4 ms·

Honestly though I'd rather enter a PIN than use a dull piece of plastic to make an unreadable signature on a feedbackless screen. I punch keys all day but rarel

by hx87 10y ago

Honestly though I'd rather enter a PIN than use a dull piece of plastic to make an unreadable signature on a feedbackless screen. I punch keys all day but rarely write by hand.

mikeash 10y ago
I think you're unusual. Many people struggle with PINs, or at least think they would, which in terms of hurting credit card use amounts to the same thing. Another issue is that PIN adoption often implies a liability shift. Right now I have zero liability for fraudulent uses of my credit card. Some places place liability on the cardholder if the cardholder didn't take sufficient care to protect their PIN and a fraudulent transaction is made with the PIN. If that happened, I would stop using credit cards unless it was absolutely necessary, and the mere possibility is enough to make me extremely skeptical of any move to require PINs. By the way, there is no requirement for your signature to be readable or reproducible or even anything resembling your name. Just do a quick freehand scribble. There's no reason for it to be harder than entering a PIN.
- hx87 10y ago
  With the vast majority of chip and pin schemes the liability for fraudulent transactions still falls on the bank, unless the merchant/processor hasn't implemented chip and pin, in which case it falls on them.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    When I think of "chip and PIN" my first thought is of the UK for some reason, and the UK is one of those that tries to put some liability on the cardholder. In the US, our experience with PINs is mostly around debit cards. Those have significantly weaker fraud protections for debit transactions with a stolen PIN, up to $500 if you don't notice the fraud until after two days, and unlimited if you manage to miss it for two months.
- stephengillie 10y ago
  If signatures don't have to match a previous signature, then what is the point of entering the scribble in the first place? Aren't signatures still used as nominal security verification? If not, what is the legal significance of "signing" a document?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It used to be a security thing, but that seems to have completely fallen by the wayside. I think these days it's basically just formally indicating that you're agreeing to make the purchase at hand, so you can't later go back and say that you somehow didn't realize you were handing over money, or that you thought you were paying less than you were charged.
  - btkramer9 10y ago
    I find signing these days utterly pointless. I literally draw a line on every signature asked for these days.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      You also have to hit "yes" or otherwise agree to the amount. I do wonder what legal purpose a "signature" actually serves these days. The doodles definitely do get stored and sent to the processor. Sometimes they're also on the receipt.
    - stock_toaster 10y ago
      Now I want to try drawing incredibly poor quality cartoons in the signature areas.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    > If signatures don't have to match a previous signature, then what is the point of entering the scribble in the first place? Here in Japan traditionally identification for things like contracts and bank transactions is done with a seal (custom-carved rubber stamp). A lot of foreigners who move here think it's absolutely bonkers, since what if someone stole it? Isn't it really easy to clone? Many banks here let you use a signature instead of a seal though, and some foreigners opt for it. They usually switch to using a seal after they have to re-fill a form 4 times in a row to get their signature to match the one on file, since they actually verify the things here!

by hx87 10y ago

Honestly though I'd rather enter a PIN than use a dull piece of plastic to make an unreadable signature on a feedbackless screen. I punch keys all day but rarely write by hand.

mikeash 10y ago

I think you're unusual. Many people struggle with PINs, or at least think they would, which in terms of hurting credit card use amounts to the same thing. Another issue is that PIN adoption often implies a liability shift. Right now I have zero liability for fraudulent uses of my credit card. Some places place liability on the cardholder if the cardholder didn't take sufficient care to protect their PIN and a fraudulent transaction is made with the PIN. If that happened, I would stop using credit cards unless it was absolutely necessary, and the mere possibility is enough to make me extremely skeptical of any move to require PINs. By the way, there is no requirement for your signature to be readable or reproducible or even anything resembling your name. Just do a quick freehand scribble. There's no reason for it to be harder than entering a PIN.

hx87 10y ago
With the vast majority of chip and pin schemes the liability for fraudulent transactions still falls on the bank, unless the merchant/processor hasn't implemented chip and pin, in which case it falls on them.
- mikeash 10y ago
  When I think of "chip and PIN" my first thought is of the UK for some reason, and the UK is one of those that tries to put some liability on the cardholder. In the US, our experience with PINs is mostly around debit cards. Those have significantly weaker fraud protections for debit transactions with a stolen PIN, up to $500 if you don't notice the fraud until after two days, and unlimited if you manage to miss it for two months.
stephengillie 10y ago
If signatures don't have to match a previous signature, then what is the point of entering the scribble in the first place? Aren't signatures still used as nominal security verification? If not, what is the legal significance of "signing" a document?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 10y ago
  It used to be a security thing, but that seems to have completely fallen by the wayside. I think these days it's basically just formally indicating that you're agreeing to make the purchase at hand, so you can't later go back and say that you somehow didn't realize you were handing over money, or that you thought you were paying less than you were charged.
- btkramer9 10y ago
  I find signing these days utterly pointless. I literally draw a line on every signature asked for these days.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    You also have to hit "yes" or otherwise agree to the amount. I do wonder what legal purpose a "signature" actually serves these days. The doodles definitely do get stored and sent to the processor. Sometimes they're also on the receipt.
  - stock_toaster 10y ago
    Now I want to try drawing incredibly poor quality cartoons in the signature areas.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  > If signatures don't have to match a previous signature, then what is the point of entering the scribble in the first place? Here in Japan traditionally identification for things like contracts and bank transactions is done with a seal (custom-carved rubber stamp). A lot of foreigners who move here think it's absolutely bonkers, since what if someone stole it? Isn't it really easy to clone? Many banks here let you use a signature instead of a seal though, and some foreigners opt for it. They usually switch to using a seal after they have to re-fill a form 4 times in a row to get their signature to match the one on file, since they actually verify the things here!