Hacker News Reader

Comment by moeadham | Hacker News Reader

Chip + Sign reduces 80% of classic fraud. Chip + PIN reduces ~98% (last I heard in 2016).

Someone I spoke to at capital one said that Visa/MS decided to do Chip+Sign in the US due to the increased support costs of forgotten PINs.

View on HN

I'd be interested to know how much of a problem this is in Canada.

Maybe it's different here because debit cards are so common that we've been trained to remember our PINs. My bank even uses Chip & PIN as the first step for an in-person transaction at a teller.

> My bank even uses Chip & PIN as the first step for an in-person transaction at a teller.

Some banks do that here in the US as well, as do retailers. Those are both for debit card transactions, though.

Also people in US are in the habit of handing their card over to family members to use, which works with signature because the POS operator never checks the signature, but won't work with PIN because PINs are supposed to be super-secret. Hence requiring PIN would reduce the spend on credit cards (no lending and spending), hence fewer smaller boats for credit card executives.

Huh? Someone trusts their family member to spend responsibly with their credit card, and is happy for that person to forge their signature, but wouldn't tell them the PIN code because it's "supposed to be super-secret"? That doesn't make sense to me.

Should have explained the logic better: it is the banks that have taken the decision not to use PINs (partly) because they do not want to get into a position where they both tell people never to reveal their PINs, but also tacitly condone card sharing that implies PIN-sharing.

I agree with you. I think it's more likely that people would forget somebody else's PIN more easily.

But fraud is up. Chip & Pin has just motivated them to use online methods. Or load other pay to load cards without a chip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com