4 ms·
The US therefore loses the economy of scale. Also, the US didn't even start before the tech had already been deployed across Europe.
by hackuser 10y ago
The US therefore loses the economy of scale. Also, the US didn't even start before the tech had already been deployed across Europe.
- kbenson 10y agoPartly that's because the US banks didn't think the EU standard was secure enough. They were proven somewhat right when a fraud ring found a way to bypass some of the authentication[1]. Long story made short: The EU system did something like authorizing the pin to the card using the chip, but not requiring the bank to authenticate, which allowed the terminals to function without a network connection. Criminals inserted the chip from one card over the chip from another, intercepting the pin authentication request to the card and allowing it, and then allowing the transaction to proceed against the regular card. This would not work in the US where all the requests are verified by the bank over the network (which is why it takes longer). That the US card industry is trying to move away from requiring a pin is somewhat strange, but I think can be explained by different people weighing in at different stages. Engineers nixed the EU type system as not secure enough, and then different company decision makers start pushing for no pin, to make sure they don't see a dip in usage. What you end up with is this. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10414375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10414375