@Anonymous wrote:Considering a) there are known vulnerabilities with PIN the way most banks implement it and b) changes in consumer liability would require changes to federal law, I don't think that itself should be grounds to prefer chip and signature. However, since stores can waive signature for small amounts and can't do so for PIN, there can be a speed advantage* with the former. That might be worthwhile for some.
I had recall reading of a few cases in Europe where court ruled a correct pin # was sufficient to prove a person had made the charges, and therefore financially responsible for them. I'm not sure where the links were, but I'm sure some better at searching (I really hate searching for stuff) may unearth them.
If we, in America, were to begin a widespread adoption of chip & pin, I'd like to see either a judicial precedent or a revision in Federal law to pace with technology, and clearly stipulate that a correct pin # "in of itself" isn't proof a legitimate charge. Let's not allow the Banks and Merchants to prey on our fears and shift the burden to us, especially since we currently have ZERO fraud liability.
In other words, until I'm liable for fraud, I couldn't care less about it. Since it's the Merchants and Banks problem, just don't inconvenience me with ID checks, overly sensitive fraud algorithms, and "trojan horses" to shift the burden to unsuspecting consumers.
