@Open123 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:But in various places, banks have taken the opportunity to use the enhanced security as a reason for liability shift. the idea being that if the transaction completed with the correct PIN, either the consumer was using the card (despite what they claim) or they were negligent and allowed someone to get hold of the PIN, perhaps by writing it on the back of the card. This is in contrast to the existing US situation, where usually the consumer isn't liable, and the merchant or bank fight over who eats the cost.
This is the main issue for me.
The moment a court decides a pin # is enough proof to shift responsibility to me, I will never use it, unless US consumer laws change to reflect the new technology. What if I was carless and lost the pin#? Wrote it down in my safe which was broken into? Or, evenly randomly guessed, since I used my b'day? So, a person with 10 CCs would have to remember 10 different pins? Or, a different one for each, as they suggest with online passwords? Anyone really think they'll remember a unique pin for a card SD'ed from a year ago?
PS - I do think EMV is at least a step in the right direction. I prefer the signature, since in the case of a dispute, I'd like the Merchant to at least show me a slip with my signature, which isn't exactly easy to forge.
I asked this in passing but haven't seen an answer: What happens today, in the US, with an ATM machine. If my PIN is entered, but I claim the card is lost or stolen, does the bank eat the loss?
