Starting with the fact that a static low entropy factor is a terrible idea to begin with
-
-
Not to mention chip & PIN are slow, which impacts consumers and retailers alike. See hockeystick adoption of contactless in CA, AU, NZ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rr @ozkanaltuner
All of those are true, but it is undeniable that it works: Chip+Pin only networks see 6x times less fraud than ones relying on Chip+Signature
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thijsniks @ozkanaltuner
Sure but if liability shifts to consumer on the fraud that does happen, that’s a worse outcome. The other participants bear the majority of the cost of PIN.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rr @ozkanaltuner
The fraud that does happen is so limited that I'm not sure if that really is a worse outcome though
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @rr @ozkanaltuner
The remaining fraud is mostly scammers doing contactless transactions without pin with stolen cards (max €50 loss in most of Europe) or scammers recording pin entry and then stealing the card (rare). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have consumer liability for the first case.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thijsniks @ozkanaltuner
Respectfully disagree. While unauthorized charges are probably just an annoyance for you, a stack of €50 charges is a big deal to most folks.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rr @ozkanaltuner
It’s definitely a large amount of money for a lot of people, but the system clarity still seems the better tradeoff to me. I do think individual card users should have the ability to set their own pinless transaction limit for which they feel comfortable.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @thijsniks @ozkanaltuner
I think this is an issue best (or first) addressed with policy than with product or technology. Defaults are powerful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Defaults rule for sure. Policy is about tradeoffs though. More consumer protection for pinless transactions means somewhere other consumer costs have to go up (likely transaction fees, which also hurt people with low income)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
at
retweets