No PIN needed on credit card purchases from Coles

[Rabaelthazar]

So I went into Coles and bought a few bits and pieces today, went through the checkout, swiped my credit card and the machine said "APPROVED".

I asked the check out chick if there was something wrong with the transaction and she told me that on purchases under 30 dollars there's no longer a need for a pin or signature.

Hang on... WTF? If that was offered to me by my bank as an option, I'd be ok with the idea but what I don't dig is the fact that the security on my card and my money has been reduced without my knowledge or authorisation.

Isn't the whole fucking point of a PIN to make it so that only I can use my own card? Sure, it's only 30 bucks but it's still 30 bucks.

Anyone else find this a bit off-putting?

[Sheather]

Yeah that sounds farkin ridiculous. Going down the lines of the American Express swipe and go, but that should definitely be an elective policy, and implemented by card providers, not by stores...

What's to stop someone with a stolen credit card from going through multiple times and spending hundreds of dollars? That is such a breach in acceptable conduct... I hope other stores don't follow through with their example, but I'm afraid I wouldn't know what to do about it. Do you think taking it up with your bank/cc company would do much good?

[Torsten]

your security is not reduced because it is the bank's risk. also, signing or PINing is always a risk as someone could be watching you, so by reducing the number of times you have to sign or PIN the bank is actually increasing your security.

[ThunderIdeal]

but T, here is my question about that.

to be reimbursed surely you would have to notice the missing funds?

the likelihood that i would notice an unusual twenty dollar transaction on my statement is next to zero.

[Rabaelthazar]

Do you think taking it up with your bank/cc company would do much good?

 

Realistically, no - I don't think it would do any good. I might be able to disable my card from the program (maybe) but the bigger picture is that this is the way society is headed. In many ways, I'm cool with the idea of fast easy transactions the same way I'm cool with most new technology. Even if I were dead against the idea, if this is the way things are heading with money transactions (and if I want to keep using money) I'm going to have to accept it or become bitter and twisted.

Perhaps this is just my first taste of new technology being forced on me. My first taste of being a grumpy old man. People a couple of generations above me probably felt the same way when their offices insisted they do their work on computers instead of good old typewriters.

your security is not reduced because it is the bank's risk. also, signing or PINing is always a risk as someone could be watching you, so by reducing the number of times you have to sign or PIN the bank is actually increasing your security.

 

Hmmm... I see what you're saying, but for someone to access my funds the old way, they'd need to both watch me enter my pin and then lift my wallet whereas now they only have to lift my wallet. Having said that, I've never actually been pick-pocketed so there's really no change.

the likelihood that i would notice an unusual twenty dollar transaction on my statement is next to zero.

 

Ditto

Are the four seconds it takes for us to enter a PIN really so valuable that we have to change technology in order to save them for some other menial part of our day, like checking facebook on our mobiles?

I like those four seconds cos it's an opportunity to say hi to the checkout person.... although they're being replaced by automatic checkout queues as well.

Hang on, I can see the positive side. In a few years I may not even need to leave my house at all. Everything will be automated and I can use my precious time to get down to the important business of chatting on internet forums.

.

.

.

I am getting old and grumpy.

[chnt]

i think it's actually $35, it happened to me the other day, i was waiting for it to say sign, on the self serve machine, and i was spooked out but then i noticed a sticker explaining the situation, i dont really care, i check my accounts regularly, if there's ever a problem the bank will refund my money, i'm fine with it.

[santiago]

mcdonalds has been doin it for ages.

i like a cashless society, worked at a place once that only took eftpos and credit card from the customer and literally 99/100 made no issue.

in terms of end of night banking and figures for the month it was a breeze, financially it was sound, saved a hell of a lot of screwing around, it was important for identity as well although alot of dodgy people wont like that one.

best of all we were not a target for robbers either considering the branch took 5 million per annum.

the 4 seconds to save a pin number albeit small is 1/15th of a minute, that transates into a 15th more productivity per annum theoretically, come on get into you cages people, how will we live the george orwell utopia if we dont start getting more efficient for big biz.

[Sheather]

the 4 seconds to save a pin number albeit small is 1/15th of a minute, that transates into a 15th more productivity per annum theoretically, come on get into you cages people, how will we live the george orwell utopia if we dont start getting more efficient for big biz.

Under the assumption that you make one transaction per minute of trading hours, it translates to a fifteenth more productivity. Also I believe that Huxley's "utopia" more likely than Orwell's. See this comic.

I'm all up for cashless transactions, it's more secure for everyone and is hardly a hassle, but reducing security on cards without the card holder's knowledge or consent is something I think is wrong. Signing for your stuff is a pretty much pointless security measure these days(See here, then here), people so rarely check the signature. Every place I have worked, I was the only one who would dilligently check, and some customers even seemed annoyed at the delay of one whole second before I handed their card back to them.

[Alice]

I don't see what the problem is. I think it's great, much easier than fumbling in a pin while trying to conceal what the pin is. If your card is stolen and used inappropriately (eg multiple consecutive <$30 spends at electronic related stores, tobacconists etc) then the banks will freeze it and contact you (similar to suss credit card usage). Their software is monitoring your spending pattern always, how many times have you heard of peoples cards being temporarily suspended for weird transaction behaviour. It's annoying, but provides increased security.

Avoiding a pin for small purchases lessens the chance that someone might see your pin and steal your card and then clean out your account. At least if your card is lost/stolen then only a small amount of money would be taken, and the banks have said that they will reimburse this if you report the loss/theft in a reasonable time.

to be reimbursed surely you would have to notice the missing funds?

How would you not notice that you are missing your card? And if you haven't lost your card then how would you have unauthorised transactions? It's not like you can walk past a checkout and pay for someone elses transactions remotely.

[ballzac]

One point that people are missing is that the pin is OPTIONAL. When they ask "sign or pin?" you can say "sign" and scribble anything as your 'signature'. I don't really understand what the pin is for when you don't need to know it to use the card. Who cares if you don't need to pin or sign for under $30? If someone steels your card they will just 'sign' for things they buy with it. I've used my girlfriend's card many times and signed my own name. It's never been checked with the signature on the card.

[Slybacon]

^^^ I actually chip check out chicks for not looking at my PIN.....

Easy way to get around all this is to not use your card! try and not get so caught up in their system of convenience, think more about what your going to need and make bigger transactions with cash. You'll give them less information that way.

[Psylo]

signing or PINing is always a risk as someone could be watching you, so by reducing the number of times you have to sign or PIN the bank is actually increasing your security.

 

I cannot understand this way of thinking. If a petty thief wants to use a stolen card with a PIN security, he has to stalk his prey in just the right way in order to see the number sequence, then he has to follow his prey out of he shop and rob the victim of his wallet, the make a mad dash to the shops in order to spend up before the owner cancels the card. A lot of effort, lots of witnesses and a small window of time in which to work in. Its not a very appealing option. Compare that to the theft of a wallet while you sleep, are at a restaurant etc, if you dont have a PIN and your card is stolen, the petty thief has hours to rack up purchases on a card.

^^^ I actually chip check out chicks for not looking at my PIN.....

 

Do you mean your signature? Its a shocker how few store staff even look at the receipt signature.

Easy way to get around all this is to not use your card! try and not get so caught up in their system of convenience, think more about what your going to need and make bigger transactions with cash. You'll give them less information that way.

 

+ 1. It's a marketing company's wet dream, and only a matter of time when portions of that information is sold off to the private sector. Age demographic spend trends, true socio-economic buying habits, cross referencing your toilet paper usage & groominig habits (supermarket receipts) against where you go on a Saturday night (petrol dockets, restaurant bills, bottleshop splurges), even whether you got laid that night (condoms at 7-11) and if that started you having an affair (RFID's in clothing, a gift you bought for your lover).

[Francois le Danque]

exactly why i don't use a credit card. i really don't see the point. also ballzac i think you will find the point of PINs is to phase out signatures and most cards won't let you do it any more. also i am with OP, the PIN is there for security so it's kinda not cool to take it off without telling you. i also agree that using it is much more secure because it is much less likely that someone will see your PIN and steal your wallet, than just the latter. you are also more likely to notice this, when they make large transactions.

also you know how people saying things like pin number, even though the n stands for pin anyway, atm machine etc? there is a name for that. RAS syndrome. Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome. I'm so glad someone invented that...

[ballzac]

also ballzac i think you will find the point of PINs is to phase out signatures.

 

I guess you're right about the signatures being phased out. When they are actually banned this stuff will make a difference, but at the moment it's academic.

most cards won't let you do it any more.

 

Is this true? I've never had a problem using a signature on a card that's meant to be PIN.

[Psylo]

RAS Syndrome LOL. It's a pet peeve. HTML language, ATM machine, ADHD disorder, the NFL League, there are so many. Incidentally, did you know that GW Bush's brother Jeb Bush is a RAS ? The first name stands for John Ellis Bush

Sorry for the OT. I'm off to enjoy a cold bottle of draught beer.

[Psylo]

It's all part of a master plan. First they make signatures redundant, then a nnumber of years later tell the world that PIN's are a security risk, in order to introduce fingerprint & biometric identification, so we are all on file, as are our every movements.

[Torsten]

Psylo, petty thieves are not what is costing the card providers big bucks and is not where the security problem lies. petty thieves usually need to steal cards and this is usually noticed quickly and reported - usually before any substantial puchases can be made. A much bigger problem are skimmers which need the PIN to make the card details useful and which then cost the provider thousands of dollars in a matter of hours or even minutes.

Some providers no longer allow signatures for purchases and some retailers also do not accept signatures [woolies group]. My last card was unsigned for over 200 signature transactions. Only once was I asked to show ID. The system is definitely broken.

[ThunderIdeal]

How would you not notice that you are missing your card? And if you haven't lost your card then how would you have unauthorised transactions? It's not like you can walk past a checkout and pay for someone elses transactions remotely.

 

you go to sleep. your housemate goes and spends your funds then returns your credit card to your wallet. you check your statement later and it's just a bunch of meaningless shit. your housemate does this countless times and you wonder why you can't seem to save.

[Francois le Danque]

so THAT'S where my money goes. now the only question is, which housemate was it? hmmm

once i had one of those prepaid credit card things. they're handy. perfect for fraudsters though. and with interest rates that really arent that bad compared to the regular cards, plus they are untraceable. nice. anyway point is i didnt bother signing the back as yeah, most people never check. then i went to an asian grocery and not only did the lady check, she also demanded i first sign the card, then the receipt, then checked them against each other. now THAT'S redundancy!

when i worked at a supermarket myself i had a system where i would wave the card past my eyes to make it look like i checked, while i pressed the final few buttons to complete the transaction. i think it was rather smooth (has anyone seen the movie "a very long engagement"? i'm like the postman; "i always make a point of arriving in style" i love that movie).

also speaking of postmen, when i worked for australia post, i was specifically instructed not to check the signature. they said i could cause offence by insinuating the person was fraudulent and if they WERE then the card company would sort it out. i also once gave someone 100 bucks by accident. oops.

[Torsten]

you go to sleep. your housemate goes and spends your funds then returns your credit card to your wallet. you check your statement later and it's just a bunch of meaningless shit. your housemate does this countless times and you wonder why you can't seem to save.

 

how is this any different if he forged your signature [or made whatever squiggle passes as signature]?

[ThunderIdeal]

hmmm

perhaps i will butt out of this conversation since my working knowledge of credit cards is obviously tiny.

[Distracted]

you go to sleep. your housemate goes and spends your funds then returns your credit card to your wallet. you check your statement later and it's just a bunch of meaningless shit. your housemate does this countless times and you wonder why you can't seem to save.

 

I lent my housemate my card once to buy me something whilst I was at work. 2 days later my phone rings with a private number, the voice tells me they're from the bank security and asks me to confirm I made the purchase.

I was impressed.

Those skimmers are hilarious, AFAIK they're mainly used in servos/small businesses. My friends and I used to skim passwords from the network when I went to school... fun times.

Something I will say since i've been working in retail the last 5 years...

4 years ago people started actively using pins with their credit cards even though they could just simply sign. Once people started using their pin they stopped showing their signiture even if the rare occasion pops up where they sign for it. Before people started putting in their pin they'd always leave the card on the table for me to check. Nowdays (and especially with the whole insert card chip) people will insert their card, then instantly take it out and put it back in their wallets so I can't see their signiture. I thouroughly dislike it and I think people who do that are rude. They're putting me in a position where I could either be nice and polite to them and let it slide, or I do my job correctly and ask for them to get their card out so I can see the signiture(which is fucking bullshit anyway, it charges to the card as soon as it asks someone to sign... so if you say the signiture doesn't match the card still gets charged.

[Psylo]

A much bigger problem are skimmers which need the PIN to make the card details useful and which then cost the provider thousands of dollars in a matter of hours or even minutes.

 

For the effort of installing a card skimmer onto an ATM, perps would just as soon also install a PIN capturing camera onto a machine, which only needs to be a small spyhole camera. Maybe it is safer for the consumer to wiuthdrawl cash from the supermarket after all, where there's a lesser chance of the devices being tampered with.

Info for those unaware of skimming and PIN capturing : http://www.commbank.com.au/personal/apply-online/download-printed-forms/ATM_awareness_guide.pdf

So much for a cashless society being safer. A hark back to the days of getting a paypacket was pretty safe. As for the banking industry wearing the cost of any ilicit transactions performed under slackened security, ultimately its every consumer that's paying for it in bank fees.

[Alice]

For the effort of installing a card skimmer onto an ATM, perps would just as soon also install a PIN capturing camera onto a machine, which only needs to be a small spyhole camera.

 

That's exactly what they do. The skimmer captures your card details, the camera captures your pin. Then they whip up a new card from a blank purchased in bulk from overseas.

[dworx]

That's exactly what they do. The skimmer captures your card details, the camera captures your pin. Then they whip up a new card from a blank purchased in bulk from overseas.

 

Their is also another method in which the perp will actually get your card and your pin, they will withdraw as much as they can, as fast as they can. What they have been doing [in Australia at least] is feeding a sleeve [similar to a lamination sleeve] about the size of the card into the card reader. it is hooked in place with metallic hooks/pins? They either watch from a distance or use a pin skimmer to get ur pin. It is very well rehearsed so which ever method used they usually succeed. Once you insert your card the atm card feed sits and spins this makes the atm go into fault and send the message, your card has been retained .......please contact your provider blah blah blah. When you leave they simply pulll the sleeve and take your card, you think your card is safe inside the machine - not so.

Two or three weeks ago some guys walked into a shop and removed an ATM and replaced it with a dummy ATM everyone thought it was just a new ATM going in, that's ballzy.

DW