PIN taken a knifepoint

Chrysalis

EachPenny wrote: »

I'm glad you raised this point, because it was something on my mind which I didn't want to raise in case it sounded like I was trivialising your son's experience (which I'm not).

<snip>

This I think is the reason, I expect they get scam reports of been robbed of card and pin, and as a result decisions are been made to reduce their liability to fraudulent claims.

I still see it as the banks responsibility, the technology now exists where ATM's could be installed with face recognition cameras and/or fingerprint sensors, it wouldnt be 100% foolproof but would at least require the card owner to be at the ATM, so in this instance he would have had to be dragged to the ATM. It would make the robbery harder.

When banks are not liable for these types of crime, then they also not encouraged to improve their security.

Such a system could even have a panic system, so it asks for a pin or passphrase of some sort, a panic pin/passphrase coud be used where the ATM pretends its the correct pin but then fakes a technical fault as the reason it cannot pay out, or perhaps only spits out a fraction of the money pretending its out of money. All sorts of things could be done by the banks to make muggings of cards/pin harder, which as I said this is their responsibility to protect our money we store with them.

POPPYOSCAR

Of course they should refund it.

Hope your son is ok.

jennifernil

agrinnall wrote: »

Presumably you simply never use cash if £10 lasts you a month, and although I suspect that's a typo and you meant £100 that's still a pretty small amount for a month. The problem with your idea is that people vary in their withdrawal habits so much that it's very hard to determine what's unusual; my regular withdrawal amounts are £50 and £100, but £200 is not unusual and occasionally I'll have a reason to take out more.

The real answer if you're concerned is to not have enough in the account for a withdrawal larger than you will accept to be made: if your upper limit is £100, never have more than that available (you might have to stick to a basic account to avoid any sort of overdraft).

I rarely use cash, today was the first time I looked in my purse since before Christmas, so there are quite likely many people who use very little cash in a month.

I would normally withdraw £20-30 at a time when not on holiday, and that would last me for ages!

Pretty much all our spending goes on credit cards.

agrinnall

jennifernil wrote: »

Pretty much all our spending goes on credit cards.

What are you going to do when you find that retailers who used to take credit cards because they could charge a fee have decided not to take them now that they can't?

Chrysalis

The credit card providers would step in if it started happening en masse with retailers.

In addition public opinion would turn enough to possibly make a u turn on gov policy.

PeacefulWaters

agrinnall wrote: »

What are you going to do when you find that retailers who used to take credit cards because they could charge a fee have decided not to take them now that they can't?

Use a debit card.

agrinnall

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Use a debit card.

And if they have decided to stop taking all cards?

PeacefulWaters

agrinnall wrote: »

And if they have decided to stop taking all cards?

Shop elsewhere as they'll probably go bust if they stop taking all cards.

EachPenny

Chrysalis wrote: »

I still see it as the banks responsibility, the technology now exists where ATM's could be installed with face recognition cameras and/or fingerprint sensors, it wouldnt be 100% foolproof but would at least require the card owner to be at the ATM, so in this instance he would have had to be dragged to the ATM. It would make the robbery harder.

The problem with all security systems is that people will always try to find a way around them, and sometimes the consequences of the criminal trying to bypass security are far more serious than the loss you are trying to prevent to start with.

In the case of fingerprint scanning for example, rather than drawing attention to your crime by dragging the victim there, it would be far simpler to remove one (or more) of their fingers and take that instead. The average card and PIN thief probably wouldn't do that, but you can be sure some theives would have few qualms about removing someone's finger.

Chrysalis wrote: »

Such a system could even have a panic system, so it asks for a pin or passphrase of some sort, a panic pin/passphrase coud be used where the ATM pretends its the correct pin but then fakes a technical fault as the reason it cannot pay out, or perhaps only spits out a fraction of the money pretending its out of money. All sorts of things could be done by the banks to make muggings of cards/pin harder, which as I said this is their responsibility to protect our money we store with them.

The problem with that is the criminals aren't entirely stupid and will soon be aware that the messages on the ATM mean the victim is not being compliant. If the first machine only gives (say) £50 then the thief will just move on to the next cash machine and try that one. If you've adopted facial/fingerprint recognition and the victim has to be present then the net effect would be to extend the victim's ordeal and increase the possibilities where the criminal might get the jitters and do serious harm to the victim.

Whichever way you look at it, from a personal wellbeing perspective the victim is best off giving the thieves the card and PIN with no 'tricks'. Then it is down to the daily withdrawal limit to determine how much they (or the bank) stands to lose.

Biggles

agrinnall wrote: »

What are you going to do when you find that retailers who used to take credit cards because they could charge a fee have decided not to take them now that they can't?

In those cases, I never paid by card anyway, I paid cash, so no change. But all the local shops take the card for anything and everything with no fee and no minimum.