Originally Posted by ITRADE
(Post 17938747)
I tried multiple times at London Bridge station. Every time, it asked for a PIN.
Same with M&S. I did run into issues at the Tesco minimart near our hotel. The self service checkouts had an American-style credit card device attached. I instinctively swiped my card only to have the self-serve checkout think throw an "assistance needed" error. An employee had to come, type in a code, and then print a special signature receipt! Needless to say, I used cash every other time I went there for a soda. |
That's because the under $25 exemption from signature verification doesn't apply here.
|
Originally Posted by ITRADE
(Post 17938747)
I tried multiple times at London Bridge station. Every time, it asked for a PIN.
Same with M&S. |
Originally Posted by stifle
(Post 17943796)
That's because the under $25 exemption from signature verification doesn't apply here.
|
Originally Posted by mtkeller
(Post 17944287)
I think what's weird is that the self-serve checkouts here have signature pads but don't use them. I've seen the same systems configured in the US to require staff verification of the signature that's been digitally captured, which would make more sense than having the capture pad but still printing a paper receipt to sign.
They're almost unusable to left-handers, too... |
Originally Posted by stut
(Post 17944327)
Is it that the signature pads are on older machines, which were active during the migration to full chip-and-PIN? I certainly remember using them with my non C&P Amex a few years ago.
They're almost unusable to left-handers, too... |
Originally Posted by mtkeller
(Post 17944287)
I think what's weird is that the self-serve checkouts here have signature pads but don't use them. I've seen the same systems configured in the US to require staff verification of the signature that's been digitally captured, which would make more sense than having the capture pad but still printing a paper receipt to sign.
Staff are indeed *supposed* to verify the signature, but in reality where this comes in is that if a transaction was seen to be fraudulent, the bank would "call in" the physical slips and check the signature of the fraudulent transaction against other records they have of the cardholder's signature to determine if it's correct or not. Neil |
Originally Posted by stifle
(Post 17943796)
That's because the under $25 exemption from signature verification doesn't apply here.
I guess that's considered less of a security risk than the magstripe because you can't really copy it (the chip won't tell you all the information you'd need to do that). Neil |
Originally Posted by pacer142
(Post 17960403)
...unless you are using one of the new proximity cards (Visa PayWave etc).
I guess that's considered less of a security risk than the magstripe because you can't really copy it (the chip won't tell you all the information you'd need to do that). Neil |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:44 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.