We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting

Re:We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting by lostcolony on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @07:36AM (#7703803)

It's better for the user when it comes to challenging a fraudulent purchase, but in terms of security, it's worse. That was the point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @09:23AM (#7704243)

There is no such thing as just "security".

If the expected loss of funds for the user is lower, it is more secure - for the user.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting by Nursie on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @10:26AM (#7704641)

Actually that's subjective. If the overall fraud is lower then (potentially, I'm sure this doesn't actually happen) fees, charges, interest rates etc could be lower for all users, therefore they would benefit from security that lowered the overall cost of fraud and the overall number of incidences of fraud, even if individuals that directly experience fraud are worse off.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting by dragonwriter on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:01PM (#7706070)

Yes, but "security" isn't "overall cost", its about risk. I am more secure, even if my expected cost is higher, if I don't directly bear any risk of unconsented loss even if the overall incidence of fraud is higher and I am paying a distributed share of those costs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We'd lose our security certificate if we allowed pasting by Nursie on Tuesday May 06, 2014 @02:03PM (#7706087)

You always bear some risk of unconsented loss.

With EMV the risk of an incident is much lower.

The risk of not being able to recover the money may be higher.

You're more secure.

--edit-- I say may be higher because AFAICT there are no good figures on this.

[ Parent | on HN ]