Replacement for Chip n Pin?

[Snow-Munki]

heard on bbc this morning you can even use play doh to 'fake' someones fingerprint.

Other ways, you can blow on the scanner which brings up the prvious person's scan !

 

[PinkPig]

i really like chip and pin, saves the hassle of signing, but this system seems a lot better, although it means i cant use my mums card when doing the big shop for her

I take it you're aware that doing so counts as fraud and that the bank or credit card company would probably take away her card if they found that she was giving her permission for someone else to use it?

 

[iv-tecman]

Chip 'n' Pin is no more secure than Signitures, it stops the cards being skimmed, but so would any verification method that used a coded chip.

With a signiture, shops would have to keep the slips for years, adn if you saw an item on your statement you didn't pay for, you could go and check the signature slip.



With Chip ‘n’ Pin, there is no audit trail, banks just have to say “this system is more secure, it was authorised by your PIN, so it must have been you, or You let someone else have the number.”



They just shift the blame from banks having to pay for fraudulently used transactions, to the account holder who let someone see them type the number in.

Pretty much what I've read. I don't know what else "would" be a secure system. after all thieves will do anything if they want your money... But chip n pin isn't the secure systems banks have lead us all to believe.

It is only to protect the bank, and not the consumer - mostly..

 

[Basher]

Chip 'n' Pin is no more secure than Signitures, it stops the cards being skimmed, but so would any verification method that used a coded chip.

With a signiture, shops would have to keep the slips for years, adn if you saw an item on your statement you didn't pay for, you could go and check the signature slip.



With Chip ‘n’ Pin, there is no audit trail, banks just have to say “this system is more secure, it was authorised by your PIN, so it must have been you, or You let someone else have the number.”



They just shift the blame from banks having to pay for fraudulently used transactions, to the account holder who let someone see them type the number in.

Statistics suggest that it is more secure, with fraud down by 13% since its introduction.

 

[iv-tecman]

Statistics suggest that it is more secure, with fraud down by 13% since its introduction.

Only for high street transactions. Don't have the figures for online, but reports sugguest this has now started to increase, as more crooks turn to online, or customer not present fraud.

In some ways all this has done is shifted the problem to another area... Or perhaps not.

 

[Basher]

Only for high street transactions. Don't have the figures for online, but reports sugguest this has now started to increase, as more crooks turn to online, or customer not present fraud.

True, but more is being done for online security, such as SecureCode.

 

[lozza23_uk]

We should have retina scans or something, only because it looks like a cool idea.

I wish I had to stick my head in a laser scanning device every time I want to use my card.

whats the film where the bloke uses his "old" eyes to get into a building.
grr bugging me now.

all about seeing into the future and arresting people before they commit crimes.

 

[PinkPig]

Anyone who thinks that Chip and Pin is less secure than a signature clearly has never worked in a shop, checking a signature is an impossible and fruitless task, the vast majority of people's signatures are either enormously easy to copy or bears only vague relation to whats on the card. A cashier has no choice but to accept just about anything - a thief can take a card, give the signature a quick look, and buy whatever he or she happens to want, if you get the first letter of the name right then no one will really notice.

With a PIN number they must *both* have the card, and the PIN number. Yes, maybe they can see the PIN number if they're sneaky enough, but at least it's not printed on the card.

 

[Basher]

Anyone who thinks that Chip and Pin is more secure than a signature clearly has never worked in a shop, checking a signature is an impossible and fruitless task, the vast majority of people's signatures are either enormously easy to copy or bears only vague relation to whats on the card. A cashier has no choice but to accept just about anything - a thief can take a card, give the signature a quick look, and buy whatever he or she happens to want, if you get the first letter of the name right then no one will really notice.

With a PIN number they must *both* have the card, and the PIN number. Yes, maybe they can see the PIN number if they're sneaky enough, but at least it's not printed on the card.

Am I right in thinking you believe that Chip and Pin is more secure? That the impression I get but was confused by your opening sentence implying that it was less secure.

Probably just me getting confused!

 

[ALLI]

I think there was a trial where people had tiny chips inserted into their arm, like dogs have with owners information. I seem to recall the trial was in a bar and when you wanted to pay for something some kind of scanner recognised the chip and debitted your account accordingly.

Pros: Hard to steal, easy to use, never be without cash (as long as theres some in the account)

Cons: Will involve an injection!

Will see if I can ggl a link.

 

[MNuTz]

I think there was a trial where people had tiny chips inserted into their arm, like dogs have with owners information. I seem to recall the trial was in a bar and when you wanted to pay for something some kind of scanner recognised the chip and debitted your account accordingly.

Pros: Hard to steal, easy to use, never be without cash (as long as theres some in the account)

Cons: Will involve an injection!

Will see if I can ggl a link.

Wasnt this on CSI:Miami last week??

Retinal Scan, Chip and PIN, fingerprint and voice recognition for the win!!

 

[Wyrdo]

heard on bbc this morning you can even use play doh to 'fake' someones fingerprint.

Other ways, you can blow on the scanner which brings up the prvious person's scan !

We use biometrics here at work for logging onto the PC's. I've seen PC's log themselves in if someone has greasy fingers and left a greasy fingerprint on the reader.

 

[PinkPig]

Am I right in thinking you believe that Chip and Pin is more secure? That the impression I get but was confused by your opening sentence implying that it was less secure.

Probably just me getting confused!

Sorry, typo!

 

[Visage]

whats the film where the bloke uses his "old" eyes to get into a building.
grr bugging me now.

all about seeing into the future and arresting people before they commit crimes.

Minority Report, wasnt it?

 

[DJammyRasta]

what is the downside to having a chip implanted into each person (ala demolition man)?

you make it secure enough that the cannot be copied (ok probably not possible but then nothing is totally secure against being copied) and then there are no signatures, not pincodes.. u just walk out of the shop and it charges you for whatever you have taken with you also getting rid of queues for the tills

 

[The_TailGunner]

chip and pin is a total farce. i work for a major epos company, and since day 1 it has been a nightmare.

imo it is 100% a gimmick for protecting the banks- any fraudulent transaction that ISNT chip and pin now becomes a chargeback to the shop. The banks have managed to perpetuate the almost universal belief that chip and pin is a LEGAL requirement as well...

the hardware is unreliable- fragile tamper proofing systems on the c&p units mean that they often fail, forcing site back onto the old swipe and signature system.

This has cost some stores their entire weeks profits in areas where credit card fraud is rife, because the change to chip & pin was poorly planned and demand for the hardware is far higher than manufacturers seem to be able to meet (though this is improving)- specially considering the extra demand for replacment units.

the software is just as bad, to the point we are STILL ironing out unexplained bugs over a year later (we dont write the software btw).

the irony is, its no more secure than swipe and signature- it IS quicker though...when it works...

TG

 

[MNuTz]

what is the downside to having a chip implanted into each person (ala demolition man)?

you make it secure enough that the cannot be copied (ok probably not possible but then nothing is totally secure against being copied) and then there are no signatures, not pincodes.. u just walk out of the shop and it charges you for whatever you have taken with you also getting rid of queues for the tills

I would imagine that the chip would have to give off a serial code/bank code of some sort. This means that if someone could scan it, it could be copied. Unless it contained information on the person using it such as height, weight, eye colour etc

 

[eXor]

How does this work?

I have a debit card from 2003 which has a chip on it. Can I just stick it into a Chip 'n' Pin machine and punch in my ATM pin? Or does my bank have to issue me a new special card?

 

[VeNT]

there was somthing like this in a michal marshal smith book I read once, someone bought a finger that had been taken off a dead body that had not been registered, so his accounts where open,
although thats Sci Fi, I think that fingerprinting tech is not up to enough to give us certanty that its as good as chip and pin,
at disnyland florida the lockers use fingerprints rather than keys, nice idea but every other person was unable to get it to open up because they prints where not totaly the same.

 

[gib786]

I take it you're aware that doing so counts as fraud and that the bank or credit card company would probably take away her card if they found that she was giving her permission for someone else to use it?

bah, she cant get out of the house at times due to her health, so im helping her out, if the banks get arsy over it then so be it.