Except you do pay for it indirectly, with additional overhead, through banking fees paying for insurance.
My credit union has absolutely negligible fees and, since I don't carry a balance on my CC, I give them a negligible amount of money as well. The cost of merchant fees passed on to the consumer is not something that I notice and therefore not something that I care about. I really do not have a reason to want C+P.
What is your cash back rate?you pay vendors to pay 3% to the card issuer
I'm quite surprised by the blasé attitude the US has to card security. The lack of chip and pin still surprises me. I'm surprised a lot of the bigger retail companies haven't put pressure on the banks to bring this in.
> "I'm quite surprised by the blasé attitude the US has to card security." Currently, if my CC information is stolen, I am not liable for any fraudulent charges. So why would I care? CC security is for the CC companies and the merchants, not for the consumers. That is why Americans (with the exception of those with Europe Envy or those who are merchants) don't care. There is no reason for them to. (In past discussion…
Well, any retailer has to increase their prices by 3% to cover CC charges. Even the simple act of a place insisting on a minimum spend of X on a CC can put you in a situation to spend more than you need to.
You might not think you are paying for card fraud, but it's all priced into the products you buy.
I'm quite surprised by the blasé attitude the US has to card security. The lack of chip and pin still surprises me. I'm surprised a lot of the bigger retail companies haven't put pressure on the banks to bring this in.
Well, note the numbers shown here: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/the-target-breach-by-the-... 0 – The number of customer cards that Chip-and-PIN-enabled terminals would have been able to stop the bad guys from stealing had Target put the technology in place prior to the breach (without end-to-end encryption of card data, the card numbers and expiration dates can still be stolen and used in online transactions).…
An important point to note is that, if banks want/care, they can put other safeguards that solve this problem, too. In Europe it is common for banks to text you a 6 number pin to confirm an online transaction, for example. There is no good reason to not do these things. It's still not perfect, but certainly much better.
Well, note the numbers shown here: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/the-target-breach-by-the-... 0 – The number of customer cards that Chip-and-PIN-enabled terminals would have been able to stop the bad guys from stealing had Target put the technology in place prior to the breach (without end-to-end encryption of card data, the card numbers and expiration dates can still be stolen and used in online transactions).…
An important point to note is that, if banks want/care, they can put other safeguards that solve this problem, too. In Europe it is common for banks to text you a 6 number pin to confirm an online transaction, for example. There is no good reason to not do these things. It's still not perfect, but certainly much better.
So I can't quite see this working in a physical retail location, which is where the Target and Home Depot happened.
So this, like chip and pin, would not have helped these particular issues.
It's a complicated issue. Banks are partly afraid of adopting something new. If Bank A is amongst the first American banks to switch and something goes wrong, Bank B may win its business due to customer frustration
I highly doubt that banks really care about "customer frustration." If they did, then they would be focused on fixing a million different existing problems.
I didn't say that banks cared about frustration. I said that banks would lose customers
I highly doubt that banks really care about "customer frustration." If they did, then they would be focused on fixing a million different existing problems.
I didn't say that banks cared about frustration. I said that banks would lose customers
Given that, despite all the customer frustration that exists right now, they haven't been losing customers. I don't think that Chip+PIN failing to work correctly at first would cause customers to switch. Chip+PIN cards would only be cycled into use gradually, as people replaced their older, swipe-only cards with Chip+PIN cards, or signed up for new accounts. There would be more than enough time to sort out any problems, and you could also start out by making Chip+PIN optional for new/replaced cards.