To be honest, that doesn't seem any less secure than requiring a signature.

It's a lot more effort to make a spoof card like that, more effort than the 5 minutes of practice required to vaguely copy someones signature and get it past a disinterested, minimum wage store clerk.

Implanting a second chip successfully into the card seems a bit above the regular "found the card and made a squiggle like the signature on the back". And that vulnerability at least was fixed.

It's not like the magnetic stripe is particularly secure either, you could pretty easily clone someone's card and then even use your own signature.

Even then, if someone is required to take the card, put it in a reader and type in the correct pin it's a bit harder to 'skim' a bit extra at the till.

The question should not be "is chip and pin entirely secure" but "is it better than a magnetic stripe and a pen marking".

> The UK, for example, has seen a nearly 70 percent decline in counterfeit card transactions since adopting chip cards, according to Barclays.

https://squareup.com/townsquare/why-is-the-u-s-the-last-mark...

Generally, if the bank thinks your PIN was used you're liable for all the fraudulent transactions rather than them. That's bad.

Yup, it's not about security, it's about liability. With chip&pin you're virtually guaranteed that the bank will say "too bad" if your PIN gets stolen. But then again with the (possibly) lower fraud levels it may be worth it? And yet again, do you see the banks passing on those savings to consumers? ;)