It certainly hasn't been "overlooked" that the number will have to be
synchronised with wireless technology.
But as always it is ill-concieved technology which will be foisted on us
before all the potential problems and impacts are considered.
And it is stupid for anybody, especially the media to claim that either
banks or credit-card companies lose billions each year because of fraud.
The cost of fraud, like any other cost, is always borne by the
customer, you and me.
Banks and card issuers pay insurance premiums for protection against
statutory claims for refunds because of fraud and they pass the premiums
on to us.
On 08/10/2016 11:49, Shaun wrote:
There3 is a fundamental weakness in the security feature that has been
overlooked. the number change will have to be transmitted to all
participating retailers centrl hubs. . thaT SI WHERE FRAUDULENT PEOPLE
WILL OPERATE NEXT. . OF COURSE THE ENCRYPTION WOULD HAVE TO BE BYPASSED
BUT THEESE DAYS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS , UNFORTUNATELY GETTING EASIER
BY TE MINUYTE.
On 08/10/2016 09:08, CJ &AA MAY wrote:
Yes, a bit scary. I wonder what the cost of producing such cards would
be and whether the cost would outweigh what is lost via fraud.
I can see that the technology to change the number within the card
wouldn’t be too problematic but I’m wondering how the retailer would
know if that is the correct security number.
Alison
