Topic: Issues with contact less payments. (Read 567 times)

In my country, you need to re-enter your PIN each time you've spent 100€. That's the reason I don't like to use, maybe good for the small payments. I know with a Raspberry PI you can make something to collect the card's information from people but here you could do nothing with it since you receive a SMS code from your bank for each online transaction.
People can use card protection like this one, sometimes you can get some for free

Yeah, the wavelength is not the factor here.
RFID chips used in cards are passive, they require energy from the antenna of the card reader to activate and transmit data.

You would have two choices, stopping the incoming wave (easier to spot the guy with the antenna pointing at you in my opinion), or stop the outgoing wave from your chip, which has been already taken care in newer chips or if you really want to be 299% safe, use the solution neuroticfish has pointed out.

But I really think this is blown out of proportion, with older chips, there was the possibility of let's say supercharging them with custom built antennas and increase their range to almost one meter.

But, and there are a few buts
- all test have been done in laboratories with nothing in between the two
- you need a power source, the guys in an experiment used a pick-up truck battery, not the thing you want to carry around.
- most tests have used customs antennas ranging from 30 to 50 cm in diameter, again, not the thing you want to carry in a subway and point at people
- no test as I am aware right now has tried to do this with multiple chips and this is the part where it will get totally confusing
for a reader. Again, speaking for myself, if they somehow manage to point this at my wallet and indeed get a response it will be from 3 chips. Oh...wait!  I got also a transport card with a chip, and my work security card, and my card for the apartment complex door, and my healthcare card.... Actually now I just realize how much stuff I carry around...feeling a bit weird.
- most important of all, as I was saying, newer chips have limitations in their architecture, they simply physically don't care what you point at them the wave will be the same.

Get a mobile banking solution from your bank with instant transaction alert and you're safe.
Remember that they need an official merchant account to charge your card.

The frequency of these cards is 13.56mhz

Meaning that its really low energy and has a wavelength of about 22m which I don't think is helpful to anything but... (I was trying to work out the size of something needed to stop the frequency passing through it however that seems to be 22m unless I've got something wrong - likely).

Never say never.
This term is used so many times here when banks feel there is something even remotely suspicious so they have a chance in a case in court if you are brave enough to challenge them.
And the term (translation equivalent) is clearly stipulated in my contracts, on both type of cards, visa and mastercard.


At this point, you're sounding like an infidel who enjoys the scraps the banking cartel is throwing at him.
Bring in the pitchforks!!!!!!!

Just joking, I knew well before this that BTC can't offer and won't be able to offer alone the protection customers want.
Merchants love BTC, consumers love PP.

i see what you're saying now though. i think it was unclear because in the USA, debit cards = PIN, credit cards = no PIN.
[/quote]

Well, and this is meant for this #exstasie also, should conclude the debate because I honestly admit didn't have a clue that in the US you do have PINs only on the debit cards I thought that was general, further proof  that there we're talking about different systems with different laws and different taxes without perfect knowledge of the other side.

So, bottom line since we're gone so far from the topic, more than the 4cm RFID radius, let's get back to it  

@Neurotic, yeah I got those RFID blocker for my partner, who actually does like using those contactless cards. I think the primary card anyway seems to actually come like that by default. A bit of a wallet padder, that blocker, and can't help wonder if data can still be stolen at the moment the card is taken out. Can't imagine why you'd not want to enter a password, it's a 2-second inconvenience.

fair enough but if you look at the transaction volumes done on credit cards, they are actually incredibly secure. if fraud were a bigger problem, i'm sure we'd see issuers pushing to add PIN numbers for credit transactions. as i read it, that was one of the issues raised in the discussion---this idea that credit card fraud is so unsustainably rampant is basically flat out untrue. it's making mountains out of molehills.


it's up to the issuers. they don't care because fraud just isn't that big of a problem.

i see what you're saying now though. i think it was unclear because in the USA, debit cards = PIN, credit cards = no PIN.

And as a consumer why should I care? If I stop using credit cards today, the prices I pay won't drop!

You're belaboring a point everyone in the room already understands. We all know credit card (and debit card!) processing fees and fraud increase overall prices.

What you don't seem to accept is credit card users are actually receiving value back. Debit users are not. And in the US, credit card users have superior protections. This is really not debatable.


That article wasn't even about that. It was about whether/how much banks issue refunds or credits because of customer complaints (including complaints over fees, billing disputes, interest rates, etc.)


I still don't see how it's less safe for me to never give out my banking or debit card information. Any fraudulent charge goes on a credit card balance (not my money) where my card agreement says I am not liable for unauthorized spending.


That will never happen. The banks would be laughed out of the court system if they tried to argue "losing your wallet = gross negligence." This is why cash advance limits are only a small fraction of the entire credit limit, because fraudulent cash advances are completely covered by the bank.


In most cases they won't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law

This is why consumer spending is just about the least interesting aspect of Bitcoin. It's rational to hoard BTC rather than spend it, and it pays (literally in the case of credit cards) to spend dollars.

Ok, lets take a break here because the discussion has split in two about debit/credit and the security part that triggered my post got lost, so at this point let me remind you what my initial post was:


Then @exstasie claimed that credit cards are better because the bank takes the loss.

It had nothing to do with credit or debit, I was asking why Americans are still using no chip no pin cards, not why they use credit. So my point was that cost could decrease if you (as in Americans) would take better care of your cards, be it debit or credit or them and don't simply rely on the fact that the bank will magically eat the loss just because it's a credit and not debit.

And the nice thing in that article I mentioned:

You see, the loss might be distributed to all, but in some cases, it might be distributed just to one country .
The one that relies on the banks and card processors taking the loss  

that's the whole point. other people using credit cards is already priced in. the prices have already been hiked to account for cc users. therefore it's rational for any one individual to use credit cards since they can reap rewards that compensate for those price hikes.

when i use my credit card, i get 2% cash back. you get nothing back for using a debit card, but you pay the same price as me. how are you being logical? it's much more rational to use a credit card, pay the balance in full, and pay lower prices as a result.

This is more dangerous for customers who have card payment systems with just a swipe away. With contact less credit cards it even made easier for scammers or pickpockets to steal your money away from you. The problem for banks here is they always try to ease up your cashless way of transacting but they always fail on backing it up with good security. The way I see it is they always push for convenience in the exchange if their user's security which I think they do it in purpose for them to earn more, that is why I still have a traditional debit card lying in my wallet instead of this convenient card like this one.

Oh, it makes perfect sense and is logical enough.
The cost of insurance goes up as you create more losses than you pay for the insurance company.
For car insurance, it's pretty easy to adjust these, but credit card companies can't do the same, by hijacking only your processing fee 3x times, so the global loss goes to all.

Remember this?

Visa and Mastercard decided to increase their Fees.And there is nothing y can do

This is where all this "protection money" tax goes in .


Exactly this!
What is a store owner that has lost all his profit in a month due to fraud going to do?
a) Print money?
b) Go to a temple and pray the money coems back?
c) Raise prices to recover the loss?



This only IF the bank agrees with the refund.
https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/cfpb-dispute-complaint-refund-1701.php#state
If you're on the unlucky side the money that was never yours become your debt.

Second, debit cards have limits too and people don't have all their balance on a debit account.
In my case, for example, I have a bank account that is used to wire in my salary, that bank account is in my name only and can't be accessed via a debit card.

For me, it's far safer to have an account in which to keep my deposits, wire enough money from it to have enough for shopping on my debit card and use my credit only in extreme measures.

Holding a card that can be stolen or simply lost and in one minute a thief can withdraw 10 000 euros from an ATM without any problem since there is no pin barrier is far riskier.
What if the bank will tell you that they believe it was you who has done the withdrawal or simply call it gross negligence?
Then you're liable for more money than you've ever had.


As I said, there is a very big difference between a debit card and a bank account, and our version of the ACH in the EU is nothing like your ACH at all, it's more like a direct debit.

Probably the difference between US and the EU is at fault for many of our contra arguments here but there is one thing I must ask you...

So, (in the US)
You got total protection, you can reverse transactions up to 120 days, you get 5% cash back, you have a credit line with no extra charge or  0 interest rate for a period (I assume this, as that's how things work here in EU)...then....
Why would people use BTC  

if you have used cryptocurrency as a tool for your payment every day, it might not be possible for some other countries that still have no clear legality regarding the circulation and use of cryptocurrency.

This is generally how it is in Canada also. Most people only use Visa/Mastercard/American Express for purchases because they get cashback/air miles/free crap like gasoline/etc.

I didn't know what contactless payments were either but one day I got sent a credit card and it had the Wifi looking icon and tried it out one day at the store and haven't looked back.

Credit cards are very safe and its usually the merchants that are at risk of accepting them due to fraud. I know a few store owners who were victims of CC theft and they had to eat the costs or get them reimburised from their insurance company, the consumer is never at fault.

This is why some stores have a "NO TAP" message near the terminal because they disabled them to reduce any forms of theft with a found CC. Because if they accepted that payment, they would most likely have to take the loss, not the person who lost the card.

I trust in the security of the blockchain than any other system because we have seen how decentralized and anonymous the system can be, I have been a freelancer on the blockchain space for about 4 years plus and I have never collect fiat as a mode of payment, I also have a crypto atm card which I can use to make withdrawals from atm and also make payments for good and services in mall which I prefer then making use of a bank that gives me so much limit on how I spend my money.

that analogy makes no sense since consumers are all paying the same prices---they are all paying 450 euro each. they don't pay different premiums based on their payment method.

in other words the costs of credit cards are already socialized. so it's pretty pointless to tell a paypal or credit card user they are paying higher prices than everyone else. of course they aren't! they're paying the same price as everyone else---plus they get additional consumer protections, perks like frequent flyer miles and cash back and activity-based discounts etc.

it's actually more rational to use cc than cash because cash users are the ones getting screwed by higher prices. higher prices are the fault of cc users but cash users are the stupid ones for paying those higher prices and getting nothing back for it. at least cc users are getting something out of it......

Security is always an issue when you have wireless forms of transmission.

All these anti-fraud guarantees are only as good as promises, and it will sometimes be difficult to prove to a central entity that your card was hacked into and you shouldn't be held liable - and that's why you should always take security seriously despite what banks tell you.

Though, I don't think that bitcoin is in direct competition with contactless payments. Bitcoin in the future could be integrated with some form of contactless payment infrastructure which would make things a lot easier. But certainly, credit card fraud is very widespread, and as a seller, you certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of that which means that sometimes, irreversible payment methods like bitcoin work out to be much better.

Of course that increases the costs. But your logic is nonsensical.

Millions of people are using credit cards, driving up the final cost of goods and services. If I personally stop using credit cards, that won't drop the price of anything for me.

I don't save anything by using a debit card, so why would you make this argument? I can't stop the rest of the world from using credit cards and driving prices up. And if I stop using credit cards? The only thing that would accomplish is I would stop getting up to 5% cash back.


With credit cards, I have 120 days to recognize a fraudulent charge. With debit cards, there is a maximum of 60 days (my bank is actually 30 days). After that, you are 100% liable for all fraudulent charges. My girlfriend lost thousands of dollars once because she reported a theft of her debit card a few days late. We lost everything because of that.

More importantly is the function of time. If a thief empties my bank account via debit card fraud, it can take 10+ days to recover the money. For some people, this could mean missing rent payments or other obligations, etc. If a thief runs up my credit card balance, I've never lost any money at all. There was never any chance of losing actual money.

Credit cards are simply better for consumers. Rational consumers will continue to use them. I haven't seen one reason why I should use a debit card instead.


Yes, I am much safer not letting anyone access my bank account and debit my money. By using credit cards, my money is never at risk.

Why the hell would I give merchants access to my bank account, LOL? It's just stupid. I have plenty of credit lines to cover all everyday expenses and pay for them later with bank-to-bank ACH payment.

Plus, when fraud eventually does occur, it's much easier to have a new credit card number issued than to open a new bank account, order new check books, change all my bill payment accounts, etc. Why would I ever want to go through that trouble? To gain what?

No matter how sensitive it is, the card emits to only 4 cm, above that the signal is dead, in reality the range is around 2-3 cm with nothing between, much like phone or wi-fi signals work, if your phone isn't capable of sending back signal it doesn't matter if you're in the coverage area.

Also, don't forget the leather from the wallet, maybe two folds depending on how you fold it, other cards and your clothes, and the thief's device should be also covered with something, and.....he has to find out where you keep your wallet, sometimes even I have to tap my pockets to realize where it is

If that would be possible we would be seeing a flood of angry people complaining about how they were robbed...and yet, there is nothing like that.

I watched some clips regarding this one last year. It seems like contactless card payment, though even modernized, are more dangerous to use than to those cards who needs a pin before transacting. Theres this experiment which a person with a contactless card in his wallet rode a train. After this man tap this device (which we see on the cashier if we are swiping our cards) on the man's pocket, a money were stole for an instant.

I do understand both of these however, isn't the card just transmitting a frequency? So unless the frequency is terminated by skin/leather then that's fine but if it isn't then a card reader of a greater sensitivity might still be able to pick it up.

(my key card seems more secure than the debit card sometimes  with its three chips)...

---

Does anyone know of an open source version of Google pay also? I don't want them tracking me but it seems a waste of a chip on my phone...

---

@stompix our credit card and debit card rules are different. The credit union people handle the credit cards and give incentives like 180 day charge backs... Debit cards are less fruitful on offers like this but may still include them and probably do.