How to avoid Contactless cards?

reclusive46

gusgorman wrote: »

No. Because despite the extra security vulnerabilities I was eager to use the new functionality.

No. Because, although there is still the possibility of fraud with chip and pin, overall it is more secure.

It adds a new vulnerability which I think is totally unnecessary because I don't want or need the functionality. I actually think it borders on the moronic to manufacture a card that can have money taken out of it by a device that comes within range. Totally stupid!

Yes, I agree, it would be more expensive. But just because distributing 2 types of cards will cost the banks more money that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it if that is what alot of their customers want.

(And anyway - you wouldn't necessarily have to distribute 2 types of cards to give your customers the option. You could just let them opt out which would disable the functionality on their account)


Yes - but the risk of fraud is reduced. That is the key point here.

Contactless cards work offline. You couldn't just disable it.

Herzlos

richard734 wrote: »

You are more likely to have your pocket picked than suffer a contactless fraud from info still in your wallet.

At the moment, correct. But as contactless cards become more common, contactless card fraud will become more common too.

I'm unlikely to be using any contactless payments, so I feel like it's an unnecessary risk (especially if the clone is potentially valid until my next (never) transaction).

BugsyBrowne

Herzlos wrote: »

At the moment, correct. But as contactless cards become more common, contactless card fraud will become more common too.

I'm unlikely to be using any contactless payments, so I feel like it's an unnecessary risk (especially if the clone is potentially valid until my next (never) transaction).

Try and get out more and you might realise its 2013 we live in.

Le73Uq86Uv

Hominu wrote: »

Were you saying that when they introduced chip and pin to replace the swipe and sign?

What they have pins?

Mine is still signature (pin surpressed) and that is what I want to stay on.

Why?

Because if your chip and pin gets used by another person the banks say you must have disclosed your pin ( I know they should not but they do anyway) but with a signature the old rules apply and they cant say you disclosed a pin you do not have.

ianpop1

Its not just bank cards that have this technology, football season tickets, loyalty cards, and now hotel room keys. there are free apps on the web to scan these, if the free ones do it? what about tech fraudsters? My galaxy phone scans my passport and brings up every detail including picture. All these things use the same type of chip at the same frequency. Having had an ID fraud before I know how much hassle it is so I am shielding my contactless enabled cards etc Just check out the reports on oystercard readers debiting other cards instead of oyster

gusgorman

reclusive46 wrote: »

Contactless cards work offline. You couldn't just disable it.

Ah, good point, I didn't realise that.

Another bad design decision then

reclusive46

gusgorman wrote: »

Ah, good point, I didn't realise that.

Another bad design decision then

Transactions would be a lot slower if they went online, especially in some places.

barbarajon

I agree with Hominu, its much costly to give option could be one reason why they are with no options.

Hominu

gusgorman wrote: »

Ah, good point, I didn't realise that.

Another bad design decision then

Chip and PIN is mostly offline too, so you can use it on trains and planes, etc, where their is no connection to a bank possible, and if the amount is under the shops floor limit, no connection necessary (they can process in bulk later).

It's not a contactless-only thing.

This is why even if you close your account, you can still get transactions appearing.

[Deleted User]

Martha2 wrote: »

they brush aside my request and tell me that it's a case of take-it-or-leave-it.

I've been leaving it for donkey's years.