Contactless Cards

gusgorman

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

Think you'll find many of us have moved with the times and going on statistics the chances of someone scamming your Contactless card is about the same odds as remote control talking dolls being installed in your local kebab shop.

As I just mentioned this is nonsense. Contactless fraud will grow as the technology becomes more common.

gusgorman

reclusive46 wrote: »

I don't really understand why people care. If someone steals it and fraudulently uses it. Its the banks problem.

Its not only about people stealing the card. Fraud can occur when the card is in sometimes wallet or pocket, and people care because the onus is on them to check for fraudulent transactions on their account.

It is pretty stupid to add a feature with extra security vulnerabilities if the person has no intention of using that feature.

BugsyBrowne

gusgorman wrote: »

As I just mentioned this is nonsense. Contactless fraud will grow as the technology becomes more common.

There's more knifepoint robberies in the UK then Contactless Fraud so does this mean you stay in 24/7.

Everyone has there own opinion but I really think you should check up on what todays date is and acknowledge we no longer live in the dark ages and also make a little phone call to your local bank and I'm sure they'll explain to you that you will be covered if someone dare try and scam you for £20.

gusgorman

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

There's more knifepoint robberies in the UK then Contactless Fraud so does this mean you stay in 24/7.

You've completely missed the point.

You were saying that there isn't much contactless fraud, and I explained that is because the technology is new. Fraud will grow as the tech becomes more common.

BugsyBrowne

gusgorman wrote: »

You've completely missed the point.

You were saying that there isn't much contactless fraud, and I explained that is because the technology is new. Fraud will grow as the tech becomes more common.

You're completely 110% overreacting on something so silly IMHO.

Right say someone now steel £80 off you from Contactless payments out of your account(100% unlikely) the bank will just reinburse you so I don't think you get it.

Move on & stop worrying.

reclusive46

People are forgetting that someone can steal your card an order stuff online anyway but yet again, its not your problem. Its the banks.

FireWyrm

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

You're completely 110% overreacting on something so silly IMHO.

Sometimes proponents of new technology are just willfully naive.

1) Just because it hasnt happened to you, doesnt mean it cant and has never happened to anyone else. So anechdotal 'I've had a card for x years with no problems' is just plain useless information. I've never been the victim of swipe fraud either, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

2) Contactless is far from secure. In fact, it is frankly insecure as various technical articles over the last year have proved. It is entirely possible to collection hundreds of card details. Individually, the total max fraud would be up to £80, but times that by a few hundred bits of information swiped on a busy Saturday afternoon and it starts to become extremely profitable.

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

Right say someone now steel £80 off you from Contactless payments out of your account(100% unlikely) the bank will just reinburse you...

Banks reinburse you? Seriously, what planet are you on? There is growing acknowledgement that banks are simply wheedling their way out of every 'claim' made to date if at all possible. If your PIN number was used, forget it. If you PIN is a memorable date, forget it, if you PIN is a number which can be 'easily guessed', you guessed it, you can forget a refund. Likewise, how are they getting your PIN in the first place because hey, that isnt supposed to be possible, but believe me, there are plenty of people who would disagree with you. There was a case, just the other day on DFW of clear fraud where 14 payments were made at a petrol station in the space of a few hours and yet the bank refused to pay up on the basis that they rang the owner of the card who confirmed 'sleepily' that he had the card with him. A few hours later, he realised that in fact, he didnt have the card at all. Yet, the bank wont refund £900 spent on a students' account using his PIN in under an hour!

As a customer service operative, I have watched fraud physically taking place on phone top ups (a common type of fraud) and tried to warn the banks only to be rebuffed on the basis that they HAD to wait for the owners to 'report' it before they could stop the cards.

Banks would refund you...yeah right. At the moment they will, you wait until it's thousands a day and they wont give you the time of day...

BugsyBrowne wrote: »

Move on & stop worrying.

Contactless is no step forward. Just like Chip&Pin...it is nowhere near secure as the banks like to pretend.

JuicyJesus

There was a case, just the other day on DFW of clear fraud where 14 payments were made at a petrol station in the space of a few hours and yet the bank refused to pay up on the basis that they rang the owner of the card who confirmed 'sleepily' that he had the card with him. A few hours later, he realised that in fact, he didnt have the card at all. Yet, the bank wont refund £900 spent on a students' account using his PIN in under an hour!

If we're talking about the same thread, the bank's case is infinitely more convincing than the student's. His story changed multiple times, he confirmed the transactions were genuine before and is now disputing them (sleepily or not, I know what transactions I made on my account and not to agree with any I didn't make) and the transactions were all made with his correct PIN and own card while he confirmed the card was in his sole possession. Not to mention, his PIN number was part of his date of birth, which is a no-no as any fule no.

So it's not "clear fraud". Not in the slightest.

FireWyrm

JuicyJesus wrote: »

If we're talking about the same thread, the bank's case is infinitely more convincing than the student's. His story changed multiple times, he confirmed the transactions were genuine before and is now disputing them (sleepily or not, I know what transactions I made on my account and not to agree with any I didn't make) and the transactions were all made with his correct PIN and own card while he confirmed the card was in his sole possession. Not to mention, his PIN number was part of his date of birth, which is a no-no as any fule no.

So it's not "clear fraud". Not in the slightest.

Just out of interest, how many cars do you own? There were 14 payments on that card, some within minutes of each other and all marked as 'petrol'...unless he was providing his card for an entire convoy, the banks' argument was far from convincing. Even if the person had been buying high priced goods, £900 amounts to practically the entire petrol station stock of cigarettes! The person in question only acknowledged payments made on a particular day, not knowing that so many OTHER payments had also happened that day...the bank took his acknowledgement to cover ALL transactions they could see, but he couldnt as he was talking to them over the phone. No, not convincing at all.

In any case, there are OTHER cases on DFW and in the public press regarding people who have had their cards swiped and the bank using any excuse to refuse a refund.

If chip and PIN is so secure, why only 4 digits? Most websites require at least an 8 digit alpha numeric password and yet I can get into my bank account with the use of 4 random digits. What's worse, I need to remember multiple PINs across multiple banks in order to comply with their requirements not to have the same PIN for different cards. It is sheer impossibility these days to remember all the PINs and passwords that one needs to simply exist in modern society. Now, add to that the ability to just swipe £80 off my card (without even needing my PIN) if you stand within 2 feet of me and I cant even prove I've lost my card because I still have it? The banks would have a field day throwing out every claim.

Jack_Griffin

Yeah, a previous poster naivly said the laws of physics prevent fraud, but in fact all you need is a more powerful reader to induce a current in the card & make the chip work.

From my reading the card comms. standard (ISO/IEC 14443) says reads can be done at 10cm range, and there is another standard (ISO/IEC 14443) that allows reads up to 50cm.

I doubt those are the extreme limits of the interface, more than likely they are ranges at which you never get read errors.

So prepare to be remotely swiped, it will happen sometime, somewhere, once the cards are everywhere & criminals have a big incentive to expend effort on breaking into the system.

Manufactures are already making shielded wallets, though I'd anticipate fraud to take place near reading equipment, e.g. at the tail end of supermarket queues or near ATM machines.

The banks really need to shield these places, like US smart passport reader stations have been, but I suspect they'll wait till the situation dictates.

Basically I'm keeping out of it till I've no choice.. (I'm sure that'll happen).