1. Loads of free ATMs, the ones that charge are privately owned/run typically and in shops. While banks may run them and slap their logo all over it, it's effectively just advertising, it doesn't matter which one I go to. The idea that it would matter seems really weird.
2. No fees for bank transfers, most will complete within the hour I think and are generally immediate.
3. Chip & pin has been required for quite a while now, contactless cards are extremely common.
4. Pretty much everyone has some kind of bank account, I'm not sure how it works if you're homeless or have absolutely no proof of identity/address, but there might still be things that can be done there.
Most accounts are also free, though sometimes with usage requirements (deposit at least £X + have two direct debits is common), and many will pay you ~£100 to switch to them.
To be honest, that doesn't seem any less secure than requiring a signature.
It's a lot more effort to make a spoof card like that, more effort than the 5 minutes of practice required to vaguely copy someones signature and get it past a disinterested, minimum wage store clerk.
Implanting a second chip successfully into the card seems a bit above the regular "found the card and made a squiggle like the signature on the back". And that vulnerability at least was fixed.
It's not like the magnetic stripe is particularly secure either, you could pretty easily clone someone's card and then even use your own signature.
Even then, if someone is required to take the card, put it in a reader and type in the correct pin it's a bit harder to 'skim' a bit extra at the till.
The question should not be "is chip and pin entirely secure" but "is it better than a magnetic stripe and a pen marking".
> The UK, for example, has seen a nearly 70 percent decline in counterfeit card transactions since adopting chip cards, according to Barclays.
Yup, it's not about security, it's about liability. With chip&pin you're virtually guaranteed that the bank will say "too bad" if your PIN gets stolen. But then again with the (possibly) lower fraud levels it may be worth it? And yet again, do you see the banks passing on those savings to consumers? ;)
Pretty much the same but:
1. Loads of free ATMs, the ones that charge are privately owned/run typically and in shops. While banks may run them and slap their logo all over it, it's effectively just advertising, it doesn't matter which one I go to. The idea that it would matter seems really weird.
2. No fees for bank transfers, most will complete within the hour I think and are generally immediate.
3. Chip & pin has been required for quite a while now, contactless cards are extremely common.
4. Pretty much everyone has some kind of bank account, I'm not sure how it works if you're homeless or have absolutely no proof of identity/address, but there might still be things that can be done there.
Most accounts are also free, though sometimes with usage requirements (deposit at least £X + have two direct debits is common), and many will pay you ~£100 to switch to them.