the theft of data from TARGET, the purchases at WalMart, etc., if the chip was there and the pin number used was correct? Are you suggesting that we need more survelliance, photographs taken at checkout lines or on all cards?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying not to do it, if one thinks it will really work. It's just that a lot of people reject more indentifcation and don't want it, from both sides of the political spectrum. I'm speaking in practical terms only and see a lot of business that is not conducted with scanners, except at large stores. Even with that at WalMart, etc., it all could have been faked without taking more measures to identify people in real time and give more identification, which some people reject.
We've got people complaining about GPS and RFID scans, as well as data bases, and you can't have this level of security without giving up more of your privacy. A tech fix does not always work.
Do you think a chip in the credit card would have prevented hackers going into the data base to get card numbers and pins when they did not have physical access to the cards, just the digital record of transaxtions?
The only thing that would stop this would be more cyber security at the banks, ISPs, etc. which can be overcome by persistent thieves working together as this incident proves. Crooks can even purchase the exact same equipment online that banks and vendors use, as proven by numerous thefts.
True, the banks looked at it as you say and weighed the cost to risk benefit to adding to the price of the carfd. But the idea it's all the bank's fault and no one else along the chain of data is not accurate. The theft of data occured online, not with the cards themselves.
Do we want everything chipped, and can't those be picked up with RFID devices and stolen as well? It was some kind of data base that caught these crooks in Texas and no chip was involved, just the magnetic strip, probably. Which thieves can create themselves.
I don't really want to argue about this with you and this idea, it's a good one. but it's not THE answer. And I honestly don't know what is the final answer, as the crooks have managed to work around every fix that's been installed so far.
The scope of this theft - 70 million accounts - shows how vulnerable our data is in corporate hands. Even if I was to go with the assumption that the banks are the main ones at fault, that's not where the breach occured. And there are many other ways to steal in a transaction that the chip would not solve.
The more ID that is required at the point of sale, the more vulnerable I feel as it's all in the hands of people that I don't know, who may be up to no good. Guess if I'm going to enjoy the paperless system I'll have to get used to giving out more data all the time. Sorry, it just bugs me out sometimes.
Oh, and I'm running out the door, and have appreciated your thread and reply as thought provoking. Just don't think it takes into account the variable that I see in this case.
= new reply since forum marked as read