit card fraud is much more common in Europe than it is in the US. This is doubly true for the UK, where credit card fraud rates are exceptionally high"
Being a doubting person, could you provide some proof?
I've heard that in N.A. banks do not want to let it be known the large amounts being lost to fraud, and as a cardholder, if I am limited to a $50 loss, why would I bother reporting it to anyone other than...the CC companies. And yes, I've had an incident of two of fraud..in N.A., not in Europe or elsewhere.
Stats...gimme the stats!
Being a doubting person, could you provide some proof?
I've heard that in N.A. banks do not want to let it be known the large amounts being lost to fraud, and as a cardholder, if I am limited to a $50 loss, why would I bother reporting it to anyone other than...the CC companies. And yes, I've had an incident of two of fraud..in N.A., not in Europe or elsewhere.
Stats...gimme the stats!
Nov 6th, 2009, 12:08 PM
#54
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007...editcards.debt
Last year, the countries where most fraud occurred on UK-issued cards were the USA (£16.7m), France (£7.5m), Spain (£6.7m), Italy (£6.4m) and Thailand (£4.1m).
In the USA, where there are no plans to introduce chip and Pin, losses due to fraud were up 49%, compared to a drop of 35% in France and 30% in Spain, where the secure technology is being rolled out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007...editcards.debt
Last year, the countries where most fraud occurred on UK-issued cards were the USA (£16.7m), France (£7.5m), Spain (£6.7m), Italy (£6.4m) and Thailand (£4.1m).
In the USA, where there are no plans to introduce chip and Pin, losses due to fraud were up 49%, compared to a drop of 35% in France and 30% in Spain, where the secure technology is being rolled out.
Nov 6th, 2009, 12:13 PM
#55
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
older..
French customers never let their cards out of sight and run no risk of having their signatures copied because they do not sign anything. Instead they insert their card in a machine and tap in the same four-digit PIN number they would use at a cash dispenser.
The number is up for card fraudsters. A version of the system, which has cut credit card fraud in France by 80 per cent since its introduction several years ago, was finally introduced in Britain yesterday.
French customers never let their cards out of sight and run no risk of having their signatures copied because they do not sign anything. Instead they insert their card in a machine and tap in the same four-digit PIN number they would use at a cash dispenser.
The number is up for card fraudsters. A version of the system, which has cut credit card fraud in France by 80 per cent since its introduction several years ago, was finally introduced in Britain yesterday.
Nov 6th, 2009, 12:16 PM
#56
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of credit and debit card fraud dropped by 23 per cent to £232.8million during the six months to the end of June compared with the same period in 2008. Industry body Financial Fraud Action attributed the fall in fraud on UK-issued cards to the success of chip and pin, as well as systems to make it harder to use stolen cards over the internet.
They added the dip may also have been caused by fraudsters targeting cards issued in countries that do not yet have the chip and pin system in place
They added the dip may also have been caused by fraudsters targeting cards issued in countries that do not yet have the chip and pin system in place
Nov 6th, 2009, 12:18 PM
#57
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
etc....
Analysis of credit card fraud since January shows that criminals have already adapted to chip and pin. Point-of-sale fraud has fallen but fraud involving credit card transactions conducted by phone has increased by more than 150%.
Analysis of credit card fraud since January shows that criminals have already adapted to chip and pin. Point-of-sale fraud has fallen but fraud involving credit card transactions conducted by phone has increased by more than 150%.
Nov 6th, 2009, 01:31 PM
#58
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a monetic expert surveying comments from american cardholders. Actually, what's written here is a myth. American cardholders' ability or inability to use their mag-stripe cards in Europe has nothing to do with chip and pin. This inability is as a result of unattended terminals (and some attended) inability to do online authorization of your purchase.
See my blog : http://www.finextra.com/community/fullblog.aspx?id=3491
Although VISA and MC advertise that no merchant can(?)/should refuse your card, even here in France, merchants refuse my CHIP and PIN card when my purchase is under 10 euros.
So, don't put down your mag-stripe and say that the U.S. is behind. There is safety and security in having magstripe and signature based cards. When you don't have a pin-code, then fraudsters are not interested in skimming your card. Skimming is only interesting and worthwhile if the fraudster gets the pin-code, cause they usually produce a white plastic, paste the cloned mag-stripe and go to ATMs and withdraw money using your valid pin-codes.
The chip isn't bad. The static pin-code that goes with it is what makes it unsafe and makes it a prime target for fraudsters.
Read my blog, and you'll understand that card fraud for american cards is actually less than half of the fraud rate of chip and pin.
See my blog : http://www.finextra.com/community/fullblog.aspx?id=3491
Although VISA and MC advertise that no merchant can(?)/should refuse your card, even here in France, merchants refuse my CHIP and PIN card when my purchase is under 10 euros.
So, don't put down your mag-stripe and say that the U.S. is behind. There is safety and security in having magstripe and signature based cards. When you don't have a pin-code, then fraudsters are not interested in skimming your card. Skimming is only interesting and worthwhile if the fraudster gets the pin-code, cause they usually produce a white plastic, paste the cloned mag-stripe and go to ATMs and withdraw money using your valid pin-codes.
The chip isn't bad. The static pin-code that goes with it is what makes it unsafe and makes it a prime target for fraudsters.
Read my blog, and you'll understand that card fraud for american cards is actually less than half of the fraud rate of chip and pin.
Nov 6th, 2009, 01:40 PM
#59
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm...you join just to post this?
I would think that any merchant would be reticent to take credit cards for small purchase, regardless of the technology.
As you say, fraudsters ony interested if they get your PIN...so you protect that with zeal.
The same happens with mag-strips where they swipe the card twice...once for you, once for them (under the counter). With that, they can make another mag-stripe card. Was happening at a gas station near my house. At least with chip and pin, they would also need the PIN, which only you have.
I would think that any merchant would be reticent to take credit cards for small purchase, regardless of the technology.
As you say, fraudsters ony interested if they get your PIN...so you protect that with zeal.
The same happens with mag-strips where they swipe the card twice...once for you, once for them (under the counter). With that, they can make another mag-stripe card. Was happening at a gas station near my house. At least with chip and pin, they would also need the PIN, which only you have.
