NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so she used her own

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by btilly on Thursday March 17, 2016 @01:04PM (#11305720)

In other countries, chip based credit cards have reduced in store fraud by about 75%. This is a lot more than a "handful of frauds".

That said, make one thing harder, they find another avenue in. I'm voting for cameras that read your physical card while it is in, then the fraud is conducted online. (Downside of that for thieves being that now they have to give out a working address.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by xaqfox on Thursday March 17, 2016 @03:40PM (#11306987)

Does it allow the credit issuers just to shift the blame to the end-users and deny 75% of fraud claims where the user could not adequately prove they were not present at the time and place of the fraud?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NSA refused Clinton a secure BlackBerry like Obama, so sh... by btilly on Thursday March 17, 2016 @07:01PM (#11308352)

No. The default in the USA is that consumers are not liable for anything that consumers claim they didn't buy, and the company can't prove they did.

The reason it reduces crime is that you can't make fake credit cards with data collected from a skimmer, and use them in stores. Your fake credit cards fail because they can't do the chip interaction. Therefore in store fraud is reduced to people physically stealing your credit card.

[ Parent | on HN ]