[benhadi]

Originally Posted by NM

I have never had any problems in Malaysia, including my last visit in June. However, I only use my credit cards (Comm Bank Visa, Amex, Diners Club) at places like major department stores (e.g. Justco), Hotels, large restaurants and government services like KLIA Ekspress. The rest is all cash.

I don't think its a case of Australian banks being backwards. I think its a case of risk vs cost. There is a cost involved in issuing new cards with chips, and CC fraud in Australia is low, especially the type that would be curtailed with chipped cards. So the cost is not justified and people are looking for lower cost cards and not wanting to pay higher CC fees for the "benefit" of chips.

But in some countries where CC fraud is higher, the cost of providing chipped cards is more justified by the reduction in fraudulent use.

Credit cards are meant to be used internationally as well as domestically. Whilst I agree that implementation of CC would come at a cost, perhaps maybe even passed down to the cardholders, you have to allow that this is the reality of the nature of credit cards. My personal opinion is that banks should absorb the cost - after all it's meant to reduce their liability by preventing fraud. Can't just remain primitive just because it's not needed "at home". Globalisation mate. Chip cards are in because they offer greater security. As far as i'm concerned that's progress.

Especially if chip-card readers are not able to read non-chip cards. Sure they have the swipe thing at the side of their machines, but multiple attempts at multiple places suggest that the machines just don't take it. In my experience, non-chip cards in Malaysia only work with MAJOR stores. And petrol stations are not part of that list. I imagine that's the case with every country that uses chip cards now. Very frustrating indeed.

[NM]

Originally Posted by benhadi

Credit cards are meant to be used internationally as well as domestically. Whilst I agree that implementation of CC would come at a cost, perhaps maybe even passed down to the cardholders, you have to allow that this is the reality of the nature of credit cards. My personal opinion is that banks should absorb the cost - after all it's meant to reduce their liability by preventing fraud. Can't just remain primitive just because it's not needed "at home". Globalisation mate. Chip cards are in because they offer greater security. As far as i'm concerned that's progress.

I think that the CC providers globally have a responsibility to accept both chipped and signature cards. While the CC providers still provide signature cards then they should be accepted anywhere the CC company logo is displayed. Progress - sure. But if Visa, MC, Amex should accept any card that is current whether its chipped or not. If they want to stop accepting signature cards then they need to ensure all cards, no matter where they are issued, comply with the new standards before they stop accepting them. Most cards are valid for 3 or 4 years, so that validity time sets the time frame for phasing out old technology and progressing.

Deploying card readers that cannot read the millions of non-cihip cards and not providing an alternate processing method is very poor customer service in a global economy.

[auriga]

Originally Posted by NM

I think that the CC providers globally have a responsibility to accept both chipped and signature cards. While the CC providers still provide signature cards then they should be accepted anywhere the CC company logo is displayed. Progress - sure. But if Visa, MC, Amex should accept any card that is current whether its chipped or not. If they want to stop accepting signature cards then they need to ensure all cards, no matter where they are issued, comply with the new standards before they stop accepting them. Most cards are valid for 3 or 4 years, so that validity time sets the time frame for phasing out old technology and progressing.

Deploying card readers that cannot read the millions of non-cihip cards and not providing an alternate processing method is very poor customer service in a global economy.

The merchants should accept all versions of credit cards, but unfortunately some don't. To avoid us being inconvenienced while overseas, the banks and Amex should really move on, and give us chip cards.

[pauly7]

Can someone explain to me exactly how the chip increases the security of your card?

[Mal]

Originally Posted by pauly7

Can someone explain to me exactly how the chip increases the security of your card?

Where a card is chip enabled, and chip use is enforced (eg UK/Malaysia), then the merchant takes responsibility if the mag strip is scanned and fraud occurs. Magnetic strips are easily copied onto other cards (even hotel room keys!). The Chips themselves are extremely difficult to copy due to the technologies used.

So chip+chip use enforced = less fraud. However, fraud takes on many different hats. Chips don't stop telephone/internet fraud, nor do they prevent someone from snooping and getting your pin and stealing your card. Also, not all ATM's actually enforce the use of a chip, so a (mag strip) copied card+pin number could lead to fraudulant transactions.

[oz_mark]

Chip+PIN is not inherently more secure that a signature, but it does allow the card issuers to push the liability onto merchants or even the card holder more easily. Given the design of most EFTPOS machines, I would suggest that snooping on others while typing their PIN in is quite easy.

[pauly7]

Originally Posted by Mal

Where a card is chip enabled, and chip use is enforced (eg UK/Malaysia), then the merchant takes responsibility if the mag strip is scanned and fraud occurs. Magnetic strips are easily copied onto other cards (even hotel room keys!). The Chips themselves are extremely difficult to copy due to the technologies used.

So chip+chip use enforced = less fraud. However, fraud takes on many different hats. Chips don't stop telephone/internet fraud, nor do they prevent someone from snooping and getting your pin and stealing your card. Also, not all ATM's actually enforce the use of a chip, so a (mag strip) copied card+pin number could lead to fraudulant transactions.

Thanks Mal.

In my opinion chip technology defeating fraud is being comepletely over exaggerated, I asked because I was phoned up by my provider about the move and I asked the same question and the response was so diluted I almost wondered why they are bothering!

[medhead]

Originally Posted by auriga

The merchants should accept all versions of credit cards, but unfortunately some don't. To avoid us being inconvenienced while overseas, the banks and Amex should really move on, and give us chip cards.

Actually, what Visa, and possibly MC and AMEX (only checked visa last time I was O/S), have done is made in a condition of the merchant agreement that they must accept non-chipped cards.

If any merchant refuses your card you should report the merchant to Visa (and possibly the others). Visa will then take action such as kiciking them out of the visa system. If any merchant refuses a visa tell them that the agreement says they must accept the visa and that you'll report them if they don't.

[AnonymousCoward]

Originally Posted by oz_mark

Chip+PIN is not inherently more secure that a signature, but it does allow the card issuers to push the liability onto merchants or even the card holder more easily. Given the design of most EFTPOS machines, I would suggest that snooping on others while typing their PIN in is quite easy.

chip+PIN is inherently more secure. How much more secure might be debateble, but it is definately more secure.

What does a security system need to implement at a minimum? You need to have an identifier ("I am X") and an authenticator ("here's my proof"). With a smartcard system, duplicating the identifier is far more difficult, with today's technology, than duplicating the mag strip on a swipe card.

And whilst it's possible to "snoop" and capture someone's PIN, a signature can be any arbitrary scrawl once you've duplicated the identifier on a mag strip card.

In every possible way, a mag strip + signature is easier to defraud.

And consider card-not-present transactions. Smart card readers can use your smart card chip to validate your identity. Replicating that with mag strip cards is difficult.

[aubs]

On a recent trip to Europe my non-chipped cards (both Wizard Mastercard and Amex) were only rejected once.

Had not problems through the UK, although restaurants acted a bit strangely when I wasn't prompted for PIN (all restuarants have portable machines that they bring over to the table for you to PIN -- much more secure as card doesn't leave your view)

Problem was with an automated ticket machine at Monaco station on the SNCF. Had absolutely no luck, as did an American standing next to me. Managed to use the machine using my chipped Woolworths Card.