England UK

john boyle wrote:
> In message <WDG0e.8$4%3.2@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Martin Davies
> <mart2306@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>> And how does that differ from the old system?
>>> --
>>> John Boyle
>>
>>
>> Because now, no matter how bad your ability to copy a signature, no shop
>> using chip&pin will question you using the card.
>> And it also becomes much harder to prove to the card issuer that you
>> didn't
>> spend the money.
>
>
> My point is that the C&P method is more 'secure' than the sig method.

It isn't. There was quite an interesting programand on London Tonight
a copuple of weeks back. The lady from the C&P people (I forget the
company's name) was adamant the system was secure. The "risk analyst"
from Lloyds said he "didn't know". The program *did* demonstrate
copying the mag stripe and editing the info to reset the "this is a
chipped card" bit, and writing a new card - which worked in an atm, a
technique which will work do for the forseeable future.

So any corner shop that cares to doctor a reader slightly can copy the
stripe from your card, note your pin, and make a card that will work in
an ATM. On your account. The bank will of course say the system is
secure......

--
Please use the corrected version of the address below for replies.
Replies to the header address will be junked, as will mail from
various domains listed at www.scottsonline.org.uk
regards. Mike Scott Harlow Essex England.(unet -a-t- scottsonline.org.uk)