As someone who works for the evil Wal-Mart empire, I have to add my thoughts on Chip & PIN...
Must say Im far from happy. I dont feel that C+P is safer , i actually feel unsafer - just the same as I shield the keypad @ an atm.
Although people may not "feel" that C+P is as safe as a signature, it is - and the reason has nothing to do with people 'shoulder surfing' you at a C+P terminal or a cashpoint and nicking your card.
Think about where the majority of people use their cards most often - supermarkets and petrol stations. (Or pubs in my case!)
Your average checkout person serves around 120 customers per shift. In the "good old days" I could have nicked a card from a handbag/ car/ house and signed "Mr.M Mouse" and about 70% of the time the checkout operator would not have noticed.
Now, there is no element of human error involved - if the number is one digit out, the card is declined.
The thief used to only need the card and a pen, now he or she needs the card and the PIN number.
At least with signature-option I could prove it wasnt my signature in the event of a fraud.
The problem of 'proving' who signed for goods was always there - even with signatures. Just spend a few minutes looking at customers attempts to reproduce an 'accurate' copy of their own signatures on their own cards!
Now a rocket scientist would have simply left the system as it was and not meant all this hassle, and just had a nice clear colour photo of you placed on the back of the card that would have really eliminated fraud down but you know why this wasn't done? Because it would have been the card issuers that had to pay all this cost, instead they get to balance the cost by making the reatilers pay for new C+P terminals instead.
Spot on! Many of the larger retailers have been putting pressure on card issuers for years to do this, but the cost always seems to be the main issue.
That's better, had a good moan - now I can rest![|)]