Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21689330)

And if I were a merchant, I'd say "go pound sand, I'll find another acquirer that doesn't do that BS."

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21690652)

Saying that if you have an EMV slot you are "good to go" is rather misleading. It's like saying that if you have a satellite dish you are good to go, without mentioning that you need to subscribe to the service.

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21691256)

So if the merchant responsibility is to have an EMV ready terminal, which quite a large number of does, and if "most acquirers/processors" have met the April 1st deadline, where is the missing link?

Do you mean someone has to actually come into a merchant's store and flick on a button or hook up a wiring or do a firmware upgrade or whatever to get the EMV processing going on an existing EMV capable terminal?

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21691279)

Yes, exactly, the software needs to be installed. It's not as simple as flicking on a button. It may require a visit if the shopkeeper isn't experienced in installing software on credit card readers, which most aren't. As mentioned before it may also cost money.

Originally Posted by alexmt (Post 21692010)

I believe the EMV standard prohibits remote updates to the encryption system for security reasons.

Originally Posted by Mastercard

EMV is continuing to evolve and is designed to enable implementation of stronger security over time. Examples of changes to EMV will include different key lengths and different cryptographic algorithms in the future. It can be expected that there will eventually be more frequent terminal application and EMV configuration updates or, at a minimum, the need to load new keys to the EMV terminals. For this reason, investments in terminal management systems with remote download capabilities for application version upgrades and EMV offline authentication key updates may prove invaluable. These cost effective investments can also be leveraged to improve overall terminal support efficiencies, merchant fraud analysis, and even opportunities to add new services and improve overall customer satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Mastercard

Invest in automated POS management systems to remotely implement terminal updates.

EMV terminals require more frequent updates to software and EMV-specific parameters than do traditional terminals. Centralized terminal management software to update terminals remotely is worth the initial investment to prepare for continued EMV maintenance requirements and enhancements, particularly as innovation continues in the market. In markets like Mexico and Canada, not having terminal application management systems led to time-consuming and costly in-person manual updates to terminals.

While smaller markets may be able to implement in this inefficient manner, the U.S. market characteristics and demand for customer responsiveness will make in-person and manual updates difficult to sustain over time. Considering the emergence and development of e-tablets and mobile phones into the acceptance market space, terminals may soon need to support frequent updates to remain competitive both with alternative POS devices and the demand for new functionality.

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21692663)

Or, either the acquirers already do have that in place but are BSing it as a lame excuse to extort more BS fees from merchants. The cynic inside me wouldn't be surprised if acquirers and processors are doing this instead. :p

Originally Posted by alexmt (Post 21693090)

I'm glad to read that and see it is allowed. I can tell you for a fact though that, at least in Canada, terminals get swapped by the acquiring bank they're rented from rather than even updated on-site.

If you look in the travel section you'll see there was a period of time where Tim Hortons accepted American Express EMV at some locations but not others - while they waited for their terminals to get swapped with ones containing the EMV application and keys.

It does, however, sound like remote updates are allowed. Which would make much sense!

Originally Posted by alexmt (Post 21693090)

I can tell you for a fact though that, at least in Canada, terminals get swapped by the acquiring bank they're rented from rather than even updated on-site.

Originally Posted by Dragonbelle (Post 21698544)

Here's travel reporter Catharine Hamm's Los Angeles Times report on credit card use overseas:

More for Your Money: Lessons learned using credit cards abroad
http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-...#axzz2jGPzYLF0

Originally Posted by Dragonbelle (Post 21698544)

Here's travel reporter Catharine Hamm's Los Angeles Times report on credit card use overseas:

More for Your Money: Lessons learned using credit cards abroad
http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-tr-...#axzz2jGPzYLF0

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21701487)

Now if CSP becomes verified, what other EMV chipped Chase cards might be on the way? United Explorer and Ink Bold are also one of the popular cards that have been long awaited for EMV as well. If it's available for CSP, is it available now finally for those cards as well too?

Originally Posted by infamousdx (Post 21702200)

My CSP Chip&Sig is due in tomorrow. Hopefully I can update!

Originally Posted by Boraxo (Post 21703782)

I have to keep fighting with the other wiki editors, but it simply isn't accurate to state that US-based chip+signature cards "may" work in automated vending kiosks (i.e. gas stations, train tickets, etc.). If true Chip+PIN cards are required they don't work, and that is most of the time now.

Also it is not accurate to state that many credit unions offer them. None in my area do - it's really limited to a few specialized ones.

Originally Posted by jamar (Post 21703544)

Available for Visa only. I have the World MC and was told "no" with no idea when they'll allow it for my particular card.

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21703827)

The word "may" suggests that it could work or it may not, a YMMV result which is the best report we have today from various FTers who have used them with success reports which is posted in Post #3 of this thread.

That is why the term "may" is used in conjuction with See Post #3 so that the reader can decide on his/her own whether it's worth pursuing or not.

You can't use the word "it's useless/worthless/do not work" when there are actual reports that says it worked. Because if there are success reports, then it doesn't mean 100% fail. Only when there is 100% is the absolute term "useless/worthless/do not work" can be used.

Hence, the word "may" is a more accurate term.

Originally Posted by Boraxo (Post 21703891)

I think it is improper to oversell the benefits when people may rely on the card to pay for something and then have a problem when it is rejected. If you disagree then maybe make your advice specific to the countries where success is reported with Chip+Sig, or alternatively use bold print to warn people where it won't work.

Originally Posted by nall (Post 21703908)

Are there any changes to liability rules (for fraudulent transactions) with US-issued Chip and Signature cards?

Apparently there are some nasty liability changes in some parts of Europe for chip+PIN cards.

Originally Posted by Boraxo (Post 21703891)

There are quite a few fails reported in post #3 as well. And it seems to be a country by country experience. I can also report many fails in UK and Australia no matter what 4-digits I enter. While I agree that a Chip-and-Sig card is better than nothing, I think it is improper to oversell the benefits when people may rely on the card to pay for something and then have a problem when it is rejected. If you disagree then maybe make your advice specific to the countries where success is reported with Chip+Sig, or alternatively use bold print to warn people where it won't work.

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21703944)

Well, the problem with that is

The number of countries x the number of different merchant environments will call for a huge sampling of data that no individual can do on one's own.

You're talking about give me the most precise data that will prove once and for all whether my BofA Travel Rewards card with EMV Chip-and-Signature is accepted everywhere from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe in every single merchant environment I can think of (face-to-face transaction, internet based, automated kiosk, etc.) which could also vary widely depending even between different localities within that country (worked ok in Paris, but failed in Marseilles, etc.)

No one is realistically able to do such a task. Maybe a banker who has access to EMV charges made by Americans abroad can help us out, but I have to assume such information is confidential.


If that can't be done, the best terminology to use is the word "may." "May" isn't an oversell terminology. It's a YMMV thing that it's up to the prospective cardholder to decide whether it's worth getting one or not.


It's like saying CA is a "may" issue state for CCWs. You might or might not get a CCW permit; it's up to the discretion of your local police chief to consider if you're worthy enough to get a CCW permit; therefore it's gives the prospective CCW applicant a decision whether or not to go through the paperwork to apply for a CCW or not.




No. US consumers' liability is still the same for Chip-and-Signature; if someone steals your Chip-and-Signature card and is used fraudulently you're still going to be off the hook for any fraudulent charges.

Originally Posted by Nick92 (Post 21703889)

Chase is phasing out all MasterCard products as of tomorrow and will begin sending out a Visa replacement card by early 2014. I think the MC deadline is 1/31/14. They are calling it part of an "expanded relationship with Visa to enhance your experience."

Originally Posted by Joe1690 (Post 21704289)

Can you please site a source for this news, as that is quite a bit of news that I would have thought the media would have picked up on, yet I have not heard a peep, nor did a Google search show up any articles that indicate this.

Also, if this is correct, then that would mean the IHG Rewards Card, formerly Priority Club Card will no longer be issued by Chase since IHG announced an agreement with Mastercard to relaunch the IHG Rewards card as a Mastercard. In addition, that would mean that the IHG Rewards card issued by Chase probably will not receive Chip + Signature since it will no longer be issued by them so why spend the money.

Originally Posted by cbn42 (Post 21704004)

I agree, this wiki post reads more like a marketing brochure trying to push the benefits of EMV rather than a neutral compilation of information.

The word "may" is too generous in many countries. "Most likely won't, but might if you're lucky" is probably more accurate. If we can make it country-specific, that would be ideal, but if we can't, then we should be careful to specifically warn people of potential problems.

The best advice for international travelers is to have enough LOCAL CASH to pay for any purchases they make, and not rely on any card of any type. If cards work, then great, but this cannot be guaranteed in any way. For example, I regularly eat at restaurants without enough cash to cover my meal, based on the assumption that the odds of all my cards failing is extremely slim. I would never do this in a foreign country, no matter how many different cards I have.

Originally Posted by Nick92 (Post 21704328)

Maybe Chase will issue a PR? I'm not sure this is truly newsworthy. When Citi began to eliminate Visa so many years ago, I don't remember much news other than threads from people upset with their new MC. The Chase MC phase out is only for Chase branded products such as Sapphire, Sapphire Preferred, Freedom, Slate, and the INK line of cards. Partner cards like Amtrak will remain MC. I don't want to hijack this thread any further.

Originally Posted by sdsearch (Post 21704684)

Well, then, please edit your post 2061 to correct it. It says "Chase is phasing out all MasterCard products", and that's clearly different from what you just said (about it not including partner cards, which btw is a whole lot of their credit card business).

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21555143)

I think there's a misconception here. I'm not talking about int'l students who hold a valid visa and a US address here. They are perfectly legal residents in the US so there should be no difficulty in opening an US bank account for them. Even if the bank employee is not trained in immigration law, in any case of doubt, there are checks that can be made that what he/she is saying is perfectly legit. The visa says F-1, Google up what the heck is a F-1 visa. Oh it's a student visa issued by the US State Dept. Story checks out. Just to make sure, call the college that he/she claims is enrolled in to see if his/her story checks out. Yes his/her story checks out, ok he/she's good to go. I'm not arguing about that.

The part of what I mean by "it's not that easy as it sounds for a non-resident to open an US bank account" is like say in the case of a Nigerian freshly off the plane at JFK, walking into a BofA branch or the sort and trying to open a bank account and all he can show to prove who he is a Nigerian passport with no US address and the reason he throws is "for business purposes." That is certain to ring alarm bells.

Now if you say it's easy because there are no checks going on, then you have the latter problem. From a bank perspective, how certain are you going to claim this fresh off the plane Nigerian person who is here in the US on "business" is legit to say a Japanese national who is here in the US attending Columbia University? Or in another way, without a check, how do you tell a perfectly legitimate Nigerian businessperson who comes to the U.S. a lot for Wall Street business to a Japanese national who lies about being a student at Columbia U. when instead he is actually a yakuza gang member and his intent is money laundering? And how do you discern who these two people claim to be is legitimate? Bank employees are not trained in seeing through lies or body languages like immigration officers either.

And if there is no checks going on, then what is the criteria of making sure one prospective banking customer has an easier check over another? If it's "this person is Nigerian and the other is Japanese" is it discriminatory based on nationality?

From a bank perspective, they are taking a risk with non-residents. So I'm sure it's not easy as "walk off the plane, head to the bank, open a bank account." In actuality, there are checks in place, especially in a post 9/11 world.

On the surface a Japanese passport holder saying "I'm not a US citizen, don't have a social security number, I am enrolled Columbia University, I need a bank account" and it could be the end of it for the Japanese passport holder just because he is Japanese, but the bank might be taking a risk that this Japanese person may not actually be a student of Columbia University if all they do is take it for his word and instead turns out to be a US based yakuza member in it for money laundering. Bank employees may not be trained immigration officers, but it doesn't take too much these days to google up what the visa means to check his story out. They look at the visa page, Google up what F-1 means, State Dept. website says int'l student, ok story checks out. That's the verification.

On the other hand, a Nigerian passport holder saying "I'm not a US citizen, don't have a social security number, I come to the US a lot for business so I need a bank account" might get scrutinized more just because he is Nigerian and his story sounds fishy as if he's a Nigerian scammer, when in reality he is a legitimate Nigerian business person working in Wall Street. Visa says E-2, Google up what E-2 means, it's an investor visa. Ok story checks out.

Now throw in non-residents who show up with out any visa stamp because they got in via VWP. Now that's certainly another bone to toss in. Can a New Zealander who is perfectly legal for them to be in the US for 90 days under VWP, just show up at any US branch to open a bank account fresh off the plane?

So in the context of things and all things considered, the statement "it's easy for a non-resident to open up a US bank account" is quite misleading.

Originally Posted by reclusive46 (Post 21560184)

The US definitely has a bizarre system with its credit and debit systems though but it should help as many people are used to using PINs.

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21567750)

It could, but then again, under the US structure of confusing laws, I doubt it would be a federal level law that would be applied nationwide. We don't have any consensus on how to apply a flat nationwide sales tax

Originally Posted by kebosabi (Post 21567750)

let alone other laws ranging from common sense gun laws

Originally Posted by emvchip (Post 21717527)

(regarding your opinion on nationwide sales tax and 2A)

Originally Posted by emvchip (Post 21717512)

What's bizarre? You can have debit cards (draws money out of bank account) or credit cards (money is spent now but must be paid later).

The only potential confusion is the buttons marked credit or debit at the PoS which should actually be marked online or offline authorization. But those buttons are marked that way for historical reasons. (Credit cards always used offline authorization (still do) and debit cards always used online authorization (and with a PIN)) only back in the day.