Originally Posted by
EUnomad
Politically it's also ideal for consumers. We can allow the upgrade to EMV/sign, but then later reject the banks attempt to downgrade to chip-pin. The banks would still try to sell PIN use as a convenience, but it would be obvious to more consumers that it's an attempt to shift legal protection.
Do U.S. laws already permit this blame shifting? If so, why not change them? A signature doesn't prove anything. Rarely is a signature checked. At least Chip and PIN means two-factor authentication instead of one (something you know, something you have) which is always going to be more secure than one factor (something you have).