Contactless cards
Options
Comments
-
Merely having a concern doesn't make it legitimate.20SmthngSver wrote: »If people have concerns, they are completely legitimate!
If someone has a concern the fluoridation of tap water is a government mind control conspiracy, then their concerns are not legitimate.
Your concerns might be *real* - in that it's true that you hold them - but that doesn't make them legitimate.
I have every right to say otherwise.20SmthngSver wrote: »You have no right to say otherwise20SmthngSver wrote: »Anyway, you can dismiss everything as much as you like. You can have your opinion, but you're not really accepting of others opinions or concerns here and it's coming across aggressive instead of informative or corrective or reassuring. You're kind of twisting what I'm saying to suit you as well, so I don't see the point in continuing here.
I point by point highlighted why your concerns about contactless cards were unfounded. This is the very definition of informative and corrective. If you don't like the tone I used then that's your problem - you're an adult, you shouldn't need someone to speak to you like a child. I have little patience for people who hold onto non-rational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.1 -
Perhaps, but there were still only 2,739 reports of contactless card fraud in 2018 for 7.4 billion contactless transactions.
7.4 Billion transactions totalling £69 billion. Which makes fraudulent transactions 0.002% of all contactless transactions.0 -
I have a summer camp for secondary school students coming up. I am now thinking we should do it there just for fun.If MI5 or the CIA steal your phone, then this might be the case. Your average pick-pickpocket/bag snatcher doesn't have the capability to replicate someones fingerprint after lifting it from their phone screen.
Anyone who *does* have that capability isn't really going to be interested in stealing a few quid with contactless payments.0 -
Perhaps, but there were still only 2,739 reports of contactless card fraud in 2018 for 7.4 billion contactless transactions.
Can you tell us where your figures for the reports of contactless fraud have come from?
Can you also confirm that the number 2739 relates to total fraudulent transactions rather than the number of cards affected by contactless fraud?
Are you able to say whether the fraud reporting you refer to is complete and that all those reporting figures are compliant with the requirement to report?
Can you confirm that there are no overlaps in the reporting such as an institution being able to report something as simply Lost & Stolen (L&S) fraud rather than specifically contactless fraud?
Do you have any data on the drop in L&S fraud post CHIP & PIN and its subsequent increase after contactless was introduced?
Thank you.0 -
With all due respect, your phone screen is most likely to be full of your thumb prints and there is very little difficulty in acquiring them from there. (Especially if the phone is of any value, so can be sold once unlocked and cleared.) So it does sound secure, but in fact it is not.
I have a suspicion (of old when the bank I worked for looked at thumbprint use) that certain detectors also detect the flow of blood under the skin. That rules out cutting off someone's thumb to use but I don't know if sticking a thumb print over your own thumb would work.
Far more likely is the prospect of being drugged in a bar and being driven to a remote location and having your thumb tapped on the screen by a criminal whilst you are 'out of it' - as does indeed happen.0 -
That's correct.Terry_Towelling wrote: »I have a suspicion (of old when the bank I worked for looked at thumbprint use) that certain detectors also detect the flow of blood under the skin.
It does work with the fingerprint scanners used by iPhone.Terry_Towelling wrote: »I don't know if sticking a thumb print over your own thumb would work.
Rather someone on a bike/motorbike will snatch the phone out of your hand...Terry_Towelling wrote: »Far more likely is the prospect of being drugged in a bar and being driven to a remote location and having your thumb tapped on the screen by a criminal whilst you are 'out of it' - as does indeed happen.0 -
-
... and above all, try not to check your email/facebook/whatsapp while waiting on a traffic light in (East) London!Terry_Towelling wrote: »A few lessons for us all there - don't use biometrics, use a PIN instead; don't use your phone in the street; never trust a cyclist.0 -
I'm assuming that Chino is simply relaying the figures mentioned in the article quoted by the poster they were responding to at post #26 above:Terry_Towelling wrote: »Can you tell us where your figures for the reports of contactless fraud have come from?
Can you also confirm that the number 2739 relates to total fraudulent transactions rather than the number of cards affected by contactless fraud?
Are you able to say whether the fraud reporting you refer to is complete and that all those reporting figures are compliant with the requirement to report?
Can you confirm that there are no overlaps in the reporting such as an institution being able to report something as simply Lost & Stolen (L&S) fraud rather than specifically contactless fraud?
Do you have any data on the drop in L&S fraud post CHIP & PIN and its subsequent increase after contactless was introduced?
Thank you.Action Fraud, the national reporting centre for fraud and cybercrime, said that in 10 months last year there were 2,739 reports of contactless card fraud, totalling almost £1.8 million0 -
I'm assuming that Chino is simply relaying the figures mentioned in the article quoted by the poster they were responding to at post #26 above:
Yes, but I was rather hoping that Chino would respond to aid my understanding of the depth of their knowledge of contactless fraud. In particular, is 2739 the number of people affected, the number of transactions or just the number of individual reports received by ActionFraud. That number doesn't tie up with other figures from ActionFraud, such as contactless fraud standing at £1.8 Million. Assuming no transaction exceeded £30, this gives rise to a number of fraudulent transactions in excess of 60,000.
It might also be reasonable to assume that the value of fraudulent contactless transactions is likely to be nearer the £30 limit than the apparent average contactless transaction value of somewhere between £9-£10 (if the figures of 7.4 Billion contactless transactions with a total value of £69 Billion are accurate).
That figure of 2739 has already led to one contributor assuming that it is the number of fraudulent transactions (which it can't be) and thereby calculating a fraud rate of 0.002% (which is a massive underestimate). For 3% of all fraud (by value - as provided in one of your posts) to be down to contactless is hugely significant given their generally low value.
One can only hope the introduction of the zero-floor-limit will reduce this problem - although, as we all know, it will probably just move the fraud elsewhere - perhaps to an area where it is more difficult to contain.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards