On 9/Nov/18 20:26, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> That was true a few years ago, but it’s been at least a year since I’ve seen
> a swipe anywhere. The change happened quite quickly. It’s all been chip, or
> chip-and-pin, for at least a year.
In the last 2 years, I've seen the rise of PIN-based tran
> On Nov 8, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> It has always been curious to me how/why the U.S., with one of the
> largest economies in the world, still do most card-based transactions as
> a swipe in lieu of a PIN-based approach.
That was true a few years ago, but it’s been at least a year
Once upon a time, Stephen Satchell said:
> On 11/08/2018 07:50 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Signatures are no longer required for chip card transactions in the US,
> > except I think for transactions where the auth is done on the amount
> > before an added tip (restaurants).
>
> Signatures are requ
On 11/08/2018 07:50 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Signatures are no longer required for chip card transactions in the US,
> except I think for transactions where the auth is done on the amount
> before an added tip (restaurants).
Signatures are required for chip card transactions above a certain
dollar
On 9/Nov/18 02:22, Todd Underwood wrote:
>
> i generally find it amusing when people from other countries mock the
> US for not having PINs. this is just another way of saying "my
> country has high fraud rates and yours appears not to." :-) . you can
> see this in the comment below "If we wer
Once upon a time, Scott Christopher said:
> Swipe-and-sign (and now just swipe for small amounts) is for Visa,
> Mastercard, Discover transactions (called credit)
Signatures are no longer required for chip card transactions in the US,
except I think for transactions where the auth is done on the
: Thursday, November 08, 2018 3:35 AM
> To: George Michaelson
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: CVV (was: Re: bloomberg on supermicro: sky is falling)
>
>
> Speaking of "cost" as a motivator, in South Africa, most of the banks
> are n
ors' Group
Subject: Re: CVV (was: Re: bloomberg on supermicro: sky is falling)
Mark Tinka wrote:
> I hope the U.S. does catch-up. If we were swipe-based here, we'd all be
> broke :-). I know a number of major merchants in the U.S. now use PIN's,
> and I always stick to those when I travel there.
In the U.S., pin codes are required for EFTPOS transactions (called debit) ove
On 8/Nov/18 11:16, George Michaelson wrote:
> There are two parts of the problem. The first is the assumption of
> risk: the current model of operation in the US (like in other western
> economies) puts the onus of risk of misuse of the card on specific
> actors. When you change the basis from
There are two parts of the problem. The first is the assumption of
risk: the current model of operation in the US (like in other western
economies) puts the onus of risk of misuse of the card on specific
actors. When you change the basis from signature (fraud) to chip+pin
(leak of knowledge) you ha
On 11/Oct/18 21:31, Chris Adams wrote:
> Requiring an ID is also a violation of the merchant agreements, at least
> for VISA and MasterCard (not sure about American Express), unless ID is
> otherwise required by law (like for age-limited products). I've walked
> out of stores that required an
Once upon a time, b...@theworld.com said:
> But asking for photo id is a good thing for legitimate card holders,
> could reduce fraudulent in-person use of stolen cards.
Requiring an ID is also a violation of the merchant agreements, at least
for VISA and MasterCard (not sure about American Expre
On October 11, 2018 at 13:41 s...@ottie.org (Scott Christopher) wrote:
> Robert Kisteleki wrote:
>
> > (this is probably OT now...)
> >
> > > I'm pretty sure the "entire point" of inventing CVV was to prove you
> > > physically have the card.
> >
> > Except that it doesn't serve that
On October 11, 2018 at 10:17 rob...@ripe.net (Robert Kisteleki) wrote:
> (this is probably OT now...)
>
> > I'm pretty sure the "entire point" of inventing CVV was to prove you
> > physically have the card.
>
> Except that it doesn't serve that purpose. Anyone who ever had your card
> in
Robert Kisteleki wrote:
> (this is probably OT now...)
>
> > I'm pretty sure the "entire point" of inventing CVV was to prove you
> > physically have the card.
>
> Except that it doesn't serve that purpose. Anyone who ever had your card
> in their hands (e.g. waiters) can just write that down a
(this is probably OT now...)
> I'm pretty sure the "entire point" of inventing CVV was to prove you
> physically have the card.
Except that it doesn't serve that purpose. Anyone who ever had your card
in their hands (e.g. waiters) can just write that down and use it later
hence defeating the purp
17 matches
Mail list logo
