Hmmm, this is an objective article isn't it? It reads like a Michael Moore investigation.

The article does not, in my opinion, make any proven point on shift of liability it pontificates on what appears to me to fictitious scenarios. There is no case-law as I can see relating to the new chip and pin system, where there is on reasonability - for example under the old system leaving your credit card lying about was insufficient.

Fact: There has been no change in liability to the cardholder, to the retailers in some circumstances yes, but not to the cardholder.

The signature system is no better than chip and pin. A signature is usually easy to copy and can be very difficult on its own to prove that it is or is not genuine. I have a long hand signature and a short signature and I have by accident, in the past, used the wrong one when using a credit card - what happened? Nothing, never once- yet the signatures looked completely different.