...except card fraud lossed are recharged to the merchant so perhaps they don't care?
Out of interest there is a special exception for disabled people who cannot use a pin pad btw...
I also found this Visa page explaining that PIN isn't used in the US because it's too expensive:
I've been using Apple Pay recently, and one annoyance I had was that one store when I paid (for a >$2k purchase) didn't ask for my PIN... it asked for a signature. And then of course I was meant to present my card for verification. And I couldn't... what?
Apple Pay lets you spend that much money? I think with Google Pay + my bank the limit is $100 / transaction, after which you have to use your card + pin (which, let's be honest, makes sense.
I never got one though, I ended up getting married soon after and got a UK bank account.
It was great when I was traveling in Iceland where pretty much every transaction was made with my card. It's a regional credit union, but I only had to visit a branch in person one time to change the PIN on my card.
I just wished online transactions owned it up for optional two factor online transactions, pin card transactions and SMS verifications for all transactions above $500.
That would drop fraud significantly.
Edit: I just contact them and you do indeed have to become a member first.
"The last fraud"? Are frauds so rare that it's meaningful to talk about the last one?!
Normally, I pay for everything with American Express. Would you recommend I get a different card for London? I wonder if there's a US card that support chip and pin?
Sorry for gushing. I love Revolut.
Also: TFL accept AMEX contactless as payment/oyster equivalent.
under £30 with our brand new chip an pin machines too. I am supposed to make a load of calls this week to try and resolve it...
Amex isn't as widely accepted outside the US. If you have a Visa or Mastercard, bring that.
Almost all credit cards issued in the US now support EMV chips. They almost never support PINs, but that doesn't actually matter because all merchants are required to be able to accept all three.
I've traveled all over the world, and never once has this been an issue. Nobody's even batted an eyelid when I give them a US-issued card. Except, of course, for places which only accept cash, but that's a separate question.
But it is easier to use plastic in the Tube, as others have said.
Of course you still have the problem that not eveywhere takes Amex, so getting a Visa is recommended too.
Paying by card is very common in some countries (Northern Europe, France), paying by credit card is common in some (UK, Ireland), paying by cash is common in others (Germany).
It's not possible to generalize all of Europe for any of these, except to say that all EU/EEA countries have modern systems.
(For example, there are restaurants in Sweden that don't take cash, and restaurants in Germany that don't take any cards, restaurants in Denmark that charge an extra 2% if you use a credit card rather than a debit card, and restaurants in Britain that happily accept the 5% it costs them to accept AmEx.)
(It may be possible, but require the manager's discretion or authorization.)
This actually was true across Europe for the first few years when EMV chips were rolled out. It took some time before they passed a law which absolved customers of liability for fraud processed as EMV transactions.
"In one disputed transaction case we assisted in, the customer had his card stolen while on holiday, and then used in an EMV transaction. The issuer refused to refund this customer on the basis that their records showed the PIN was used. Luckily, the customer managed to obtain the merchant receipts, and these contained the TVR. This indicated that the PIN was not used, and the merchant opted to fall back to signature. We decoded the TVR and informed the customer, who was then able to get a refund.
Other customers are less fortunate: it is unusual for the TVR to be included on the receipt, and often the merchant receipt has been destroyed by the time the dispute is being considered."
The law may always have been that the customer is not liable unless they enabled the fraud, but I hope the rules of evidence and/or practices of dispute resolution have changed so that the infallibility of the system is no longer tacitly assumed.
For a long time after EMV chips were introduced, the liability was actually shifted back to the customer. EMV chips were initially a huge step backwards for customer protection, and it took some years before this was fixed in law across Europe.
Nowadays, if you see a merchant who can't accept EMV chips, it's likely their POS vendor who's liable. The merchant is liable in theory, but some vendors still don't provide EMV-capable terminals, so they've agreed to assume the risk until they do.
Whose responsibility is it to make those cards more common, if not Mastercard's?
In Sweden, cards have only been issued with chips since the early 2000s, and consequently merchants only very rarely use signature purchases. Why they didn't push this sooner in the US is a riddle wrappen in a mystery...
The only place I've seen signatures used recently around here have been in busy bars/nightclubs, where stressed-out bartenders don't want to wait for online validation. I guess they get few enough fraud attempts at cocktails that they don't care too much about validation.
The issuers. Of course, Mastercard has some influence over them... But they certainly can't unilaterally dictate conditions to them beyond whatever contract they signed.
There's also the fact that, even if issuers handed them out, the machines and merchant processors also have to support them. Which was something that still hasn't completely happened in the US, even with the networks pushing as hard as they could. (Moving fraud liability to the merchants is about the biggest move they could make.)
I was involved with Australia's chip-and-pin switch in 2006. At the time, we were amazed how slow USA was getting rid of magstripe cards and signatures. And that was 12 years ago...
I have often wondered why the US has historically lagged behind for everyday banking. (e.g. email money transfers, chip enabled cards, pin number verification, tap to pay)
It's a bit of a prisoners-dilemma thing: new technology can only be adopted with sufficient coordination, but each individual party is only interested in cooperating if they think they will "win" from it more than their competitors.
The US seems to be a very bad place for consumer advocacy in general. Perhaps it's seen as "anticapitalist". I don't know if the patchwork regulatory environment of the states helps or hinders this?
In the US it's almost exclusively about beating the other guy.
I mean, in tech, look at the HTTP "referer" header, which is spelled wrong. Imagine what a hassle it would be to fix that.
If there was a Leviathan that could force every vendor and user to eliminate the old spelling or else, it could get done a lot faster.
Everyone uses NFC credit cards now (and if the amount is over ~$40 or a daily limit has been reached, with pin).
For us, chip and pin is basically deprecated, and no one has used magnetic strips in a decade.
–"The system says 'signature needed', was that intentional?"
It _is_ practical though, if you forget your pin code and need to pay something.
It used to be very common in bars/clubs too, at least before contact-free cards, to speed up the payments.
There are a handful of places in the UK that don't have PIN terminals at all and do classic swipe-and-sign transactions, though. The one I encounter most commonly is the onboard cafe car on Great Western Railway trains.
That's a valid point of view, but I actually believe that the business is taking (the bulk of) the risk. In case of a chargeback, the business has to prove that I made the purchase, and a PIN is better evidence that I actually made it compared to just a signature.
This means that businesses might accept signature only for relatively low amounts. Indeed, it's not uncommon that neither is needed for amounts under a couple of lunches or so, to make lunch queues quicker. I assume the throughput is sometimes worth the risk.
It benefits only consumers, while costing the banks and payment providers. It's the same excuses for still having critical banking infrastructure written in COBOL.
Hogwash. Yes I know all bankers live in extinct volcanoes but one thing they know a lot about is money. It is ridiculously expensive to support the US's conservatism when it comes to finance. The lack of chip and pin pales into insignificance compared to their addiction to paper checks, for example.
It would be completely in the banks' interests if everyone moved to internet banking, NFC cards etc because the running costs and fraud costs are vastly less. The problem is all those pesky, inertia-laden customers.
Paper checks are indeed a silly cost, but NFC provides banks no gain over chip. Chip provides gain over magnet stripe by basically rendering skimmers ineffective, but only basically in that credit card fraud is still a big business. Instead of skimmers, you use trojans or data leaks. Physical credit cards also sell very cheap on the black market.
In other words, NFC benefits only consumers, not banks. Chip benefits banks a little bit.
> if everyone moved to internet banking, NFC cards etc
Those are very different things. Internet banking benefits banks directly because they can shut down local branches and screw over customers (which they do here—I have to drive to a different city to insert cash, and can only do so within very limited hours).
NFC has no benefit to them (and might slightly increase fraud that the bank will have to cover by allowing ~$40 withdrawals made wirelessly from quite a far distance). Chip presents a pretty tiny benefit to them.
And most certainly, if you have a customer that already use a magnet stripe credit card, giving them an NFC card will result in instant adoption of the feature. We had some statistics when the feature rolled out—it was adopted by everyone with a supported card on the spot. It's much different when you're trying to change a check user to be a credit card user, but that might be more of an issue with the consumer experience with the bank—credit and debit cards over there sound so cumbersome compared to our system where the bank issues both credit and debit cards tied to your account. We don't have the "benefit" card mess.
It's a bit too easy to blame user inertia.
Why else would banks in europe adopt NFC or contactless payments?
Now, the national payment provider (a private company) does it because they earn money on terminals, and want to fight to stay relevant in a world of emerging mobile payment solutions such as MobilePay (a Danish mobile payment solution of which over half the population are users).
The only exception to this rule appears to be Apple Pay, which is implemented by some individual banks. I am not sure if this is due to platform differences, or whether it is just the national payment provider fighting back. I'd suspect the latter, as Apply Pay just see our dual-type credit cards as VISA, sending them transaction fees that the national payment provider lose out on.
Other than that, banks here are only differentiated based on their financial solutions, and maybe in some rare cases by their mobile/internet banking solution (all have feature complete variants, but some are nicer than others).
My point was that NFC provides no benefit over chip.
Apple pay and Samsung pay have contact free payments, and it's also more secure than signatures.
But as new payment infrastructure is expensive they will just move if they have to. Perhaps too slow, as their competitor are gnawing at their profit margins.
With a small number of banks and a stronger central government which can exert pressure you can see why the UK and EU are ahead.
When I go to the U.S. I usually have to produce ID when using my credit card. Is this because I am from out of country or do they do this with everyone paying by credit card?
I'm in my late 30s and have never once been asked to produce proof of ID in relation to a standard credit card purchase. Whether at a grocery store, restaurant, etc. I've never seen anyone else have to show ID either, maybe once in the 1980s.
I’m astonished when someone actually does check my ID.
It happens maybe once or twice a year.
It only happened once and that was many (15+) years ago, but if you ever wondered if it could happen, yeah it could. :)
I've always thought the signature was security theater, asking for a photo ID is way better from a security standpoint.
Anyone with some insight as to why want to chip in?
There's also a separate, arguably more deserved stigma about entitled people causing trouble by using unnecessary technology.
These together, along with a reluctance to cause trouble for low-wage clerks, make people reluctant to risk holding up the line by using Apple Pay.
That means fewer people even try Apple Pay, so fewer other businesses see the need to make it available.
In my experience Apple Pay is faster than other payment methods.
In what way do you see it as slower?
If that reliably didn’t happen, things would be fine. Unfortunately, payment processing in the US (or at least in Maryland where I live) is a mess:
- Point-of-sale devices are frequently broken, with post-it notes taped over the chip slot saying “CHIP READER DISABLED”. I’ve dealt with buggy readers that force you to swipe, then go “Oh that’s a chip card, insert it!”, then when you insert it they go “Chip not supported, reverting to swipe as a backup method”. We’re struggling enough with the basics.
- I’ve seen stores that put a “We accept ApplePay” sign in their window, but when you go in, it’s a gamble as to whether all the dependencies from the reader to the network to the payment processors are working today. When I’ve asked cashiers, their responses range from a despondent “I just don’t know anymore” to a cautious “We have it but I haven’t seen anyone use it in a while.”
- Complicating all of this is the fact that all of the POS devices in my area look identical, whether they support NFC payments or not. I have a hunch that the hardware vendor just ships NFC-capable units to everyone, but only turns them on in certain conditions (maybe related to the type of contract the merchant has?)
If anyone has plumbed the depths of this issue and can explain what’s going on, I’d appreciate it.
I really like Android Pay/mobile payments when they work, the only problem is, I stopped really using it because the success rate is so low. The card readers seem like they aren't that strong, have difficulty sensing the phone, and when it does sense it there seems like a lot of weirdness/try agains. I tried to use it once at a vending machine and I just couldn't figure the thing out, the payment went through but when I selected something nothing happened. Credit card worked fine though.
It was so unimportant when I got a new phone I ended up getting one without NFC.
Oh, I'm pretty sure the “CHIP READER DISABLED” thing is just the merchant didn't set up their account with chip enabled, not any problem with the hardware itself.
It’s generally the fault of the POS software. In many (most?) cases, enabling EMV on the terminal requires the use of a new API. The POS software has to write code to support EMV.
I find I only use google pay when I'm not in a hurry or when I'm very familiar with the specific reader and it has a long track record of working. If I go somewhere new, I always use my card unless I have time and the store isn't busy.
About the only time I use Apple Pay is when I'm traveling to Europe because it tends to work faster than when I have to do the non-standard (for there) chip and signature.
I don't recognise this at all.
Pull phone out of pocket, touch the fingerprint reader to unlock it, wave it at the reader.
That's quicker than getting my card out of my wallet, let alone swiping and then signing something.
Theory 1: I’m not touching the reader in the right place. Maybe the sensor is on this side or that. Try hovering the phone all over the POS box.
Theory 2: Maybe my phone is not working. Try waving it around again while cashier has this “get your shit together” look on his face. Pull out CC.
Theory 3: The reader supports NFC but not ApplePay, so now I’ve wasted my time. Pull out CC.
Theory 4: Its not even a NFC reader (because there seems to be no standard way of telling by just looking at them). So, now I’ve wasted my time. Pull out CC.
At least domestically, I find credit cards almost always straightforward while Apple Pay is hit or miss having the line behind me giving me dirty looks because the entitled tech shit is holding up checkout playing with their gadget.
1) You've never unlocked your phone before? How weird.
2) How broken is your phone? Never had this issue (I use android pay multiple times per day)
3) This is unusual, to the point of not being a thing here - Applepay is compatible with contactless EMV, as is Android Pay and there's basically nothing to be done at the merchant end to support it.
4) Of course there's a way to tell, they all have the four lights at the top, either physically or on-screen, plus there's the contactless logo the display on-screen.
These imagined impediments are hilarious though, you should have a sketch show.
Most of them look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_terminal#/media/File:P... and will occasionally have a contactless payment icon or an apple/android pay logo on the screen when you walk up to it. In the case of this card reader, the NFC point is at the bottom of the screen and you basically have to rub your phone on the screen to get it to read.
Sometimes they look like this one: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeepersmedia/14128014654 but that big pad at the top is a lie - those have never actually worked and if there's not a sign on it, the cashier will tell you it's "broken".
The rest of them look like this: https://twitter.com/dionlisle/status/768124197549723648 and there's no clear indication or consistency where the NFC contact point is, or it is also a lie and you shouldn't even bother.
I'd say about half of my credit card transactions these days involve me handing a card to someone who swipes it directly into the register - there's no way to possibly use NFC or enter a PIN for debit/etc.
That last Ingenico is, IMHO, very poorly designed as it hides them.
In the UK (for instance) they almost all look like this one with virtual LEDs on screen -
or this -
The NFC area is consistently at the top, and is consistently visible. If the standards aren't being followed in the US reader market then clearly that's not going to help anyone, but it's just more evidence that the US credit card technology market is outdated and a very weird outlier.
I've worked for a large retailer who has purchased a sizable number of verifone devices (hundreds of thousands). The devices do have NFC-enabled readers in them to support Apple Pay, however, the contract that the retailer has with Verifone specifically says that Apple Pay is disabled: The retailer does not want to pay for the development cost for enabling Apple Pay in their Point of Sales stack.
It's a great add-on for Verifone: A couple of bits get flipped in fipay and in their backend and boom: Apple Pay (as long as the payment processors support it).
However 'Tap and go' is so widely adopted that I haven't carried cash in months and I know people that legitimately don't know their own PIN
Unintentional pun. The US public seems to have a huge reluctance to use the chips in the cards too. It's swipe and sign.
(I'm also from Australia and signing for a credit card purchase went away decades ago. PayWave is really popular, my 89 yo mother loves it.)
If they do use the chip, then the card issuing bank is responsible for all fraudulent transactions.
This rule was supposed to go into place over a year ago. But most places couldn’t be bothered to update their equipment, so it had to be postponed.
Even now, many places still can’t be bothered. Makes me care about them just that much less.
How long ago was this? Signatures haven't been a thing here for well over a decade. Also is Paywave just contactless? Because we've also had contactless for a fair while.
Just what does the CC system offer over debit?
The only things that are checked are the digits of the amount, and the account number.
The rest of the check can be complete garbage, and the check will go through and the bank will pay it. Then the banks will blame you, the account holder.
I learned this the hard way.
Well, the payee is also usually verified to match the destination account, and a few other elements are technically required for it to be a legal financial instrument (even if banks don't spend the time to check them every time). Legally, a check could be written on the back of a napkin and still be valid - as long as it has a few required details.
The thing I've come to learn about checks is that their security features are not necessarily intended to prevent fraud, but rather to legally prove fraud after it has occurred. So no, banks often will not check those things, but anyone with access to the ACH network can reach into anyone's account and move funds around if fraud is suspected (it's basically a shared database with surprisingly little security). It inherently relies on the legal system to sort things out after the fact, which is a completely different approach from what we see in modern information security (where preventing unauthorized access/behavior upfront is the primary concern).
This is why it’s critical to have transaction alerts for all activity for your financial accounts. Otherwise you could have an ACH slip through that drains your account. You wouldn’t notice till the next time you logged in or, more likely, when you try to use your debit card and realize it’s cleaned out.
Often times banks will set these limits unnecessarily high ($10K is common). Alerts are a good way to spot the fraud, but limits cap how much they can take in the mean time. Even if you will ultimately get refunded, it could take months of a slow investigation before that occurs.
I have mine set to double the most we've ever spent in a single month, and I've only had to increase it once (vehicle downpayment).
This is barely dangerous imo. Inconvenient perhaps but not dangerous. The reason being your bank will refund the money.
The dangerous ones are those that take tiny amounts monthly that you just won't notice.
Wait, what? How are you not going to notice? Every transaction is a line on your statement which, I think, all banks issue monthly.
Besides, if you have a computer, you can download all transactions (to Quicken or similar software) every day or two and verify all your new transactions. If you have a phone, Many banks and cards can even be set up to notify you on each transaction.
If there was fraud on my account I’d know instantly, at worst within two days.
Thanks to this I caught a fraudulent online transaction for 1.2 million columbian pesos(?) and was able to block my card immediately after.
Ha! Not even that. In the cheque clearing process, about the only thing that ever gets checked (even by automated processes) is the MICR line (account/transit and institution number).
Everything else (EVERYTHING ELSE) is just assumed to match whatever the person entered at the ATM/image capture app/teller window. The bank considers it your problem, as the cheque writer, to catch any issues on your next statement, and then they'll review the image of the cheque (in many jurisdictions now, the physical cheque is destroyed pretty early in the process). You should really never ever give a cheque to someone you don't trust. It's pretty silly, but that's the reality.
Although, fun fact, it's the cursive amount that is the 'official' one if there's a mismatch between that and the digits, since it's much more difficult to subtly adjust that.
Source: work for an institution that processes literally millions of cheques (I'm not in that area, but yeah).
Also worth noting, it doesn't need to be in cursive. I spent all my life struggling with writing in cursive on checks (because it's pretty much the only place I ever do it). One day, someone told me I could print it (it just never occurred to me that this was acceptable) and I've been much happier ever since (during the, you know, 10 times a year I actually write checks).
I've been printing the amount for years now, as my cursive was never terribly legible to begin with and has decayed from lack of use. The whole point of that field is to make it so someone can't just add some zeros to the end of the value. Just write the value out and draw a line through the rest of the field.
In the old days, they would print a computer-readable version of the amount on the bottom of the check, right-justified with the account number. Once that was there, most banks just processed that, and ignored the rest of the check.
The other info on the check isn’t meaningless. It will (should) be examined when there’s some kind of fraud or dispute about a check payment - but it effectively does nothing to prevent fraud or theft.
* A share account is what they call it at a credit union.
As you say, none of this will prevent basically any amount of money from being withdrawn from your account however. But you do absolutely have routes available to you to get your money back. If your bank blamed you instead and didn't let you know what options you had then you had a shitty bank that rolled you, you should get a new bank (or a credit union).
Surely this must not be a unique case; what’s supposed to happen in this sort of situation?
In the past, I'd wave around the cancelled check and resolve it quickly. With ebanking, it's hours and hours on the phone and sitting in the bank manager's office refusing to leave until they deal with it.
With that particular one, I eventually made the bank issue a "clawback" on the funds they transmitted. Wonder of wonders, this caused the vendor to find the money they'd received :-)
Maybe this is how life is like in the Valley, but even so I doubt it’s the experience or thought process of the non-tech worker.
I just used a check this month to pay for my earnest money deposit for a house I’m buying. Before that, I’ve had to use either money order or personal check for the deposit and application fee of every apartment I’ve ever rented. Several landlords only accepted checks for the regular rent as well.
They weren’t slumlords (as some of the other commenters here assume), those who took only checks for rent were individuals who rented out a house or apartment building and took good care of it.
I’ve paid my gas bills with checks back when I lived with college roommates.
Checks aren’t as ubiquitous as they once were, but I remember in my life time, growing up, when they were ubiquitous.
Here in Australia, I can just give out my bank account number freely -- the worst you can do to me with that information is send me money.
The big caveat is that the Fed likes to sit on the transfer for a day or two, or sometimes more. Very annoying if you are on a deadline for the money.
> If an error is made in the payment of your Direct Debit, by the organisation or your bank or building society, you are entitled to a full and immediate refund of the amount paid from your bank or building society
The only check I routinely write now is to the gas company. They use Western Union as their payment processing vendor and WU charges $2.95. It's petty, but it's easy enough to write a check.
But my last two apartments required cashier's checks for both... so honestly, I don't expect to write another check my whole life.
It may sound shocking, but some people will do this. Source: me, landlord since 2001.
Tenant: "Well my landlord [tale of woe]."
Bank: "So I'm hearing that the payment was unauthorized."
Landlord: "... YOU DID WHAT?!"
Bank: "sigh We don't want to be in this discussion."
Landlord: "YOU HAD ONE JOB!"
Bank: "It's not sitting between two adults trying to figure which of them screwed the other. We've got courts for that. Good luck."
I use a credit card much more often these days, because the CC company takes fraud seriously. The banks don't. At least my bank did not.
On behalf of the cardholder they do. When a cardholder complains the card company just reverses the payment to the merchant in a 'chargeback', sometimes months later. Then the merchant has to appeal to get it back. So no the credit card companies don't care about fraud.
I would ask for cash...
In Australia you can hardly buy anything anymore with ordinary cheques (you can still use a bank cheque for a car from a dealer or deposit on a house something, but that's the kind that you go to the bank, pay a fee and they print it out).
Hardly any private seller for a car or anything would ever take a cheque though - it's mostly always electronic. This year they're bringing in a real-time system (the current one is free overnight transfer to other banks and immediate for the same bank) which you can send people money immediately with just a mobile number.
This is how it has always been (tm) here. It's interesting to hear about the glorious future that other countries have. How do you identify the account you are transferring to? I was technically interacting with a business, do they just give me a phone number/email and I use that?
I think my bank is working on a way to do instant transfers but I'm not sure how any of that works.
For a regular transfer, you have a six digit number that identifies the bank/branch, and an account number (variable length, depends on branch). You just always use this method and your bank checks whether it’s a BSB at the same bank and does an instant transfer, and if not clears it through the central bank. I think batches run at 9am and 5pm every business day for that.
For those kind of payments, they’re bringing in two new things this year - a new real-time clearing system for small interbank transfers (that is, under like $100k or $250k or something - larger payments you have to use a special system called RTGS), and ‘PayID’ where you can have a mobile number for an individual or your Australian Business Number for a company, and I think internally it resolves back to the account number / BSB (I guess like a DNS system for banks).
It's a significant burden on commerce, businesses, and individuals to be without their funds for that long. And a big win for greedy banks who boost their balance sheets and profits by holding all those "in transit" funds.
In the UK, the "Faster" payment system, introduced about 10 years ago, means that the vast majority of bank-to-bank funds transfers are completed instantly.
BPay is only for bills and stuff - I'm sure my power company don't care that much that if I pay my bill on Friday night it doesn't clear until 9am on Monday morning... (it still counts as the bill being paid on Friday). It usually clears next day on business days anyway.
Also, the bank's balance sheets don't get a "boost" from holding payments. Deposits and other customer funds are strictly a liability to the bank (they owe them back to you), and they don't automatically get interest on them. So they don't have as much incentive as say a company does to pay invoices late to collect more interest.
I expect this seems like a great cost-benefit trade, right up until a multi-billion fraud wipes out one of the banks, and then suddenly they'll be really excited about something better than "cross your fingers" as a resolution mechanic.
My renter's for 1.5 years wrote me cheques with payee of wrong first name, and typo in last name.
No issues depositing any
YMMV. Simple won't let me deposit a check made out to "Me and Wife" in my personal account - I can only deposit it in our joint. They'll permit me to deposit "Me OR Wife".
Suffice to say, I went back to my neighborhood bank.
To Simple's credit: Their customer support was beyond fantastic -- they were at the mercy of their controlling bank...who was receiving the garnishment request.
When Simple switched banks last year, I received a check in the mail for $3 and change for the amount that I had left in my account after moving my direct deposits and such over. Just...a massive headache.
This was before they had the joint offering, so we had to request a new check. Now we just put stuff in the joint.
Checks have many safeguards against fraud. "Catch me if you can" exploits have protection.
It also depends on the teller, how much of a hardass they are going to be about cashing it. I guess I don't know what the protocol is for for mobile deposit, they may or may not have manual review.
even in cases of fraud?
I didn't need 90 days to find a new bank. (A credit union, in fact.)
The courtesy amount is the digits. The legal amount is the written expression for dollars.
The legal amount matters, and had you taken your bank to court (if you didn't sign your legal rights over to arbitration), the legal amount prevails.
There are rooms full of people working minimum wage night jobs, to verify checks that have values in conflict with each other, associated documents, or are generally illegible. Something like 90% of checks are verified by OCR, and deposited for an amount often within a margin of $2.50 per deposit.
The remaining ten percent are processed by hand, balancing deposit to written amount, usually within the $2.50 same margin. This represents hours of checking transaction amounts for tens of thousands of transactions, as a fraction of the automated processing. The $2.50 is usually reviewed by managers in an end-of-day report.
For maybe a quarter of a million documents processed in one evening by a room full of around fifty people running OCR equipment (made by IBM and Unisys), and performing manual image review and physical document inspection, maybe 200 are kicked out by the machinery and software to be deciphered by hand.
Sometimes people get lazy, and are on the verge of quitting anyway because night jobs suck, and if you argued until you got your way, you were probably dealing with such a situation.
Unfortunately most US cards don't use a pin code at all. There are a few issuers that provide you with a pin code, but even in those cases there's typically a signature preference and the pin code is only used as fallback if the terminal doesn't support signatures. So if you're using a US card in Europe pretty much the only places where you can use the pin code are automated terminals (e.g., at train stations). At most other places you're going to have to use a signature.
There are a few US issuers that issue Chip & PIN cards with PIN preference - for example UNFCU and First Tech Credit Union. Those cards work great in Europe, but are sometimes a pain to use in the US. E.g., if you're paying at a restaurant and you have to go with the waiter to the terminal in some backroom, because the terminal asks for the pin. That's not an issue in Europe, as waiters usually carry mobile terminals with them.
Huh? I have a European card (chip & PIN, PIN preference), and at restaurants in the US I've always signed and never had to go to the terminal in some backroom.
I had that a few times in Asia (think Vietnam). I quite appreciate the times it happened. Instead of taking my credit card then hoping for the best I specifically have to authorize the transaction. In Europe they usually just bring you a portable device.
I have one credit card that I mostly don't use anymore, and keep the account open only because it does chip + PIN so I can use it at train-station kiosks in Europe.
Don't feel so bad - remember that we invented the credit card.
Also the phone.
And the Internet.
For your example of "the Internet" that's true only if you squint and choose TCP/IP as "the Internet". But if you take a step back the Network is a more or less an inevitability, I would insist on dating _that_ to at least the Treaty of Bern (1874) and perhaps earlier. Of course Bern moves actual paper letters, rather than just bits, but the central idea is there - the network effect, we must communicate with absolutely everybody, if we let national sovereignty get in the way of that we lose out.
Your argument looks a lot like a fallacy, to me.