5 ms·

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my

by 4ad 10y ago

> took forever to adopt EMV in the US and other idiocies Totally agree with your comment, but I'll go a little bit on a tangent here. I am an European, all my cards have always had a chip, I have not even seen a card without a chip until I visited the United States. All this reluctance to adopt chips seems so ridiculous to me. But then I spent more time in the United States and with magnetic stripe cards, and boy do I love the better experience. Let's see, in the US I can swipe a card at any moment of the transaction, and this physical act takes less than a second. With chip, in most European countries not only I have to wait for the cashier to scan everything, but I also have to wait for the cashier to press a magic button that says "card payment"; only then does the POS become active. Then I have to plug the card in, different POS terminals require the card to be put in different orientations, wait 3 seconds for the terminal to do whatever, insert PIN, wait another 5-30 seconds until the transaction runs, and then get my card back. Or let's look at NFC. I still have to wait for the cashier to scan everything and push the magic button, I have to press the card 3 seconds on the POS until the NFC chip is read. Since there's no feedback, I have no idea if I keep the card in the right place until it beeps. After that, it still takes the same 5-20 seconds until it's done. The only advantage of NFC is that I don't have to plug my card in the terminal, but since the progress feedback is worse, I am not sure how that is any improvement at all. The user experience is so much worse. Why wouldn't I want a magstripe-only card? Yes, it's (vastly) more insecure, but I am not liable for fraud. I don't have anything to lose.

raverbashing 10y ago
Well, having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety True, swiping is faster (but you have to scribble something on a paper or an e-screen where the end result usually resembles nothing like your signature) :) I can agree with the criticism there but the tradeoff doesn't bother me (too much)
- 4ad 10y ago
  > having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety We do it for our safety, but chip cards are for bank's safety. Consumers are not liable for fraud anyway, only the bank wins. Let me put it another way. Americans consumers love their magstripe; they wouldn't if they lost money. At the end of the day, chip or magstripe, the consumer has the same amount of money in his bank account. Right now the banks bear the cost of fraud. They are moving a small amount of that cost to the consumer through by annoying him with imposing a poor UI upon him. Why should the consumer accept that?
  - Nursie 10y ago
    Because otherwise the consumer pays for the fraud and the insurance anyway. Why do you think US credit card transaction fees to merchants are so damn high?
    - 4ad 10y ago
      > Why do you think US credit card transaction fees to merchants are so damn high? Because until recently, the law was that merchants were not allowed to charge discriminatively based on cash vs. card. Since americans love their CCs and unlike in Europe, CCs are a massive part of retail sales, it was not too difficult for the credit card mafia to impose whatever fees on merchants. Here in Europe, fees are capped through regulations, not out of credit card companies good will. I mention this because chip cards can only protect against using a physical clone of a card, while the vast majority of fraud happens online, where the card is not present and the chip is not used at all. The fraud profile is the same in Europe and the US, yet the fees are vastly different. That has nothing to do with chip vs. magstripe.
      - Nursie 10y ago
        The fraud profile is absolutely not the same in the EU and the US, where cloned cards are frequently used to withdraw cash and make physical purchases. Yes, fees in the EU are capped by law, but to think cards are not used just as much used in places like the UK as they are in the US ... Have you been living under a rock for 30 years? And no, the chip doesn't protect online, other features do. One way or another, the US consumer pays for the much higher levels of fraud that the stripe allows.
twelvedogs 10y ago
nfc: i hold my card up the the screen, a progress bar takes 2 second to light up and i just wait for the transaction to go through. i've had way more issues with failing magnetic strips.
digi_owl 10y ago
That has less to do with chip vs stripe, and more to do with how those terminals interface with the POS. Swiping the stripe at any point during the transaction is tantamount to handing over your card to the cashier and never looking at the bill. Here is the thing, the stripe holds nothing more than your card number in machine readable form. On the other hand the chip is doing a full on chain of trust review before giving the final ok to the card issuer. As for not liable, have fun yakking with their lawyers if you ever need to dispute a transaction...
- 4ad 10y ago
  > As for not liable, have fun yakking with their lawyers if you ever need to dispute a transaction... When I dispute a transaction, I click a button in a web interface, and it's instant, I don't have to talk to anyone, certainly not lawyers. At another bank I have to call, but when I had to call, it also was instant, no question asked. VISA/Mastercard have very strict rules about how transaction disputes must happen and how long they can take, rules that are very much in the cardholder's benefit, rather than the banks.
Nursie 10y ago
So much worse with NFC, where I can just tap my card (or my phone) against the reader and be done. Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. The 'magic button' is an implementation detail and not native to the technology. But apart from that, sure, you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances.
- 4ad 10y ago
  > Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. But not in the US. This is also just an "implementation detail". But implementation details are essential for the user experience. > you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances. Exactly, convenience trumps everything. At the end of the day, I don't lose any money with the less secure technology. The bank does. Why should I care?
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > At the end of the day, I don't lose any money with the less secure technology. The bank does. Why should I care? Apparently you never had a card skimmed 1 - Your card is cancelled and you have to wait some days for a replacement (requiring also that you update it everywhere) 2 - The money you lost (in case of debit) will get back to you, after an investigation.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      > Apparently you never had a card skimmed I did! Just a few days ago! And it's a chip card, but doesn't matter since the skimmer used the information in the magstripe online. > Your card is cancelled and you have to wait some days for a replacement (requiring also that you update it everywhere) The new card arrived minutes ago! And that only because they had to send it to a different country. I would have gotten one the same day if I wouldn't have been abroad. This is the reason why I have multiple cards, and why I never mix up the cards I use online, with the cards I use physically at the store. Since the card that was skimmed was one that I used physically, I didn't have to change it anywhere. And in the meantime, I had backup cards. Always have backup cards and backup banks. > The money you lost (in case of debit) will get back to you, after an investigation. Nope. The money was returned instantly. In fact, the bank realised what was going on and reversed all transaction before even calling me. If my bank didn't do these basic things I would chose a different bank.
doikor 10y ago
> insert PIN, wait another 5-30 seconds until the transaction runs, and then get my card back. Never had to wait that long (unless there is some issue at the bank but usually it just stops working all together when that happens) here in Finland. Also if you use a credit card instead of debit for payments under X euros it doesn't even call the bank just checks on the machine if the pin matches the chip.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Unfortunately EMV here in the states is still in its infancy, and it can and does take that long to process a transaction. What I find extremely frustrating is I can use Apple Pay (which still uses EMV under the hood, just the contactless variant) and be done with my payment in under 2 seconds - meanwhile actually dipping my physical card will take a minimum of 5 seconds and up to 30 depending on the situation. The payment industry in the US did not properly prepare for the EMV transition, and it's pissing everyone off.
uf 10y ago
You do realize that e.g. in Germany you are indeed liable if your account has been used for fraud? If by that process you participate in money laundering you'll get sued by the state. Sure you'll probably go free, but the burden is on you.
wildfire 10y ago
I'm both European and Australian. I have cards in both countries with Chip-only, Chip+NFC, and (still!) two stripe only. In Australia, you can activate the card terminal by inserting it, swiping it or tapping it. There is no difference in liability shifting. In Europe, if you insert the card you'll be prompted for your PIN. If the transactions succeeds, the liability is shifted to you (the cardholder). It just happens to be what consumers have become used to in each country.

by 4ad 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

Well, having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety True, swiping is faster (but you have to scribble something on a paper or an e-screen where the end result usually resembles nothing like your signature) :) I can agree with the criticism there but the tradeoff doesn't bother me (too much)

4ad 10y ago
> having to wear a safety belt is also an inferior experience but we do it for safety We do it for our safety, but chip cards are for bank's safety. Consumers are not liable for fraud anyway, only the bank wins. Let me put it another way. Americans consumers love their magstripe; they wouldn't if they lost money. At the end of the day, chip or magstripe, the consumer has the same amount of money in his bank account. Right now the banks bear the cost of fraud. They are moving a small amount of that cost to the consumer through by annoying him with imposing a poor UI upon him. Why should the consumer accept that?
- Nursie 10y ago
  Because otherwise the consumer pays for the fraud and the insurance anyway. Why do you think US credit card transaction fees to merchants are so damn high?
  - 4ad 10y ago
    > Why do you think US credit card transaction fees to merchants are so damn high? Because until recently, the law was that merchants were not allowed to charge discriminatively based on cash vs. card. Since americans love their CCs and unlike in Europe, CCs are a massive part of retail sales, it was not too difficult for the credit card mafia to impose whatever fees on merchants. Here in Europe, fees are capped through regulations, not out of credit card companies good will. I mention this because chip cards can only protect against using a physical clone of a card, while the vast majority of fraud happens online, where the card is not present and the chip is not used at all. The fraud profile is the same in Europe and the US, yet the fees are vastly different. That has nothing to do with chip vs. magstripe.
    - Nursie 10y ago
      The fraud profile is absolutely not the same in the EU and the US, where cloned cards are frequently used to withdraw cash and make physical purchases. Yes, fees in the EU are capped by law, but to think cards are not used just as much used in places like the UK as they are in the US ... Have you been living under a rock for 30 years? And no, the chip doesn't protect online, other features do. One way or another, the US consumer pays for the much higher levels of fraud that the stripe allows.

twelvedogs 10y ago

nfc: i hold my card up the the screen, a progress bar takes 2 second to light up and i just wait for the transaction to go through. i've had way more issues with failing magnetic strips.

digi_owl 10y ago

That has less to do with chip vs stripe, and more to do with how those terminals interface with the POS. Swiping the stripe at any point during the transaction is tantamount to handing over your card to the cashier and never looking at the bill. Here is the thing, the stripe holds nothing more than your card number in machine readable form. On the other hand the chip is doing a full on chain of trust review before giving the final ok to the card issuer. As for not liable, have fun yakking with their lawyers if you ever need to dispute a transaction...

4ad 10y ago
> As for not liable, have fun yakking with their lawyers if you ever need to dispute a transaction... When I dispute a transaction, I click a button in a web interface, and it's instant, I don't have to talk to anyone, certainly not lawyers. At another bank I have to call, but when I had to call, it also was instant, no question asked. VISA/Mastercard have very strict rules about how transaction disputes must happen and how long they can take, rules that are very much in the cardholder's benefit, rather than the banks.

Nursie 10y ago

So much worse with NFC, where I can just tap my card (or my phone) against the reader and be done. Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. The 'magic button' is an implementation detail and not native to the technology. But apart from that, sure, you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances.

4ad 10y ago
> Further, you always had to wait for the cashier to scan everything in the UK. But not in the US. This is also just an "implementation detail". But implementation details are essential for the user experience. > you want an easily-cloneable passive technology because it saves you a few seconds under some circumstances. Exactly, convenience trumps everything. At the end of the day, I don't lose any money with the less secure technology. The bank does. Why should I care?
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > At the end of the day, I don't lose any money with the less secure technology. The bank does. Why should I care? Apparently you never had a card skimmed 1 - Your card is cancelled and you have to wait some days for a replacement (requiring also that you update it everywhere) 2 - The money you lost (in case of debit) will get back to you, after an investigation.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    > Apparently you never had a card skimmed I did! Just a few days ago! And it's a chip card, but doesn't matter since the skimmer used the information in the magstripe online. > Your card is cancelled and you have to wait some days for a replacement (requiring also that you update it everywhere) The new card arrived minutes ago! And that only because they had to send it to a different country. I would have gotten one the same day if I wouldn't have been abroad. This is the reason why I have multiple cards, and why I never mix up the cards I use online, with the cards I use physically at the store. Since the card that was skimmed was one that I used physically, I didn't have to change it anywhere. And in the meantime, I had backup cards. Always have backup cards and backup banks. > The money you lost (in case of debit) will get back to you, after an investigation. Nope. The money was returned instantly. In fact, the bank realised what was going on and reversed all transaction before even calling me. If my bank didn't do these basic things I would chose a different bank.

doikor 10y ago

> insert PIN, wait another 5-30 seconds until the transaction runs, and then get my card back. Never had to wait that long (unless there is some issue at the bank but usually it just stops working all together when that happens) here in Finland. Also if you use a credit card instead of debit for payments under X euros it doesn't even call the bank just checks on the machine if the pin matches the chip.

snuxoll 10y ago
Unfortunately EMV here in the states is still in its infancy, and it can and does take that long to process a transaction. What I find extremely frustrating is I can use Apple Pay (which still uses EMV under the hood, just the contactless variant) and be done with my payment in under 2 seconds - meanwhile actually dipping my physical card will take a minimum of 5 seconds and up to 30 depending on the situation. The payment industry in the US did not properly prepare for the EMV transition, and it's pissing everyone off.

uf 10y ago

You do realize that e.g. in Germany you are indeed liable if your account has been used for fraud? If by that process you participate in money laundering you'll get sued by the state. Sure you'll probably go free, but the burden is on you.

wildfire 10y ago

I'm both European and Australian. I have cards in both countries with Chip-only, Chip+NFC, and (still!) two stripe only. In Australia, you can activate the card terminal by inserting it, swiping it or tapping it. There is no difference in liability shifting. In Europe, if you insert the card you'll be prompted for your PIN. If the transactions succeeds, the liability is shifted to you (the cardholder). It just happens to be what consumers have become used to in each country.